Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
SDEngineer
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]
Well put, but we do have examples of very close to true free market economics (at least within the nation itself) close at hand.
The U.S. during the mid 1800’s, when laissez faire capitalism was the rule (internally anyway – externally, the US government was protectionist, as was typical for the time).
Extreme wealth polarization with a tiny class of industrialists having the vast majority of wealth, a small middle class consisting of educated professionals like lawyers and doctors, and the vast majority of citizens living barely above subsistence wages was the result.
In history, this has been the end result of EVERY capitalist economy unchecked by governmental regulation.
There’s a very good REASON that Karl Marx’s theories were popular at one time – when they were written, capitalism didn’t really look so good to most people. Those who haven’t studied the history of capitalism tend not to realize that most of the reason why Karl Marx’s theories seem silly today is that most of the developed nations have discarded the laissez faire capitalism which was the rule in his day – and compared to which, communism did indeed seem preferable for most people.
The rise of the middle class in the U.S. was principally due to the socialist refinements in our capitalist system which started in the late 1800’s and accelerated during the 1900’s – largely the unions, which actually gave labor a voice in the distribution of the profits of their work.
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]
Well put, but we do have examples of very close to true free market economics (at least within the nation itself) close at hand.
The U.S. during the mid 1800’s, when laissez faire capitalism was the rule (internally anyway – externally, the US government was protectionist, as was typical for the time).
Extreme wealth polarization with a tiny class of industrialists having the vast majority of wealth, a small middle class consisting of educated professionals like lawyers and doctors, and the vast majority of citizens living barely above subsistence wages was the result.
In history, this has been the end result of EVERY capitalist economy unchecked by governmental regulation.
There’s a very good REASON that Karl Marx’s theories were popular at one time – when they were written, capitalism didn’t really look so good to most people. Those who haven’t studied the history of capitalism tend not to realize that most of the reason why Karl Marx’s theories seem silly today is that most of the developed nations have discarded the laissez faire capitalism which was the rule in his day – and compared to which, communism did indeed seem preferable for most people.
The rise of the middle class in the U.S. was principally due to the socialist refinements in our capitalist system which started in the late 1800’s and accelerated during the 1900’s – largely the unions, which actually gave labor a voice in the distribution of the profits of their work.
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]
Well put, but we do have examples of very close to true free market economics (at least within the nation itself) close at hand.
The U.S. during the mid 1800’s, when laissez faire capitalism was the rule (internally anyway – externally, the US government was protectionist, as was typical for the time).
Extreme wealth polarization with a tiny class of industrialists having the vast majority of wealth, a small middle class consisting of educated professionals like lawyers and doctors, and the vast majority of citizens living barely above subsistence wages was the result.
In history, this has been the end result of EVERY capitalist economy unchecked by governmental regulation.
There’s a very good REASON that Karl Marx’s theories were popular at one time – when they were written, capitalism didn’t really look so good to most people. Those who haven’t studied the history of capitalism tend not to realize that most of the reason why Karl Marx’s theories seem silly today is that most of the developed nations have discarded the laissez faire capitalism which was the rule in his day – and compared to which, communism did indeed seem preferable for most people.
The rise of the middle class in the U.S. was principally due to the socialist refinements in our capitalist system which started in the late 1800’s and accelerated during the 1900’s – largely the unions, which actually gave labor a voice in the distribution of the profits of their work.
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]
Well put, but we do have examples of very close to true free market economics (at least within the nation itself) close at hand.
The U.S. during the mid 1800’s, when laissez faire capitalism was the rule (internally anyway – externally, the US government was protectionist, as was typical for the time).
Extreme wealth polarization with a tiny class of industrialists having the vast majority of wealth, a small middle class consisting of educated professionals like lawyers and doctors, and the vast majority of citizens living barely above subsistence wages was the result.
In history, this has been the end result of EVERY capitalist economy unchecked by governmental regulation.
There’s a very good REASON that Karl Marx’s theories were popular at one time – when they were written, capitalism didn’t really look so good to most people. Those who haven’t studied the history of capitalism tend not to realize that most of the reason why Karl Marx’s theories seem silly today is that most of the developed nations have discarded the laissez faire capitalism which was the rule in his day – and compared to which, communism did indeed seem preferable for most people.
The rise of the middle class in the U.S. was principally due to the socialist refinements in our capitalist system which started in the late 1800’s and accelerated during the 1900’s – largely the unions, which actually gave labor a voice in the distribution of the profits of their work.
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]
Well put, but we do have examples of very close to true free market economics (at least within the nation itself) close at hand.
The U.S. during the mid 1800’s, when laissez faire capitalism was the rule (internally anyway – externally, the US government was protectionist, as was typical for the time).
Extreme wealth polarization with a tiny class of industrialists having the vast majority of wealth, a small middle class consisting of educated professionals like lawyers and doctors, and the vast majority of citizens living barely above subsistence wages was the result.
In history, this has been the end result of EVERY capitalist economy unchecked by governmental regulation.
There’s a very good REASON that Karl Marx’s theories were popular at one time – when they were written, capitalism didn’t really look so good to most people. Those who haven’t studied the history of capitalism tend not to realize that most of the reason why Karl Marx’s theories seem silly today is that most of the developed nations have discarded the laissez faire capitalism which was the rule in his day – and compared to which, communism did indeed seem preferable for most people.
The rise of the middle class in the U.S. was principally due to the socialist refinements in our capitalist system which started in the late 1800’s and accelerated during the 1900’s – largely the unions, which actually gave labor a voice in the distribution of the profits of their work.
Participant[quote=sunny88]You mentioned that the plan 6 homes facing the green are already under contract. Did you mean the homes 182-184 on the site map (Glen Brae Trail)?
Also, the current model homes had a sign mentioning the expansion in the later phases even about 4 months ago. I don’t think the seller tried to hide this fact.[/quote]Yes, 182, 184, and I believe 157 were all listed as under contract (182 was the one we saw go to contract Sunday). We were just a bit late, since in the new phase I think 182 and 184 were the best positioned units.
I know the plan 5 had several large signs mentioning the expansion, but I didn’t see any similar signs in the plan 6 model (which we walked through several times).
Participant[quote=sunny88]You mentioned that the plan 6 homes facing the green are already under contract. Did you mean the homes 182-184 on the site map (Glen Brae Trail)?
Also, the current model homes had a sign mentioning the expansion in the later phases even about 4 months ago. I don’t think the seller tried to hide this fact.[/quote]Yes, 182, 184, and I believe 157 were all listed as under contract (182 was the one we saw go to contract Sunday). We were just a bit late, since in the new phase I think 182 and 184 were the best positioned units.
I know the plan 5 had several large signs mentioning the expansion, but I didn’t see any similar signs in the plan 6 model (which we walked through several times).
Participant[quote=sunny88]You mentioned that the plan 6 homes facing the green are already under contract. Did you mean the homes 182-184 on the site map (Glen Brae Trail)?
Also, the current model homes had a sign mentioning the expansion in the later phases even about 4 months ago. I don’t think the seller tried to hide this fact.[/quote]Yes, 182, 184, and I believe 157 were all listed as under contract (182 was the one we saw go to contract Sunday). We were just a bit late, since in the new phase I think 182 and 184 were the best positioned units.
I know the plan 5 had several large signs mentioning the expansion, but I didn’t see any similar signs in the plan 6 model (which we walked through several times).
Participant[quote=sunny88]You mentioned that the plan 6 homes facing the green are already under contract. Did you mean the homes 182-184 on the site map (Glen Brae Trail)?
Also, the current model homes had a sign mentioning the expansion in the later phases even about 4 months ago. I don’t think the seller tried to hide this fact.[/quote]Yes, 182, 184, and I believe 157 were all listed as under contract (182 was the one we saw go to contract Sunday). We were just a bit late, since in the new phase I think 182 and 184 were the best positioned units.
I know the plan 5 had several large signs mentioning the expansion, but I didn’t see any similar signs in the plan 6 model (which we walked through several times).
Participant[quote=sunny88]You mentioned that the plan 6 homes facing the green are already under contract. Did you mean the homes 182-184 on the site map (Glen Brae Trail)?
Also, the current model homes had a sign mentioning the expansion in the later phases even about 4 months ago. I don’t think the seller tried to hide this fact.[/quote]Yes, 182, 184, and I believe 157 were all listed as under contract (182 was the one we saw go to contract Sunday). We were just a bit late, since in the new phase I think 182 and 184 were the best positioned units.
I know the plan 5 had several large signs mentioning the expansion, but I didn’t see any similar signs in the plan 6 model (which we walked through several times).
Participant[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.
Participant[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.
Participant[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.
Participant[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.
-
AuthorPosts
