Skip to main content

Topic: Finding the best system of economy (Read 16488 times)

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Finding the best system of economy
From the article (book review) Innovation: The Government Was Crucial After All

Quote
"The great advances of civilization," wrote Milton Friedman in Capitalism and Freedom, his influential best seller published in 1962, "whether in architecture or painting, in science or literature, in industry or agriculture, have never come from centralized government." He did not say what he made of the state-sponsored art of Athens's Periclean Age or the Medici family, who, as Europe's dominant bankers but then as Florentine rulers, commissioned and financed so much Renaissance art. Or the Spanish court that gave us Velázquez. Or the many public universities that produced great scientists in our times. Or, even just before Friedman was writing, what could he have made of the Manhattan Project of the US government, which produced the atomic bomb? Or the National Institutes of Health, whose government-supported grants led to many of the most important pharmaceutical breakthroughs?

We could perhaps forgive Friedman's ill-informed remarks as a burst of ideological enthusiasm if so many economists and business executives didn't accept this myth as largely true.


  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Finding the best system of economy
Reply #25

Hello all,
Frequent stereotype about migrants (especially from Asian and African countries) is that high level of immigration is not good for original indigenous population in Europe and elsewhere.

This is not a stereotype, but straightforwardly objective. For example see what happened to the indigenous population of the Americas when they were overrun by Europeans.


However, many agree that immigration is supportive for each economy and create additional source of diversification in innovation, culture, and even a genetic diversity in humans.

Yes, mixing populations is supportive of diversification. Whether diversification is a good thing remains debatable. Anyway, substantial social overhauls occur historically every once in a while. Whether we like it or not, nobody will be able to stop it.


That all is very hard to solve, rather unsolvable to find the real truth behind that. But take a look on pure numbers and demographics. How many children do you have? How many children your friends, relatives etc. have? Are you classic example of White European ethnicity? = single with no children, like me? Do you know anyone with Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq origin to have 7 children in the EU member state? Is our welfare, freedom, human rights, solidarity, etc. causing us more vulnerable and even infertile? 'White European' ethnicity likely to be scarce in future.

To take a concrete example, I am from a Baltic country. The Baltic countries are Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. The populations are respectively 1 million, 2 million, and 3 million. Each has lost half a million people in the course of last 25 years, i.e. add half a million and you will have the population of 25 years ago.

The problem here these days is massive emigration, not immigration, even though we are allegedly a major channel for smuggling of Asian immigrants. Foreign races are uncommon in the street view.

As to fertility, Lithuanians and Latvians have it in reasonable order, I have heard. They are more fertile than Russians. Russians are the main other ethnicity in the countries to compare with. It's just that emigration from Latvia and Lithuania surpasses anything that organic fertility could counterbalance. In Estonia the birth rate is a bit less than that of Russians, yet the emigration works at the same pace.

Nature would not tolerate an empty place, so we will see what will eventually fill this currently evacuating corner of the world. For now it looks like nobody wants to live here. I know it's quite different in other EU countries, but this is precisely why they are other countries.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzbnARyPMMk Should we care? Does it even matter? Looking for your interesting inputs and viewpoints!

Did you make this video? :)

  • Josh M
  • [*][*]
Re: Finding the best system of economy
Reply #26
Quote from: ersi
To take a concrete example, I am from a Baltic country. The Baltic countries are Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. The populations are respectively 1 million, 2 million, and 3 million. Each has lost half a million people in the course of last 25 years, i.e. add half a million and you will have the population of 25 years ago.

I am from the Czech Republic. Immigration is not big deal here since the country has, in my opinion, 'just right' policy. We have 'Net Migration Rate' (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2112rank.html) in 'positive', what means more people are coming to Czechia than fleeing away. However, the most recent estimates say that in the year 2100, it would be 6,5 mil. nation instead of 10,5 mil. nation nowadays (about 40-years highs). That means, immigration shall be much greater than now in order to sustain a population on pure replacement-only ratio. Many sociologist and demographics experts even expressed joyful comments after release of this news. I personally prefer low population as it creates more opportunity for those remnants alive. Recently, there is too much of competition for jobs, education, social status in society. No previous generations were in such huge competition for resources situation as recent generations are in. Resources on planet Earth are also limited and not bottomless. There are 7 billion people and still raising. Human overpopulation is sourced only by poor developing countries. Governments should ensure policy of 'quality' of its population instead of 'quantity'. It is vain if family has 7 children, while all those kids are dump people with no usefulness for whole society.
Quote from: ersi

Did you make this video? :)

No, I am not user/bringbackmydemocracy. Unfortunately or thankfully. I just encountered it somewhat accidentally after reviewing my favorite YouTube subscription feed channels (like "TestTube" user/TestTubeNetwork).

Also I reviewed this other video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib9rofXQl6w Islam is culturally incompatible with European values. As they say, Multi-Culturalism has failed.
  • Last Edit: 2014-12-03, 08:30:07 by Josh M

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: Finding the best system of economy
Reply #27
As they say, Multi-Culturalism has failed.

I think it's more a problem of the phrase being misunderstood. Multiculturalism (the melting pot, etc.) means you largely adopt or at least accept our norms and values and maybe we also change ours the tiniest bit, but we like to taste your food and your clothes bring variety to our streets. But both proponents and opponents often seem to be talking about pluriformalism instead (cf. pillarization).

  • Josh M
  • [*][*]
Re: Finding the best system of economy
Reply #28
Quote from: Frenzie
I think it's more a problem of the phrase being misunderstood. Multiculturalism (the melting pot, etc.) means you largely adopt or at least accept our norms and values and maybe we also change ours the tiniest bit, but we like to taste your food and your clothes bring variety to our streets. But both proponents and opponents often seem to be talking about pluriformalism instead


The problem is that new population often do not want to assimilate into our society, values, legal law system. I am not saying that they must become Christians, but at least, they should adhere all other rules of the game in Europe. Nigerians, Afghans, Turkish, - most of them- they simply keep living the way of life as they were used in their original countries. They do not respect our law system and prefer either Islam or African tribal traditions. That makes it incompatible for integration and assimilation into Europe. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assimilate) I do not want to generalize about all individuals, but the problem with integration is that is largely unsuccessful. Closed and segregated communities, unemployment, all sort of crimes, and potential of would-be-terorists mentality is simply unsuccessful result of immigration policies in highly developed countries. This result is even more unhappy when we take into account also the fact, that there is 'positive discrimination' policy (or affirmative action) of favoring members of a disadvantaged group. Black or poor-country origin people are therefore preferred and have some kind of advantages over indigenous population) in most Western countries. The word "disadvantaged" makes you real paradise-like scenario if you are happy-enough to allegedly regarded by your government as being a 'disadvantaged'. All other people do not have any such advantages and are left behind with nothing. In other words, if you are relatively poor or average guy in every of 28 states of the EU, you are regarded as rich-enough and get nothing from government. If you are coming from outside the EU, and your country is regarded as a poor developing country, you may be eligible to get a lot of money for free.

As author=ersi pointed out, it had happened to indigenous population of the Americas. Indeed. It has happened in all newly discovered continents. (The Americas, Australia and Oceania). That disaster was caused by White Europeans' immigration. They replaced indigenous population + mixed races together. Something similar is happening again. Right now in Europe. But this time is different. European white population is not replacing, but is being replaced (substituted) by more fertile immigrant population from Africa and Asia.
  • Last Edit: 2014-12-03, 10:37:45 by Josh M

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: Finding the best system of economy
Reply #29
The average birth rate among immigrants is slightly less than three and dropping quickly; the average birth rate among those who've been around here a bit longer is slightly less than two and stable. Even if all immigrants chose to have seven children they wouldn't reach 50% of the population until long past the 2060s and that's completely ignoring the fact that their children are growing up in our society. Culture isn't genetic. There is no unique situation. It has always taken three generations. My grandfather was a poor boy from the countryside who worked himself up to middle class. My father couldn't attend a university for financial reasons and my mother couldn't even attend the highest level of high school for much the same reason. Together they achieved a much more solid state of middle class, so I have an academic degree. Naturally, the reverse also happens. One of my Huguenot ancestors was of French lower nobility, yet only my completely unrelated grandmother's family was 19th-century middle class. The fact that second-generation immigrants are underrepresented in higher education is just the way these things go and I believe it doesn't have much to do with immigration per se. Socialists think you should be able to skip a generational step and I'm sympathetic to that thought, but it's simply the same old problem. Most also seem to lack even a basic sense of history. You can read the same complaints about French and Eastern European immigrants if you read texts from the 17th century.

Canada's immigration policy is much more honest. It's hostile toward lower-class immigrants, which has its moral implications, but it's much friendlier toward the middle class than most of the world. By only letting in people with a certain degree of education and sophistication you pretty much avoid the entire potential problem. But those who are against poor Muslim immigrants don't have the balls to say it and they're perfectly happy to include the whole world as collateral damage so that they might appear more fair. (Excluding mad raving nationalist racists.) I hold rather the opposite position regardless. Poor or rich, you don't just move countries. You either really want to be where you move or you don't want to be where you're moving from. Which is fully corroborated by the facts. Actual immigrants, they are by and large happy and content even at the bottom of society. The people who are called "immigrants" in popular parlance, those who some people have a problem with: they are Dutchmen; they're Belgians. They're the second and third generation. They couldn't be "repatriated" to a country they've never set foot in. That's claptrap. Incidentally, the local Muslim community has been staging protests against e.g. the Sharia4Belgium loonies to show that they are in fact integrated in society.

As author=ersi pointed out, it had happened to indigenous population of the Americas. Indeed. It has happened in all newly discovered continents. (The Americas, Australia and Oceania). That disaster was caused by White Europeans' immigration. They replaced indigenous population + mixed races together. Something similar is happening again. Right now in Europe. But this time is different. European white population is not replacing, but is being replaced (substituted) by more fertile immigrant population from Africa and Asia.

When the Germanic tribes conquered Romanized Gaul, within a generation or two they completely replaced their own language and culture by the sophisticated culture and language of those they conquered.

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Finding the best system of economy
Reply #30

I personally prefer low population as it creates more opportunity for those remnants alive. Recently, there is too much of competition for jobs, education, social status in society. No previous generations were in such huge competition for resources situation as recent generations are in. Resources on planet Earth are also limited and not bottomless.

The population will always be there according to the amount of resources and the way the resources are distributed. The population will be appropriate, neither low or high.

Shortage of resources does not necessitate competition. Well, it does, but in this world we don't have this shortage. Rather, unfair distribution of resources causes competition, strife, starvation in the midst of abundance, etc.


Governments should ensure policy of 'quality' of its population instead of 'quantity'. It is vain if family has 7 children, while all those kids are dump people with no usefulness for whole society.

In danger, people become overwhelmed by survival instinct. In misery people tend to breed like rats to ensure the survival of the species. This is why poor countries have high birth rates.

There are certain basic needs that everybody must have satisfied, food and shelter and clothes. A decent society should see to it that everybody has these basic needs covered. Part of ensuring that everyone's basic needs are covered is to deal with those who tend to grab too much. It's right to ensure that everyone gets according to basic needs, and it's also right to watch out for the corruption in the system and take measures to prevent and punish it.

Everyone's basic needs are basically the same. They are easily quantified. The momentum that turns quantity into quality will be provided by fair (=equal) distribution of resources. For example, when everybody gets paid roughly the same salaries, then people won't choose their job according to the salaries (=quantity) but according to what they like to do best (=quality). Accordingly unnecessary competition will be reduced. Pretty simple economic principle, don't you think?

  • Josh M
  • [*][*]
Re: Finding the best system of economy
Reply #31
Quote from: ersi
The population will always be there according to the amount of resources and the way the resources are distributed. The population will be appropriate, neither low or high.

Nope. In reality, humanity already 2x or 3x surpassed natural level of Earth exploitation capacity. See more for Happy Planet Index and Ecological Footprint and Biocapacity per person http://www.happyplanetindex.org/, http://www.footprintnetwork.org Earth is already under heavy weight exploitation. That is why scientists recently debate about renaming current geological era to 'Anthropocene'. Hopefully it will not be the last age for Humans. Planet Earth will certainly survive. Not so sure if humanity will achieve it.
Quote from: ersi
In danger, people become overwhelmed by survival instinct. In misery people tend to breed like rats to ensure the survival of the species. This is why poor countries have high birth rates.

I knew about that. This phenomenon has some official name. I cannot remember it. By the way, in my opinion, it is absolute nonsense and highly irrational behavior. I would expect the exact opposite. If someone cannot feed 1 child and not fully provide all the care necessary until adulthood, how can they afford even more children? They simply cannot 'breed like rats'. Unlike rats, people are intelligent (or should be) and count pros and cons and find if they can afford to have another child. If they bear a child with intention to left such child in the same poverty condition as they have, such parents are stupid and their kids will be the same as their parents, and result of it is as I wrote before ('dump people with no usefulness for whole society.'). If parents cannot provide for children, they simply should not to allow a birth in first place. Willingly expose a newborn baby to the poverty condition should be a crime. Better is if they use contraception and never allow other generation to suffer poverty of their parents on its own again.
Quote from: ersi
Pretty simple economic principle, don't you think?

That is description of perfect world of Communism, which history proven never materialized. The 'Real Communism' is unachievable. The 'Real Socialism' as it were in Eastern Europe 25 years ago was hundreds miles away of such ideal condition.
  • Last Edit: 2014-12-03, 16:58:02 by Josh M

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Finding the best system of economy
Reply #32

Quote from: ersi

The population will always be there according to the amount of resources and the way the resources are distributed. The population will be appropriate, neither low or high.

Nope. In reality, humanity already 2x or 3x surpassed natural level of Earth exploitation capacity. See more for Happy Planet Index and Ecological Footprint and Biocapacity per person http://www.happyplanetindex.org/, http://www.footprintnetwork.org Earth is already under heavy weight exploitation. That is why scientists recently debate about renaming current geological era to 'Anthropocene'. Hopefully it will not be the last age for Humans. Planet Earth will certainly survive. Not so sure if humanity will achieve it.

The best system of economy describes what people should do in order to survive. What people really do is something different. Humanity does not have the collective intelligence to live and let live.


Quote from: ersi

In danger, people become overwhelmed by survival instinct. In misery people tend to breed like rats to ensure the survival of the species. This is why poor countries have high birth rates.

I knew about that. This phenomenon has some official name. I cannot remember it. By the way, in my opinion, it is absolute nonsense and highly irrational behavior. I would expect the exact opposite. If someone cannot feed 1 child and not fully provide all the care necessary until adulthood, how can they afford even more children? They simply cannot 'breed like rats'. Unlike rats, people are intelligent (or should be)...

Looking at your own sources, Happy Planet index and such, you should know that people are wasteful, not intelligent at all. With less waste, people would not have to go hungry, and they would instinctively stop breeding like rats. Facts say that people breed in misery, and the rapid increase of the population of the world should logically tell you that we are in the midst of the worst misery.


Quote from: ersi

Pretty simple economic principle, don't you think?

That is description of perfect world of communism, which history proven never materialized. The 'Real Socialism' as it were in Eastern Europe 25 years ago was hundreds miles away of such ideal condition.

Yet the best approximation, the most egalitarian countries of the world, namely the Nordic countries, provide the best living standards known to mankind. There really is something to the idea of providing to everyone equally.

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: Finding the best system of economy
Reply #33
That is description of perfect world of Communism, which history proven never materialized. The 'Real Communism' is unachievable. The 'Real Socialism' as it were in Eastern Europe 25 years ago was hundreds miles away of such ideal condition.

Nah, it's been pretty much implemented in all of the most livable countries in the world. We were de facto more socialist than the "socialist" east when the Wall fell.

  • Josh M
  • [*][*]
Re: Finding the best system of economy
Reply #34

That is description of perfect world of Communism, which history proven never materialized. The 'Real Communism' is unachievable. The 'Real Socialism' as it were in Eastern Europe 25 years ago was hundreds miles away of such ideal condition.

Nah, it's been pretty much implemented in all of the most livable countries in the world. We were de facto more socialist than the "socialist" east when the Wall fell.

Capitalist model of 'Welfare state' is still far away from 'Classless society', how ersi described such perfect world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classless_society I read many indexes, statistics, and even in Nordic countries, there is significant number of very poor people. Especially in more liberal capitalist economies like Denmark and Norway. Finland, Sweden and Iceland do regulate markets more, and in this regard, much better in number of low class than the other 2 states.

  • Sparta
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Finding the best system of economy
Reply #35
Quote
Perfect World


there is no Perfect human .
therefore , there will no Perfect World .



Socialist is capitalist that governed  by government .

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Finding the best system of economy
Reply #36

Capitalist model of 'Welfare state' is still far away from 'Classless society', how ersi described such perfect world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classless_society I read many indexes, statistics, and even in Nordic countries, there is significant number of very poor people. Especially in more liberal capitalist economies like Denmark and Norway. Finland, Sweden and Iceland do regulate markets more, and in this regard, much better in number of low class than the other 2 states.

I most definitely did not mean classless society. I meant income equality, and I would like to see more economic equality than mere income equality, but I tied the equality to basic needs, not to classlessness, not even to central planning. My ideal is economically equal, but functionally structured and stable society. Revolutions are undesirable, particularly when they involve ideology that tries to foment constant revolutionary sentiment, such as in Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba or Venezuela.

In the West, social democracy has pretty much achieved what communists behind the Iron Curtain promised.

Yes, there are beggars and homeless people in Nordic countries, but not in significant numbers among the local population. On the other hand, there are significant numbers of immigrant beggars who live in cars with which they arrived. It simply pays off to be a beggar there rather than elsewhere.

  • Josh M
  • [*][*]
Re: Finding the best system of economy
Reply #37
@ersi

I agree.

Can you define what you meant specifically with 'equality to basic needs', and 'economic equality'? Did you meant something like access to flush toilet? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_B6g92hRzXc
If so, I quess this is obvious in all EU member states' population in rate 99,9 or even 99,99 percent accessible.
  • Last Edit: 2014-12-03, 23:09:01 by Josh M

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Finding the best system of economy
Reply #38

Can you define what you meant specifically with 'equality to basic needs', and 'economic equality'? Did you meant something like access to flush toilet? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_B6g92hRzXc
If so, I quess this is obvious in all EU member states' population in rate 99,9 or even 99,99 percent accessible.

I said food, shelter, and some clothes, but yes, access to toilet qualifies as a basic need. However, notice that there's a difference between having a basic need covered and having it covered on equal terms. 99,9 percent of the people in Europe have access to flush toilet, but not on equal terms.

Many people live in basic conditions under threat of eviction, while others live comfortably in luxury. Basic living conditions should not be subject to threat of eviction, certainly not when others live in luxury in the same neighbourhood. In my country so-called social housing is exclusively occupied by the wealthy due to corruption in the system. Of course they are happy with it: having a "modest" affordable living, even though they got it through crooked means leaving homeless people (for whom the housing was meant for) on the streets. In my country, with low and decreasing population, the incongruity of still having a shortage of living space is particularly harsh.

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: Finding the best system of economy
Reply #39
In my country so-called social housing is exclusively occupied by the wealthy due to corruption in the system. Of course they are happy with it: having a "modest" affordable living, even though they got it through crooked means leaving homeless people (for whom the housing was meant for) on the streets. In my country, with low and decreasing population, the incongruity of still having a shortage of living space is particularly harsh.

It's odd that they're able to get access to social housing at all, but I always shake my head in wonder at those socialists who claim that people who've started making a little more money should "move up" to more expensive housing. Oh no, someone might be saving up a little to buy a house or have a little more financial security instead of moving to a more expensive apartment as soon as they get a promotion. The horror!

Incidentally, I doubt any Western country has an actual shortage of living space in the sense of available housing. It's all a shortage of affordable living space.

  • Josh M
  • [*][*]
Re: Finding the best system of economy
Reply #40
@ersi

Well. That is a result of Capitalism, what is almost as bad system as Socialism.

I always remember, in this regard, program created by Alexander Dubček in 1968 in Czechoslovakia, which was called 'Socialism with human face'. (in Czech language "Socialismus s lidskou tváří" http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialismus_s_lidskou_tv%C3%A1%C5%99%C3%AD). It was his call and effort for more human-like form of Socialism in real terms of living. He was trying to reform Communist party from inside and create something more useful and fair than Socialist country realties in late 1960s. That was called "Prague Spring" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Spring). However USSR and other Warsaw Pact' armies intervened by force and stopped that experiment very early.

Who knows if any such reform would resulted in something really good. Maybe we would not be tempted to call for 1989 Revolutions at all if we were really happy with 'Socialism with human face'. We can only speculate. Nothing more or less.

Who knows if any 'Capitalism with human face' would be ever developed in future.

We already know about 'Capitalism with normal face' (= mostly cruel one).

We already know about 'Capitalism with tyrannical face' (= current China, Russia, Brazil, India, most non-EU countries in Europe, and perhaps some less happy EU countries too).

Who knows if any good system will be at some point in future discovered and applied on all the Earth, not only for some 20 or 40 relatively lucky countries.

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Finding the best system of economy
Reply #41

In my country so-called social housing is exclusively occupied by the wealthy due to corruption in the system. Of course they are happy with it: having a "modest" affordable living, even though they got it through crooked means leaving homeless people (for whom the housing was meant for) on the streets. In my country, with low and decreasing population, the incongruity of still having a shortage of living space is particularly harsh.

It's odd that they're able to get access to social housing at all,...

Odd only for those who have no clue about corruption. I imagine that in a country, such as yours, where ministers step down for accidentally having bought socks with the state/party credit card instead of with their own, it's hard to imagine the blatant corruption of some other country, such as mine, e.g. a guy who just pocketed the money of a few private banks - private banks whose collapse he orchestrated as the governor of the national bank and used his party's power to avert investigation - becomes the prime minister of the country, then moves on to become EU commissioner. Etc.


...but I always shake my head in wonder at those socialists who claim that people who've started making a little more money should "move up" to more expensive housing. Oh no, someone might be saving up a little to buy a house or have a little more financial security instead of moving to a more expensive apartment as soon as they get a promotion. The horror!

You must mean social democrats of your own country. Social democrats are pro-capitalists in more ways than they are socialists, and you are precisely pointing out one way in which they are capitalists: cementation of wealth disparity.


Incidentally, I doubt any Western country has an actual shortage of living space in the sense of available housing. It's all a shortage of affordable living space.

Shortage of both affordable and liveable living space. For example, the countryside has been effectively abandoned. I.e. it's empty, vacant. Available in some sense, but unliveable. Perfectly affordable if you don't tell anyone where you live, but as soon as the authorities find out, prepare your every penny to be closely monitored for the rest of your life.

Whereas the city is full - by design.


Who knows if any 'Capitalism with human face' would be ever developed in future.

We already know about 'Capitalism with normal face' (= mostly cruel one).

We already know about 'Capitalism with tyrannical face' (= current China, Russia, Brazil, India, most non-EU countries in Europe, and perhaps some less happy EU countries too).

For the latter, Cowboy Capitalism is an apt name, I think. As in Wild East :) At least we got past the era of mafia wars. Those were pretty gruesome even for random passers-by.

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: Finding the best system of economy
Reply #42
You must mean social democrats of your own country. Social democrats are pro-capitalists in more ways than they are socialists, and you are precisely pointing out one way in which they are capitalists: cementation of wealth disparity.

I never found them particularly social or democratic. But yes.

Shortage of both affordable and liveable living space. For example, the countryside has been effectively abandoned. I.e. it's empty, vacant. Available in some sense, but unliveable. Perfectly affordable if you don't tell anyone where you live, but as soon as the authorities find out, prepare your every penny to be closely monitored for the rest of your life.

Sure, but I'm talking primarily about too expensive real estate in what are otherwise livable locations. That's kind of the socialists' weird idea: if more people spent more money on the more expensive stuff then there'd be more cheaper places available. Except the market would simply compensate, so no one would be off any better except landlords.

For the latter, Cowboy Capitalism is an apt name, I think. As in Wild East  :)  At least we got past the era of mafia wars. Those were pretty gruesome even for random passers-by.

Is that something different than laissez-faire capitalism or is it just a lack of the use of commonly accepted terminology? :P

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Finding the best system of economy
Reply #43

Is that something different than laissez-faire capitalism or is it just a lack of the use of commonly accepted terminology? :P

Cowboy Capitalism and Wild East imply Post-Soviet/Post-Communist. Laissez-faire is the more common term in theoretical economic literature, but does not carry the same connotation.

  • Josh M
  • [*][*]
Re: Finding the best system of economy
Reply #44
Quote from: Frenzie
Is that something different than laissez-faire capitalism or is it just a lack of the use of commonly accepted terminology? :P

I think that historical experience proven clearly that 'Laissez-faire' was major factor allowing situation of 'Robber Capitalism' in USA (18-19th Century), Britain and Netherlands (15-20th Century), Russia and Eastern Europe (from 1989 to nowadays). Rise of capitalism helped to intellectual and technological dominance over the rest of the world in colonial empires era, but it not resulted to the social cohesion and solidarity. These feautures came up from the scratch self-evidently without the need of capitalism itself.

In Czech Republic, we have had robber capitalism only for few years (1989 to about 1994) until proper market regulation, rule of law, independent justice courts, uncorrupted police, were strong enough to stop most of robber barons. Although, there are still rare cases of corruption and injustice, but is very improved. I never came up to single case of corruption in all my life. Czech Republic is increasingly better in Corruption Perception Index, though it would need some 30 or 60 years more of peace, democracy, capitalism, increased social welfare etc. to get where the TOP 5 countries are. But sadly such robber capitalism is still possible in lot of other countries now.

Countries which installed Laissez-faire policies, like vast majority of South America, Asia, and elsewhere, were always ending up stolen with few super-wealthy on top. The rest of population left behind with nothing. Lack of regulation, or more specifically lack of proper quality regulation caused 2007 Financial Crisis, and the Great Reccession 2008-?, European Sovereign Debt Crisis and all other monetary excesses of Central Banks. 'Invisible hand of free market' solves nothing. Free market is working from 33 percent, but the rest two thirds came up broken.

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: Finding the best system of economy
Reply #45
Cowboy Capitalism and Wild East imply Post-Soviet/Post-Communist. Laissez-faire is the more common term in theoretical economic literature, but does not carry the same connotation.

I see, thanks.

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Finding the best system of economy
Reply #46
I would not be so vocally anti-capitalist, if capitalism had a sound economic theory. Unfortunately capitalism does not have a sound economic theory.

The whole theory is built on the assumption of indefinite growth of production, consumption, and trade. This is of course untenable - even in theory. A sound theory would be built on satisying consumer needs (believe it or not, those needs are actually limited) based on the resources available. Even capitalist theory knows that the resources are limited, but they push for unsustainable hypes and hikes anyway because of alleged consumer demand. Naturally the boom is followed by the crash.

Another element that always caught my attention in capitalist theory was the mantra "price is information". This basically seems to mean "buy when it's cheap and sell when the price is up". This too is untenable - even in theory. In real economy, price is a contract. The buyer and seller agree on a price. When the price changes, it means that the agreement is off. When the agreement between the buyer and seller is off, there's zero trade, i.e. zero economy. Therefore the sustainable way is to keep prices steady, so that both decent people and capitalists alike will be safe from crashes.

  • rjhowie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Finding the best system of economy
Reply #47
Ssshhhh ersi you know what mjsmsprt40 will call you!
"Quit you like men:be strong"

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Finding the best system of economy
Reply #48
Nah, he's busy persecuting you personally :) It's Christmas and all that.

  • Belfrager
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Finding the best system of economy
Reply #49
I'm the founder of Neo Feudalism. There's nothing better.
A matter of attitude.