I forgot to mention that back then, the federal govt was not involved in education, healthcare, housing, energy...not even in building highways
I forgot to mention that back then, the federal govt was not involved in education, healthcare, housing, energy...not even in building highways
http://wardsauto.com/blog/dear-taxpa...epaid-interest
Ford lost a lot as a result of the bailout including investors. Sure they would have lost everything if not for the bailout. Still I think it was a good call by the US government, although presumably the market would have just been filled by toyota/hyundai etc. Most likely they would have opened some new manufacturing in the USA.
My life is better then yours.
Unregulated free markets might have been "not too" disruptive prior to or early into the industrial revolution, but constant progresses in technology magnified our ability to wreck our ecosystems and use up significant non-renewable resources: Production needs to be regulated, less our living environment be irremediably comprised (arguably, it already is).Originally Posted by JinXy
Furthermore, capitalism without any checks is not that different from a dictatorship as under such a system, wealth gives a direct practically unmitigated access to power. Once you are wealthy, you are in a very good position to remain that way and dictate whatever you want.
I wouldn't go as far as some and call capitalism evil, but without other considerations to balance it, it is a disaster waiting to happen. For one thing, it often operates under a model of constant growth, which might have still been possible in 1913, but is not longer feasible now.
Free market evangelists need to get out of their theoretical financial bubble and realize there are additional constraints mandated by the real world environment we operate in. We don't live in a spread sheet.
Last edited by Magn; 12-04-2014 at 05:46.
Remember, when u divert resources to save a company, you are preventing other more productive jobs from coming into existence somewhere else in the economy. Also, better managed car companies will e rewarded and gain market shares had there not been bailouts.
With regards to environment, it is easily solved if the government enforces private property laws. You cannot simply pollute the environment and not get sued by the public. But since the government says public spaces belong to the govt, naturally people expect govt to solve environmental problems.
The wealthy has access to power yes. This is a problem since antiquity. The only way to mitigate this problem is for the public to be informed about the role of govt, as the US Constitution in its original form sought to do. Now, because the people had given the govt too much power, businesses have to cosy up to politicians in order to survive competition.
Capitalism balances greed with FEAR. It wasn't possible after 1913 not because the technology gets advanced like you claim, but because a lot of fear is removed from the system through the creation of the Federal Reserve and through govt policies. I will not even call this capitalism. The laws of economics and human behaviour in the economic landscape remain the same whether technology changes or not. All the problems you see today are predicted and explained by free market economists more than a century ago.
Free market capitalism also doesnt operate on constant growth. Thats the model sold to you by politicians and economists, who know none the better. They need constant growth because they love to print money and they love to have big debts. Again, this is not capitalism.
Last edited by JinXy; 12-04-2014 at 23:02. Reason: spellings
they just wouldn't have been american companies ;)
I just think it all worked out well so meh. Go bama
The real/only issue with capitalisim is it leads to wealth disparity. For some reason asian capitalist countries have managed to prevent the issue, but USA hasn't been succesful thus far.
Last edited by goodz; 15-04-2014 at 23:41.
My life is better then yours.
I have no idea why any one would go to any effort to defend Capitalism, or try to make it work? It is not possible, it is a failure, and it is not the best option we have. So does that make me a communist? heck no! The world existed without those two for a long time!
Why is this a problem?
None of what you just said was a justified statement at all. The world did exist without capitalism, and the vast majority of everyone lived in really terrible living conditions as a result of poverty. Suggesting that "it's not possible" and it "has failed" are not only ridiculous claims with no backing, but ironically they do accurately describe pure socialism, which was attempted and did fail, and has been shown to practically impossible thanks to Mises and Hayek.
Also, being against capitalism would make you a socialist, not a communist. You can be a socialist without being a communist. Being a communist has other implications that don't have anything to do with the economy (at least directly).
I am sure there are plenty of other US auto companies. In the banking industry, there were 7000 banks before the crisis, for example. Besides, there is nothing wrong with having foreign car companies. All the consumers benefit.
I don't think capitalism leads to wealth disparity at all. If anything, it reduces disparity. That was how america built its huge middle class in the 20th century. with capitalism.
The reason why you see more disparity now is because of interventionism from government and the central bank into the economy. Profits are privatised, losses are socialised because of your bailouts :) The Asian countries did not intervene as much in the economy... although wealth disparity is rising in developed asian countries because of inflation (money-printing). But if you want to see real free-market capitalism, America was by far the best example in the late 1800s and early 1900s, before the creation of the Federal Reserve and the federal income tax.
When the central bank prints money, it merely transfers wealth from the population to the rich.
Last edited by JinXy; 16-04-2014 at 07:44.
What you have now is crony capitalism, not free-market capitalism. The world has had crony capitalism for a century now.
No way! I am not a socialist or a communist or a capitalist.
Erm, I didn't mean to call you a socialist. Just that the opposite end of the spectrum is socialism, not communism. My apologies :p
Thanks Palem <3
I actually realize now I shouldn't know what kind of economic system I subscribe too is named, but I know how it worked!
Last edited by khronosschoty; 16-04-2014 at 23:55.
Mercantilism? (trading raw goods without a market)
It's either that, or unless you're widely creative, it's most likely some form of either capitalism, socialism, or a mix.
Thank you Palam, you do appear correct; although, I do need to look more into it, it does seem, after doing a quick look on wiki etc about "Mercantilism", that this is the system I agree with! I think this is currently the best system we have ever used (yet).
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote