|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
That's your opinion, and in my opinion, it is completely and totally wrong.
The elements of socialism are what should be eliminated. Resembling an economic theory, when considering a real functioning economy, is just silly. As for Fascism, I mean really, being depressed and pessimistic is one thing, but delusional is something completely different.
It's closer to free market capitalism than anything else seen in modern human history. A completely free market economy is nearly impossible to achieve, and probably would not be a good idea if it could be done. Compared to Socialism or Communism, which are just completely unworkable, it is far better.
Would like to hear an explanation of what you consider "brutally repressive". This should be interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
That's exactly right.
Really, the only way you could have a completely free market system is if you have a very small market of 2 or 3 people, with no regulation, laws, and with no outside influence whatsoever.
That's not attainable on a large scale.
However, our system is closer to a free market than any other in recorded history.
I look at it like this when assessing a system: What part could you absolutely not remove without causing the entire system to collapse.
We could remove the socialistic type aspects and the economy could still continue. We could remove the Keynesian aspects and the economy could continue. We could remove the regulatory aspects and the free market aspects of the economy would continue.
If you removed the free market aspects from the national American economy, it would collapse utterly. There would be no taxes collected. There would be no funding for any of the other items affecting the economy. Everything would come to a stop. There would be government workers doing their jobs until the money ran out ..... but without the free market aspects of our economy, we would have nothing.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Our system resembles fascism, lemon socialism and Keynesian theory far more than it does free market capitalism.
Again, we implemented more elements of free market theory than most ... but it does not make up the majority of our system.
I'm not going to get into the fight about "more" and "how much".. I'm just going to say that you are, in large part, correct in that we have moved steadily closer to fascism and Keynesian economics over the last 100 years or so and at an accelerated rate over the last 30-40... and that is why we are here today.
People are complaining about a couple percent tax increase or decrease as if that is the final arbiter of what kind of economy we have... while the government has basically set itself up to run entire industries... of course they don't phrase it that way, because there are companies still at the head of the industry, but the government has set so many rules and regulations in place that, by default, if the government wants you to run your business a certain way then you will.. or you will not be able to do business. Just because there is a coal companies name on the door, or an auto maker, or an airline, or a pharmaceutical, or an oil company ... doesn't mean that the government doesn't have a TON to say about how they are able to run their business, even IF they are able to run their business.... how they can import goods and export their product, how they can obtain the resources to make the product, how much the people who make the product should be paid, how safe the product has to be, how safe the workplace has to be, how the advertising can be presented, how much the government is going to subsidize their providing (or not providing) the product, who is allowed to purchase the product... it's all influenced by the government, some industries more than others but it's all there..
The economy of the late 90s was great but it was entirely predicated on a new global market and a first time product, that's not going to happen very often and it allowed us to defy, ever so briefly, the economic reality we have created... that is one of ever increasing reliance on government, ever increasing social programs, ever increasing government meddling and regulation... heck the government has just recently gotten around to figuring out how they can ruin the internet... and I have no doubt that they will, at some point, through taxation, fees, regulation, etc. completely destroy the internet.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
Quote:
People are complaining about a couple percent tax increase or decrease as if that is the final arbiter of what kind of economy we have... while the government has basically set itself up to run entire industries.
How true.
The reason (in my estimation) for this is that people don't really give a crap what kind of "system" there is, just 1) how much money ends up in their pocket and 2) how that amount compares to the people around them.
If they can attach some higher ethics or belief system to try and purify their motives, then great... but the bottom line is about how much each person thinks they deserve to have.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
Actually, IMO much of this discussion has involved what some people believe other people deserve to have, or in some cases, to keep.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,827
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,827 |
DNA - I think the "problem" you are having with this argument is that the theory of: You should get paid appropriately for how hard you work (which is not the same for everybody) conflicts with the reality that some people get paid more than they deserve. I think there are two separate issues there.
If you look at it with the premise that everyone gets paid appropriately (whatever appropriate is) for their work then it makes sense that everyone should be taxed the same percentage of their income.
Once you add in the reality of life that some people work really hard yet get paid less than some others who have cush jobs then the issue gets murky.
Am I perfect? No
Am I trying to be a better person?
Also no
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
That's your opinion, and in my opinion, it is completely and totally wrong.
How many companies can you name me at the top of it's field that hasn't received extensive government subsidy?
How many major industries have not been manipulated or protected by government? Can you name one?
Minimum wage. Is that a free market principle? How about overtime laws? Tariffs? Antitrust laws? Workers rights? Merchant permits? Zoning laws? What about police and fire? Are those free markets?
How many industries has our government bailed out - ranging from New Deal policies, to Reagan's protectionism, Clinton's legislation benefiting the banking industry, the airlines after 9/11, TARP, the banks, and so on and so on and so on?
How many industries of ours would've been killed off if it weren't for heavy government intervention? Airlines, banks, automobiles, electronics, computers ... and we're not talking about recently -- we've been propping up industries almost since our inception.
A free market, by definition, is a market free from state intervention.
Our state has and continues to intervene extensively in the economic market. Not occasionally. Not every now and again. Not just in dire situations. All. The. Time.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
Again ..... if you remove those factors from the economy, does it collapse, or continue?
If you remove the free marker aspects from our economy, does it continue .... or collapse?
That should tell all that needs told as far as what the primary aspect of our economy is.
Of course it isn't exclusively free market. Nothing in this world is exclusively anything. Damn near everything is a mix of several different philosophies and structures. You tend to look at things as black and white. This is just another example. It would be like having a 10 gallon drum of black paint with one drop of white in it. Most people would say that it was black paint ...... you would nuance it to say that it really wasn't black, because there is pure black paint, and if it has anything except black paint in there, then it can't be black paint ...... no matter what it looks like when used to paint items.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,622
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,622 |
@Phil - I agree. The government subsidizes Big Business way too much. Tax dollars are flung about like confetti and the high rollers are having the party at our expense. Which proves to me that you simply can not privatize many government services. Corporations have zero compassion, it's all bottom line.
The welfare in this country starts at the top.
@Ytown - You're right. Our government is a mixed breed mutt. Capitalism for the rich, while the middle class gets served up a dish of Socialistic Consumer Slavery with a dash of free market, a pinch of Police State, sides of Religious Moral Undertone and government controlled 'General Ignorance'. The poor live in a third world country setting of poverty and welfare/police state... but hey if the get off their lazy asses and get better jobs they can be middle class!
Seriously, you can not put a label on our society, because no ONE label fits. Our country is great to some and horrible to others. But it can't be both, can it?
I quit trying to make sense of what our government does a long time ago.
I don't understand subsidizing farmers to let crops die in the fields.
I don't understand why so many pharmaceuticals with terrible side effects are legal but pot is not.
I don't understand why a man can't make whiskey in his home, but anyone can make beer or wine.
I don't understand why people have no problems showering the rich and businesses with incentives (hand outs) but are enraged by providing everyone with medical care.
I don't understand sending an entire generation of troops to a god forsaken area of this planet to wage a war with the cavemen who control the worlds oil supply and still having to pay almost $4 at the pumps.
I don't understand the rage with Bullying in our schools, when a Republican congress bullies this President relentlessly (IMHO - Because he's black) setting a fine example.
So, I'll spend my time, like everyone else and worry only about what effects me and my life. Meanwhile, they'll make more laws to limit my freedom, take my money and make sure I do what they want...
The leaders of this country are so far removed from MY reality that trying to understand them is like trying to watch chimps communicate. I know they're making a bunch of noise, but it just sounds like a bunch of damn monkeys to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
@Nelson, that was the 2) that I listed. It works on both "sides" of the conversation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
I took that to mean more of a "keeping up with the Jones's" rather than an active desire to intervene in what they had.
As for Gov't "subsidies", the vast majority of these consist of taking less from the company in the form of taxes. I do not consider penalizing a company 1 million instead of 2 million to be a handout. The company is supplying the cash, not the Gov't.
Pretty sure Ford didn't take any Gov't money, probably lots of others. Reasonable regulations Should be in place, direct intervention should not and IMO, in most cases, isn't.
Still waiting for examples of brutal repression.;
As for Obama getting flack just because he is black, well, he got elected based almost exclusively on his skin color, and that is the largest effect of racism I have seen for this president.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Of course it isn't exclusively free market. Nothing in this world is exclusively anything. Damn near everything is a mix of several different philosophies and structures. You tend to look at things as black and white. This is just another example. It would be like having a 10 gallon drum of black paint with one drop of white in it. Most people would say that it was black paint ...... you would nuance it to say that it really wasn't black, because there is pure black paint, and if it has anything except black paint in there, then it can't be black paint ...... no matter what it looks like when used to paint items.
Again, you continue with this purity argument.
I'm not arguing that we don't have free market capitalism because it's not pure. I'm arguing that we don't have free market capitalism because we don't have free market capitalism.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Pretty sure Ford didn't take any Gov't money
You're joking, right?
October 2008 through June 2009: $15.9 billion in commercial paper from the credit arms purchased by the U.S. government
$5.9 billion dollar loan from the government - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
$500 million in subsidies to fund high-powered battery development for hybrid and pure electric vehicles in 2007.
Asked for and received subsidies for producing fuel efficient cars, both in 2006 and 2010.
Cash For Clunkers.
$2.4 billion dollar grant for hybrid cars, 2009
That's from one hasty Google search.
This doesn't even address wartime subsidies, state and local subsidies ...
Beyond a great deal of government, state and local funding and subsidy throughout it's history, they've benefited from government tariffs placed on rival auto manufacturers, tax credits offered to people who buy certain types of vehicles, and on and on and on.
Hell, to begin with, back in 1908, Ford went to the government and pressured them to fund highway construction so he could sell more cars. And they did.
And let's not forget laws and regulations - fuel efficiency standards, seatbelt and air bag requirements, emissions standards ...
But I'm sure you and YTown are going to tell me that despite all this, it's a free market anyway, right? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
Again .... if you took all of the "non free market" stuff out of the economy, would we have an economy?
I believe we would ..... and it would be a thriving, if largely monopoly based, and largely unequal economy, with profit being the only concern. However, it would be a sustainable economy that could stand on its own 2 feet.
If we took the free market out of the economy, would we have an economy?
I don't believe so. Do you?
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
You know dang well he meant they didn't take money as GM did to avoid going under. But then I guess you know you have taken money from the government too if you want to be technical, because I'm sure your life and career benefited from government projects, research and the like. 
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Quote:
Hell, to begin with, back in 1908, Ford went to the government and pressured them to fund highway construction so he could sell more cars. And they did.
Little known fact: It was around that time that a gentleman came to Archbold - asking for money to help capitalize his business. Perhaps a bit before that, perhaps a bit after that - don't know the exact date.
Henry Ford was told "no" by the person he was asking. Was it a stupid mistake on this person's part? Perhaps, but the ancestors of that person have more money than you can shake a stick at.
Anyhow.........back to your hating anything U.S. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
A loan that is to be paid back, with interest, is not IMO a "subsidy".
Cash for clunkers was not directed to any company, it went to consumers.
Tariffs are a charge which is paid by consumers. Usually levied on products directly supported by foreign governments, creating a less than "free" market. Money does not go directly to company.
Grants to produce products which the Gov't wants produced, and which would not be produced without extra cash because the company does not want to produce them, are a bit of a stretch.
Ford sells more cars with more highways, OK. Ford makes more cash, Gov't gets more tax revenue, the entire economy and country benefits. This is the type of infrastructure which the Gov't SHOULD be doing.
Still not seeing anything "brutally repressive". Still seeing a free market. A market with options and alternatives, a market where the consumer has many options and is not forced to choose from only one, a market where the company chooses what products to produce based on basic business principles. A market where nothing is rationed, where no one is beaten or shot for making non-standard decisions. A market where a Moskva or Yugo would never be produced.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
A loan that is to be paid back, with interest, is not IMO a "subsidy".
Nor is it a tenet of free market capitalism.
Quote:
Cash for clunkers was not directed to any company, it went to consumers.
It was an interference in the market by the government, going against basic tenets of the free market.
Quote:
Tariffs are a charge which is paid by consumers.
... and - say it with me, now - against the basic tenets of free market capitalism.
Quote:
Ford sells more cars with more highways, OK. Ford makes more cash, Gov't gets more tax revenue, the entire economy and country benefits. This is the type of infrastructure which the Gov't SHOULD be doing.
Regardless of it's validity .... it goes against the basic tenets of free market capitalism.
It's a collusion between business and government in order to increase revenue for both parties, which falls under the tenets of fascism, an ideology that you called me 'delusional' for attributing to the United States ... and then directly attributed to the United States.
Quote:
A market with options and alternatives, a market where the consumer has many options and is not forced to choose from only one
a) This does not define a free market capitalism
b) Can I buy Cuban cigars? A car without seat belts?
Quote:
a market where the company chooses what products to produce based on basic business principles
Again, this doesn't define free market capitalism.
This could easily describe a system that fascist, or of a Keynesian model.
Quote:
A market where nothing is rationed
For a third time, this itself does not make a market a free one. And beyond that ... look at our history, both past and present ...
World War II? Speed limits introduced to ration rubber? Water rationing in times of drought? Hell, the entire farming industry, both past and present?
Quote:
Still seeing a free market.
And I'm delusional?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Again .... if you took all of the "non free market" stuff out of the economy, would we have an economy?
I believe we would ..... and it would be a thriving,
Seriously? 
The auto industry, the electronics industry, and most tech industry would have been decimated in the 1980's.
Airlines would have been crippled after 9/11.
Banks and investment firms would have gone belly up.
The farming and agricultural industry would be in disarray.
What, exactly, would be thriving, in your opinion?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
Small business would take the place of major industries.
The free market abhors a vacuum.
I ask again ..... if we are not predominantly a free market based economy, what are we based on? What one other aspect is absolutely impossible to remove without the entire economy collapsing?
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Seriously?
The auto industry, the electronics industry, and most tech industry would have been decimated in the 1980's.
Airlines would have been crippled after 9/11.
Banks and investment firms would have gone belly up.
The farming and agricultural industry would be in disarray.
What, exactly, would be thriving, in your opinion?
All of it. Of course once you make it dependent then to take it away would cause a big problem... but had these subsidies never been started, those industries would have figured out a way to be profitable.
But just like with individuals once the government gets you hooked on it, it's hard to get off of it.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
I ask again ..... if we are not predominantly a free market based economy, what are we based on?
It's disingenuous to say that we're based on any one thing.
We have elements of capitalism, socialism, fascism, etc. but we aren't exclusively or predominantly any of those things.
However, if you're asking for a concise definition as to how we operate ... which of these sound more like our economic system?
Quote:
Free market capitalism consists of a free-price system where supply and demand are allowed to reach their point of equilibrium without intervention by the government. Productive enterprises are privately-owned, and the role of the state is limited to protecting property rights.
or
Quote:
Keynesian economics argues that private sector decisions sometimes lead to inefficient macroeconomic outcomes and, therefore, advocates active policy responses by the public sector, including monetary policy actions by the central bank and fiscal policy actions by the government to stabilize output over the business cycle.
Quote:
What one other aspect is absolutely impossible to remove without the entire economy collapsing?
The collusion of government and private business. You can call it fascism, or Keynesian or lemon socialism ... but without that symbiotic relationship, we would've crashed and burned a very long time ago.
Do we have elements of free market capitalism in our system? Yes, absolutely. Quite a bit.
Is it the predominant or overarching philosophy, or even the driving force of the economy, able to thrive on it's own? Absolutely not.
You and DC believe that the free market would right itself, or 'eventually figure it out', but frankly, I don't see how that would work, exactly.
The answers to the scenarios never make practical sense. 'Small businesses will crop up to replace the ones who failed'.
More likely is that larger companies from other countries will come and take over. If our titans of industry are killed off by foreign competition, how is it to be expected that U.S. small business with take the time to grow - undisturbed by the vultures of foreign competition - to the point where they themselves can take on what the large companies failed to do?
If we had a free market capitalist system, we would've been demolished as a superpower and an economy a long time ago. Foreign companies would've overrun the bulk of our major industries. We'd to an extent be serfs, a commodity that both toils for you and gives up it's income.
We have a long, storied history of protecting and bailing out our industries when they're on the brink of failure, and if we thought the little guy could step up to the plate, we wouldn't, but we know that foreign competition would blow ahead, and the more that happens, the weaker the nation gets.
Now, what I've described is pretty much what's been happening to us over time, and we have been ardently pushing against it, putting it off ... essentially we've been doing our best to fight free market capitalism, as it would probably be the end of us.
We're not #1 anymore, and we haven't been for a long time. In so many industries, we are bested by the foreign competition -- smarter, harder working, cheaper labor, cheaper materials, advanced innovation, better product ... what's the end result of that in free market capitalism?
A lot of major American industries would've had their last rites read decades ago if it weren't for government interference.
And all government interference has done is delay the inevitable.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,013
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,013 |
NELSON... Quote:
The answer is that this is nobody's decision but yours. Question - what would you charge for the water to fill up some wealthy person's swimming pool?
ahh, but this is exactly my point. it is MY decision, not the market's. the market determines what i CAN charge, but i decide what i WILL charge.
people may handle it differently. i may choose to maximize profit, i may choose to balance profit with a sense of charity, i may choose give it away for free.
i just get upset when people wash their hands of any culpability and say, 'hey, that's the market'. i believe we all have the ability to collectively influence the market, and should balance the bottom line with a sense of responsibility. there was an article i read recently in which a majority of young adults surveyed said they would willingly engage in a deceptive activity in order to increase profits for their company. but hey, if everyone's doing it, the market will bear the burden, right? that's just not ok to me, and we shouldn't be so passive about the valuation process.
Browns fans are born with it...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,013
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,013 |
DC... Quote:
Just like I missed the slot on the last ballot about whether I wanted my taxes raised. What I was given was a vote on a candidate who would represent my wishes.. as a stockholder you get to vote on the BoD and then they negotiate executive compensation on your behalf...
of course i understand this...it was NELSON's point that i have no say on a CEO's salary, unless i were a shareholder. i was simply making a joke of the idea that being a shareholder gave me any more say over salary than a non-shareholder.
Quote:
For a teacher and or a firefighter it is still a supply and demand market. If I have one teacher spot open then it becomes about how many people apply for that job and how much I need to pay to get the best one. Usually there is a trade-off. This happens at every firm, not just in education where you have a position to fill and a budget... so you go get the best person you can...
i'd like to hear from someone who knows about the hiring process in these professions. i don't think it is simply supply & demand determines pay. in my limited experience (through my wife's work), public school systems tend to simply hire ONLY graduates to replace retirees. that throws the cost issue out. and due to the pay structure for public employees (thank/curse the unions), those with a better resume aren't paid more. they may be the first to be hired, but only seniority pays more. that leads to an interesting discussion about union farce, but we won't go there today...
Browns fans are born with it...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Quote:
i'd like to hear from someone who knows about the hiring process in these professions. i don't think it is simply supply & demand determines pay. in my limited experience (through my wife's work), public school systems tend to simply hire ONLY graduates to replace retirees.
That's supply and demand. If there's a large supply of workers looking to fill a low demand of positions, then naturally they'll take the lowest cost solutions ... or the new graduates.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum New Rick Perry Ad
|
|
