BF2S Forums FREE to choose your MARKET

Here's the inherent flaw in modern capitalism.  There are very few safeguards in place that guarantee the persistence of competition.

The "free" market begins in a state of competition.  Multiple producers with multiple consumers.  Eventually, the number of producers gets narrowed down, and as a result, collusion between these producers will often occur.  In the most extreme circumstances, monopolies develop.  But, all in all, the system is not really designed with the consumer in mind.  The producers are the ones with the real power, because a significant portion of the money they make through trade is then spent on buying politicians.  These politicians then design laws to benefit the people that are paying them, even if those laws hurt the interests of the average person.

Because of the extent that capitalism and individualism exist in our culture, America is ultimately designed to serve the interests of the rich, not of the common man.

Again, one man's freedom is another's oppression.  Ultimately, the interests of the many should come before the interests of the few, but that is virtually the antithesis of the American system and of capitalism in its purest, most brutal forms.

Free markets have taken more people out of poverty than any other single system. Just take a gander around the globe and compare. China would be a great place to start. When you toss the free market out you are guaranteeing a monopoly. One that is managed by the most inefficient corrupt entities ever created, the government. Your problem is you are blaming business for the corruption not the government. You have got it completely turned around backwards. Competition is good, absolute power corrupts. Every once in awhile you have to bitch slap corporate greed *cough Enron cough*, but that does not mean you submit and give more power/control to the asshat politicians.

Watch the second vid Turq.. save me some typing .

Kmarion wrote:

Free markets have taken more people out of poverty than any other single system. Just take a gander around the globe and compare. China would be a great place to start. When you toss the free market out you are guaranteeing a monopoly. One that is managed by the most inefficient corrupt entity ever created the government. Your problem is you are blaming business for the corruption not the government. You have got it completely turned around backwards. Competition is good, absolute power corrupts. Every once in awhile you have to bitch slap corporate greed *cough Enron cough*, but that does not mean you submit and give more power/control to the asshat politicians.

The only way that the power of corporations can be checked is through government.  Government is supposed to be a tool of the people.  In this country and several others, it has become a tool of the corporations.  Capitalism has allowed this to occur, along with the complacency and ignorance of the public.

I'm not saying capitalism is all bad.  It does help many nations when run properly.  For example, Norway and Finland are some of the most competitive countries in the world when it comes to their economies, but they balance things out with systems designed to take care of everyone.  The cultural assumption is that the rich bear a responsibility to pay back into the system for the benefit of the less fortunate.  Without such a cultural value in place here, wealth gathers in a very small portion of the population that does its best to control the government.

So, it is not purely the fault of capitalism for our current state.  Capitalism works well with a responsible and thoughtful society, but we seem to be neither of these traits.  Selfishness and frivolity seem far more common in our culture.  Our lack of cultural coherence and unity makes it harder for us to support the interests of the many rather than of the few.

In fact, capitalism seems to be the only real cultural unifier in America right now.  It explains our vast materialism.

Kmarion wrote:

It is not capitalism that has allowed this to occur, it is the manipulation of the laws and regulations by the politicians that have done this. Reform should be in the manner by which we keep our politicians in check. We have actually started to take steps in the right direction with laws like the Freedom of Information Act.  A Free Market does not mean you relinquish responsibility. If you are going to hold someone accountable it needs to be those setting the unfair rules. Like Friedman said, the idea is not to make it so everyone ends at the finish line in the same position, but rather so everyone starts at the starting line. Blaming Capitalism is like blaming the race as the event, and not the judges who are allowing some competitors to have a head start.

Agreed... hence the need for social programs.

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Ultimately, the interests of the many should come before the interests of the few, but that is virtually the antithesis of the American system and of capitalism in its purest, most brutal forms.

"One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results. We all know a famous road that is paved with good intentions. The people who go around talking about their soft heart -- I share their -- I admire them for the softness of their heart, but unfortunately, it very often extends to their head as well, because the fact is that the programs that are labeled as being for the poor, for the needy, almost always have effects exactly the opposite of those which their well-intentioned sponsors intend them to have."

And how would you propose to aid the poor?

I'm familiar with Friedman's claims.  I've yet to see much proof of them however.

Remember, my background is in international economics.  From what I've learned though, I would have to say that John Maynard Keynes has been the most compelling economist to me personally.

First of all, small business owners would pay their work more if they paid less in taxes.  I think we should decrease taxation on everyone that makes less than $5 million a year.  Then, raise the minimum wage, raise the AMT threshold to people who make $300,000 or more (so that far less people are affected by it), and raise taxes on people who make $5 million or more.

This system would allow for better social programs and for small businesses to thrive.  In addition to this, we could lower corporate taxes for small businesses and increase them on large corporations.

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I'm familiar with Friedman's claims.  I've yet to see much proof of them however.

I should hope so.
The worlds largest most productive economies revolve around his ideas. Capitalism where the governments role is to ensure their is no "force" or "fraud". The EU, US, and now China are free markets that allow free movement of people, goods, services and capital. Friedman predicted the flaws in Keynes theories in the 1960's when we saw the rise of unemployment and inflation at the same time.

That is true....  however, note how the EU in particular regulates its corporations more than we do.  There are far more protections to consumers and labor in much of Western Europe as compared to the U.S.  This is where I think Friedman and other free market types fail.  They tend to shun any regulation, but regulation is necessary to protect the common man.

Kmarion wrote:

I agree with reforming our regulations. Which EU regulation/protections are you endorsing. Specifically what measures.

Friedman does not shun any regulation.

Well, for example... any huge mergers must get the approval of certain governmental bodies.

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

I agree with reforming our regulations. Which EU regulation/protections are you endorsing. Specifically what measures.

Friedman does not shun any regulation.

Well, for example... any huge mergers must get the approval of certain governmental bodies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitrust

More specifically.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitrust# … quisitions

I might as well throw this in there too .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trade_Commission

Well, let's just say that the EU is much more strict about it than we are.

Also, while frivolous lawsuits are harder to make over there, they also manage to hold corporations more liable for negligence.  Basically, most of their legal officials have the good sense to know the difference between a legitimate lawsuit and a stupid one.

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitrust

More specifically.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitrust# … quisitions

I might as well throw this in there too .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trade_Commission

Well, let's just say that the EU is much more strict about it than we are.

Also, while frivolous lawsuits are harder to make over there, they also manage to hold corporations more liable for negligence.  Basically, most of their legal officials have the good sense to know the difference between a legitimate lawsuit and a stupid one.

Those kinds of regulations usually fall on the state. For instance the workers comp laws in Florida are realy geared around preventing the injured from getting a decent settlement. Lawyers of the injured can only take a certain percent of a settlement, and the settlements are capped no matter what the circumstances. While the insurance companies can pay their lawyers what ever they want (We all know what motivates Atty's). This is an example of how government interference has stacked the sides against those who could have a legitimate claim. Assumptions of frivolous law suits may have placed the "many" behind the misdeeds of the "few".

Good points...  but on the other hand, you have people like that district judge in D.C. that sued a laundromat for millions over losing his pants.  He lost the case and his position, but not before the laundromat owner went into deep debt from court and lawyer fees.

I like how the British system makes the loser pay not only his own fees but also the other party's.  That would keep jackasses like that judge from suing people for stupid reasons.

Kmarion wrote:

lol.. nice. I'm not denying frivolous law suits. That sounds like a DC problem though. I'd say they need to boot some people.

Agreed...  D.C. is shit.  Of all the major cities I've visited, that really is the scummiest one I've been in.  I guess it's only appropriate that Congress is located there.

Friedman's economic history and socioeconomic observations are very sound.  However, I agree with Turq in that many of his claims have not been realized.  It is very easy to criticize problems (seemingly inherent) within the government, but to advocate largely no action in place of negative action is destructive and not progressive (IMO).

golgoj4 wrote:

How about we just put you three in charge of the gov't?

Hey, if you've got billions set aside for the campaign, I'm cool with that...  j/k