Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
sdduuuude
Participant[quote=urbanrealtor]I challenge you to paint a large world-ranked economy that functioned on true free-market practice and had a functional democratic state.
For that matter I challenge you to name the biggest economy ever that fit those criteria.
Last I checked though, it is not a coincidence that liberal democracy (as in classical not contemporary liberalism) sprung up around the same time as industry. Democracy exists as a political check on capitalism. The free market is the opposite of democracy because it involves unequal voting. Two people’s “wealth votes” are by definition not equal.
[/quote]urbanr – good thoughts here.
I’d agree that there hasn’t been a true free-market economy. This doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t viable, just difficult to achieve.
The US during the industrial revolution, and Taiwan before the Chinese took over come to mind as getting close.
I’m not familiar with Taiwan – it was mentioned to me long ago by someone else. However, during the US industrial revolution, the problem was that there was not enough regulation and industry was allowed too much freedom, at the expense of individual rights.
Many people see “capitalism” and “the free market” as the same thing. They are related, but different.
Often times in a capitalistic society, regulation favors big business. Guess what – that isn’t a free market. Big businesses have abused the term “free market” by demanding “free market” conditions in their industry. They really don’t want a free market, they just want to be free to do what they want.
If big business is allowed to roll over individuals and those individuals’ rights are being violated, it ain’t a free market.
I see it simply – when the government tries to regulate the RESULTS of the economy instead of the TRANSACTIONS of the economy, the market is not a free market. When rights are upheld, contracts are enforced, and those who violate the rights of others are punished, it’s a free market.
Democracy is not the opposite of the free market. A dictatorship is. Democracy is a way of implementing free-market principals into a system of government, but democracy still assumes the gov. has the right to regulate results, so it is quite different from a free market.
Participant[quote=urbanrealtor]I challenge you to paint a large world-ranked economy that functioned on true free-market practice and had a functional democratic state.
For that matter I challenge you to name the biggest economy ever that fit those criteria.
Last I checked though, it is not a coincidence that liberal democracy (as in classical not contemporary liberalism) sprung up around the same time as industry. Democracy exists as a political check on capitalism. The free market is the opposite of democracy because it involves unequal voting. Two people’s “wealth votes” are by definition not equal.
[/quote]urbanr – good thoughts here.
I’d agree that there hasn’t been a true free-market economy. This doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t viable, just difficult to achieve.
The US during the industrial revolution, and Taiwan before the Chinese took over come to mind as getting close.
I’m not familiar with Taiwan – it was mentioned to me long ago by someone else. However, during the US industrial revolution, the problem was that there was not enough regulation and industry was allowed too much freedom, at the expense of individual rights.
Many people see “capitalism” and “the free market” as the same thing. They are related, but different.
Often times in a capitalistic society, regulation favors big business. Guess what – that isn’t a free market. Big businesses have abused the term “free market” by demanding “free market” conditions in their industry. They really don’t want a free market, they just want to be free to do what they want.
If big business is allowed to roll over individuals and those individuals’ rights are being violated, it ain’t a free market.
I see it simply – when the government tries to regulate the RESULTS of the economy instead of the TRANSACTIONS of the economy, the market is not a free market. When rights are upheld, contracts are enforced, and those who violate the rights of others are punished, it’s a free market.
Democracy is not the opposite of the free market. A dictatorship is. Democracy is a way of implementing free-market principals into a system of government, but democracy still assumes the gov. has the right to regulate results, so it is quite different from a free market.
Participant[quote=urbanrealtor]I challenge you to paint a large world-ranked economy that functioned on true free-market practice and had a functional democratic state.
For that matter I challenge you to name the biggest economy ever that fit those criteria.
Last I checked though, it is not a coincidence that liberal democracy (as in classical not contemporary liberalism) sprung up around the same time as industry. Democracy exists as a political check on capitalism. The free market is the opposite of democracy because it involves unequal voting. Two people’s “wealth votes” are by definition not equal.
[/quote]urbanr – good thoughts here.
I’d agree that there hasn’t been a true free-market economy. This doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t viable, just difficult to achieve.
The US during the industrial revolution, and Taiwan before the Chinese took over come to mind as getting close.
I’m not familiar with Taiwan – it was mentioned to me long ago by someone else. However, during the US industrial revolution, the problem was that there was not enough regulation and industry was allowed too much freedom, at the expense of individual rights.
Many people see “capitalism” and “the free market” as the same thing. They are related, but different.
Often times in a capitalistic society, regulation favors big business. Guess what – that isn’t a free market. Big businesses have abused the term “free market” by demanding “free market” conditions in their industry. They really don’t want a free market, they just want to be free to do what they want.
If big business is allowed to roll over individuals and those individuals’ rights are being violated, it ain’t a free market.
I see it simply – when the government tries to regulate the RESULTS of the economy instead of the TRANSACTIONS of the economy, the market is not a free market. When rights are upheld, contracts are enforced, and those who violate the rights of others are punished, it’s a free market.
Democracy is not the opposite of the free market. A dictatorship is. Democracy is a way of implementing free-market principals into a system of government, but democracy still assumes the gov. has the right to regulate results, so it is quite different from a free market.
Participant[quote=SDEngineer]
At it’s heart, any form of money is a fiat monetary system. Tying it to a commodity (like the gold standard) simply means that it inflates or deflates against the perceived value of that particular commodity, rather than the productivity of the nation as a whole (which I would think would be more stable than the perceived value of a single commodity). Certainly being on the gold standard wasn’t able to prevent the Great Depression, the bank runs in the early 1800’s, or any other historical serious depression/recession.
[/quote]I’m quite convinced you don’t understand free markets at all. Suggest you learn a bit before spouting off.
The difference between a gold standard and the one we have now is that a single individual can manipulate the current currency – a single point of failure by an unelected official and a truly authoritarian situation. Not even close to democracy.
Participant[quote=SDEngineer]
At it’s heart, any form of money is a fiat monetary system. Tying it to a commodity (like the gold standard) simply means that it inflates or deflates against the perceived value of that particular commodity, rather than the productivity of the nation as a whole (which I would think would be more stable than the perceived value of a single commodity). Certainly being on the gold standard wasn’t able to prevent the Great Depression, the bank runs in the early 1800’s, or any other historical serious depression/recession.
[/quote]I’m quite convinced you don’t understand free markets at all. Suggest you learn a bit before spouting off.
The difference between a gold standard and the one we have now is that a single individual can manipulate the current currency – a single point of failure by an unelected official and a truly authoritarian situation. Not even close to democracy.
Participant[quote=SDEngineer]
At it’s heart, any form of money is a fiat monetary system. Tying it to a commodity (like the gold standard) simply means that it inflates or deflates against the perceived value of that particular commodity, rather than the productivity of the nation as a whole (which I would think would be more stable than the perceived value of a single commodity). Certainly being on the gold standard wasn’t able to prevent the Great Depression, the bank runs in the early 1800’s, or any other historical serious depression/recession.
[/quote]I’m quite convinced you don’t understand free markets at all. Suggest you learn a bit before spouting off.
The difference between a gold standard and the one we have now is that a single individual can manipulate the current currency – a single point of failure by an unelected official and a truly authoritarian situation. Not even close to democracy.
Participant[quote=SDEngineer]
At it’s heart, any form of money is a fiat monetary system. Tying it to a commodity (like the gold standard) simply means that it inflates or deflates against the perceived value of that particular commodity, rather than the productivity of the nation as a whole (which I would think would be more stable than the perceived value of a single commodity). Certainly being on the gold standard wasn’t able to prevent the Great Depression, the bank runs in the early 1800’s, or any other historical serious depression/recession.
[/quote]I’m quite convinced you don’t understand free markets at all. Suggest you learn a bit before spouting off.
The difference between a gold standard and the one we have now is that a single individual can manipulate the current currency – a single point of failure by an unelected official and a truly authoritarian situation. Not even close to democracy.
Participant[quote=SDEngineer]
At it’s heart, any form of money is a fiat monetary system. Tying it to a commodity (like the gold standard) simply means that it inflates or deflates against the perceived value of that particular commodity, rather than the productivity of the nation as a whole (which I would think would be more stable than the perceived value of a single commodity). Certainly being on the gold standard wasn’t able to prevent the Great Depression, the bank runs in the early 1800’s, or any other historical serious depression/recession.
[/quote]I’m quite convinced you don’t understand free markets at all. Suggest you learn a bit before spouting off.
The difference between a gold standard and the one we have now is that a single individual can manipulate the current currency – a single point of failure by an unelected official and a truly authoritarian situation. Not even close to democracy.
Participant[quote=urbanrealtor]I challenge you to paint a large world-ranked economy that functioned on true free-market practice and had a functional democratic state.
Ever.
In history.
Even once.
No Ayn Rand (or Heinlein) does not count.
For that matter I challenge you to name the biggest economy ever that fit those criteria.
I don’t say this just to be rhetorical.
If you can find one I am willing to listen.
Last I checked though, it is not a coincidence that liberal democracy (as in classical not contemporary liberalism) sprung up around the same time as industry. Democracy exists as a political check on capitalism. The free market is the opposite of democracy because it involves unequal voting. Two people’s “wealth votes” are by definition not equal.
Please refrain from using “sheeple”, “our country was founded on…”, “you liberals…”, or anything about Ron Paul. [/quote]
I would say the emergence of the entire internet is the closest thing to a free market we have ever seen.
As will happen in free markets, an economic cycle boomed and busted in this industry (some may say it was an artifact of Fed policy, but lets just say, “it happened”). Some call this boom/bust a short-coming. I just see it as a part of life. What is the big deal? But, you know what. It’s still here and it’s pretty nifty and it moved so fast that it emerged with minimal regulation.
Participant[quote=urbanrealtor]I challenge you to paint a large world-ranked economy that functioned on true free-market practice and had a functional democratic state.
Ever.
In history.
Even once.
No Ayn Rand (or Heinlein) does not count.
For that matter I challenge you to name the biggest economy ever that fit those criteria.
I don’t say this just to be rhetorical.
If you can find one I am willing to listen.
Last I checked though, it is not a coincidence that liberal democracy (as in classical not contemporary liberalism) sprung up around the same time as industry. Democracy exists as a political check on capitalism. The free market is the opposite of democracy because it involves unequal voting. Two people’s “wealth votes” are by definition not equal.
Please refrain from using “sheeple”, “our country was founded on…”, “you liberals…”, or anything about Ron Paul. [/quote]
I would say the emergence of the entire internet is the closest thing to a free market we have ever seen.
As will happen in free markets, an economic cycle boomed and busted in this industry (some may say it was an artifact of Fed policy, but lets just say, “it happened”). Some call this boom/bust a short-coming. I just see it as a part of life. What is the big deal? But, you know what. It’s still here and it’s pretty nifty and it moved so fast that it emerged with minimal regulation.
Participant[quote=urbanrealtor]I challenge you to paint a large world-ranked economy that functioned on true free-market practice and had a functional democratic state.
Ever.
In history.
Even once.
No Ayn Rand (or Heinlein) does not count.
For that matter I challenge you to name the biggest economy ever that fit those criteria.
I don’t say this just to be rhetorical.
If you can find one I am willing to listen.
Last I checked though, it is not a coincidence that liberal democracy (as in classical not contemporary liberalism) sprung up around the same time as industry. Democracy exists as a political check on capitalism. The free market is the opposite of democracy because it involves unequal voting. Two people’s “wealth votes” are by definition not equal.
Please refrain from using “sheeple”, “our country was founded on…”, “you liberals…”, or anything about Ron Paul. [/quote]
I would say the emergence of the entire internet is the closest thing to a free market we have ever seen.
As will happen in free markets, an economic cycle boomed and busted in this industry (some may say it was an artifact of Fed policy, but lets just say, “it happened”). Some call this boom/bust a short-coming. I just see it as a part of life. What is the big deal? But, you know what. It’s still here and it’s pretty nifty and it moved so fast that it emerged with minimal regulation.
Participant[quote=urbanrealtor]I challenge you to paint a large world-ranked economy that functioned on true free-market practice and had a functional democratic state.
Ever.
In history.
Even once.
No Ayn Rand (or Heinlein) does not count.
For that matter I challenge you to name the biggest economy ever that fit those criteria.
I don’t say this just to be rhetorical.
If you can find one I am willing to listen.
Last I checked though, it is not a coincidence that liberal democracy (as in classical not contemporary liberalism) sprung up around the same time as industry. Democracy exists as a political check on capitalism. The free market is the opposite of democracy because it involves unequal voting. Two people’s “wealth votes” are by definition not equal.
Please refrain from using “sheeple”, “our country was founded on…”, “you liberals…”, or anything about Ron Paul. [/quote]
I would say the emergence of the entire internet is the closest thing to a free market we have ever seen.
As will happen in free markets, an economic cycle boomed and busted in this industry (some may say it was an artifact of Fed policy, but lets just say, “it happened”). Some call this boom/bust a short-coming. I just see it as a part of life. What is the big deal? But, you know what. It’s still here and it’s pretty nifty and it moved so fast that it emerged with minimal regulation.
Participant[quote=urbanrealtor]I challenge you to paint a large world-ranked economy that functioned on true free-market practice and had a functional democratic state.
Ever.
In history.
Even once.
No Ayn Rand (or Heinlein) does not count.
For that matter I challenge you to name the biggest economy ever that fit those criteria.
I don’t say this just to be rhetorical.
If you can find one I am willing to listen.
Last I checked though, it is not a coincidence that liberal democracy (as in classical not contemporary liberalism) sprung up around the same time as industry. Democracy exists as a political check on capitalism. The free market is the opposite of democracy because it involves unequal voting. Two people’s “wealth votes” are by definition not equal.
Please refrain from using “sheeple”, “our country was founded on…”, “you liberals…”, or anything about Ron Paul. [/quote]
I would say the emergence of the entire internet is the closest thing to a free market we have ever seen.
As will happen in free markets, an economic cycle boomed and busted in this industry (some may say it was an artifact of Fed policy, but lets just say, “it happened”). Some call this boom/bust a short-coming. I just see it as a part of life. What is the big deal? But, you know what. It’s still here and it’s pretty nifty and it moved so fast that it emerged with minimal regulation.
Participant[quote=SDEngineer][quote=bubble_contagion]How about making sure that Government will not interfere or influence the market economy, house prices in particular.[/quote]
Pure market economies are overrated anyway. Without regulation, markets overreact in both directions. We’re currently reaping the rewards of what a highly unregulated market does when the drivers are not rational actors, but real human beings who have a tendency to be greedy and shortsighted.[/quote]
Pure market economies do involve regulation. Regulation has to exist to ensure that fradulent participants are punished, and contractual agreements are being honored. That’s where most people get it wrong. People think a free market is where everyone is free to do what they want and that the participants are required to be perfect citizens. This is dead wrong.
A free market requires that it’s participants are free from others infringing upon their rights, and to do this, transactional rules and regulations are needed.
For example, on critical element of a free market is that of property rights. Property rights must be upheld, and violations of property rights (theft) must be punshed for a free market to remain free. This can be considered a kind of regulation, yet it is a critical part of the free market.
-
AuthorPosts
