In the 20th century, there was a battle between communism and capitalism as economic systems. By the end of the century, it was clear that pure communism was not working, in any country in was tried, from Russia and China to Cuba and eastern Europe.
So capitalism won and communism lost, and now we must pursue pure free market capitalism without any regulations or socialist safety nets, right? Well, it doesn't seem that way. That's because pure classical liberal capitalism was also tried and dispensed with by numerous countries, far earlier: the late 19th century and early 20th century. When left completely free, the ever rising and shameless abuse and exploitation of child labor, the rise of monopolies, the socially destabilizing extremes of wealth and poverty, and numerous other problems, led to numerous regulations on the pure free market. Even at the height of the cold war, the US was never without welfare and social programs and safety nets and regulations on its capitalism.
But today, it seems the US, having won the cold war, has defined its cultural identity by what the former USSR was not: if the USSR was atheist, the US was going to be the most religious developed nation on the planet. If they were communist, then that meant we should take away all safety valves and safety nets on our system of capitalism and give it the freedom of the jungle, where the strong and privileged survive and thrive, and the weak and vulnerable get eaten for lunch.
So isn't it time to leave aside the old 20th century black-and-white dichotomies of American capitalism vs. Soviet communism, and realize the situation may be far more nuanced and complicated than that? That if we are going to do better in the future, there is a lot of room for further discussion on how we can continue to improve on this model? All developed modern economies in the world today are mixed economies, and it's not because they don't appreciate the benefits of capitalism. Of course capitalism is a proven, powerful engine of economic growth. But don't all powerful engines, whether in cars or in a chainsaw, need brakes, safety valves, and other safety features which keep them from hurting people in serious ways? Can we start to think of capitalism the same way?
This was a great video I saw recently which talks about how we might be able to continue to tweak and improve on the current systems we have. We may not have the perfect final, ultimate answers yet. There may be room for improvement. Let me know if you agree and what you think.
In the 20th century, there was a battle between communism and capitalism as economic systems. By the end of the century, it was clear that pure communism was not working, in any country in was tried, from Russia and China to Cuba and eastern Europe.
So capitalism won and communism lost, and now we must pursue pure free market capitalism without any regulations or socialist safety nets, right? Well, it doesn't seem that way. That's because pure classical liberal capitalism was also tried and dispensed with by numerous countries, far earlier: the late 19th century and early 20th century. When left completely free, the ever rising and shameless abuse and exploitation of child labor, the rise of monopolies, the socially destabilizing extremes of wealth and poverty, and numerous other problems, led to numerous regulations on the pure free market. Even at the height of the cold war, the US was never without welfare and social programs and safety nets and regulations on its capitalism.
But today, it seems the US, having won the cold war, has defined its cultural identity by what the former USSR was not: if the USSR was atheist, the US was going to be the most religious developed nation on the planet. If they were communist, then that meant we should take away all safety valves and safety nets on our system of capitalism and give it the freedom of the jungle, where the strong and privileged survive and thrive, and the weak and vulnerable get eaten for lunch.
So isn't it time to leave aside the old 20th century black-and-white dichotomies of American capitalism vs. Soviet communism, and realize the situation may be far more nuanced and complicated than that? That if we are going to do better in the future, there is a lot of room for further discussion on how we can continue to improve on this model? All developed modern economies in the world today are mixed economies, and it's not because they don't appreciate the benefits of capitalism. Of course capitalism is a proven, powerful engine of economic growth. But don't all powerful engines, whether in cars or in a chainsaw, need brakes, safety valves, and other safety features which keep them from hurting people in serious ways? Can we start to think of capitalism the same way?
This was a great video I saw recently which talks about how we might be able to continue to tweak and improve on the current systems we have. We may not have the perfect final, ultimate answers yet. There may be room for improvement. Let me know if you agree and what you think.
We have considerable brakes and safety valves on our system.
Is that a good thing, or just a vestige of communism which is causing a drag on the economy and should be taken away if we are really to take off?
What is considered a good amount of brakes and safety valves, and when is it just a slippery slope to Soviet style communist tyranny?
Is it OK to sacrifice a little bit of economic growth for having some safety nets and brakes in our society?
All I can opine on is that uncontrolled greed is bad, meaning that some controls on Capitalism should be imposed. The only way that I can think of is through some form of increased taxes as the wealth increases. I do know that Elizabeth Warren is proposing a wealth tax on the super rich. This has been tried before in other countries with limited success so something like that but tweaked might work.
There is a point where Capitalism goes to an extreme and it is there where controls have to be placed. I have no suggestions at this time but I am sure there is a way that will work. Certainly there is clearly a point where enough money has been made to last a lifetime and the lifetimes of all family members and at that point the next of kin, which is the American public, should start getting some of the benefits of that person's ability to make money.
It's in response to the idea that somehow capitalism in the United States, or really anywhere, is somehow "unfettered," as is often said. The premise of your post seemed to be that there aren't any checks or safety mechanisms. There are plenty. We do not have unbridled capitalism. Far from it.
You tell me. How much is too much?
It's in response to the idea that somehow capitalism in the United States, or really anywhere, is somehow "unfettered," as is often said. The premise of your post seemed to be that there aren't any checks or safety mechanisms. There are plenty. We do not have unbridled capitalism. Far from it.
I don't know. But what makes me nervous is the idea that the less regulations, the better it is. Do you agree?
I understand. But my question is: is that a good thing or a bad thing?
We have considerable brakes and safety valves on our system.
If those were working well that GWB would not have had to “abandoned free market principles to save the free market system”. They (and Obama later on) bailed out the capitalists that were allowed to go too far in writing their own rules over the previous 25 years or so. It would have been an interesting experiment (and real justice) to let them crash and burn.
I know you'll say that it was all government regulation that caused it. We can just agree to disagree there.
The free market system was in no mortal danger in 2008 to need to be "saved." It would have recovered on its own. It could have sucked worse without the measures which were taken, but we'll never know that for sure. Perhaps recovery would have been quicker without them. Not having the means to peer into an alternate history, there's no way to know.
But assuming arguendo measures were necessary, judging the entire system against a very rare catastrophic event is like judging a highway system by how well traffic flows during a hurricane.
Never mind that "working" doesn't mean "never a problem" or "the best possible outcome for all people at all times."
It's in response to the idea that somehow capitalism in the United States, or really anywhere, is somehow "unfettered," as is often said. The premise of your post seemed to be that there aren't any checks or safety mechanisms. There are plenty. We do not have unbridled capitalism. Far from it.
You tell me. How much is too much?
There are no checks or safety mechanisms that I am aware of that don't have loopholes attached.
When Warren Buffet's secretary pays more in taxes (percentage-wise) than he does, it does not suggest that there is a check of safety mechanism to prevent that from happening. The laws in place right now allow such a situation to occur.
The system would have survived. And I agree nothing is ever perfect. However, a little more level would be better for most of us.
Depends on what and why.
Those things which produce distortions, with potential for large ones, like monopolies, are appropriately-regulated.
Those things which are based on the idea that someone makes too much money relative to someone else aren't.
For more granular thoughts, I need more concrete suggestions.
You not being aware of something doesn't mean it isn't there. Or, you have ridiculous standards.
This, even if true (which I've always doubted), doesn't have much to do with capitalism.
What does "level" mean?
But any intervention, by definition, induces distortions. But is that always necessarily a bad thing?
Everyone has the same rules apply to them and penalties are equal, both under law and in fact for everyone. Corporations and other entities that are granted status of "person" are included.
The free market system was in no mortal danger in 2008 to need to be "saved." It would have recovered on its own.
It could have sucked worse without the measures which were taken, but we'll never know that for sure. Perhaps recovery would have been quicker without them. Not having the means to peer into an alternate history, there's no way to know.
A monopoly distorts. Preventing monopoly prevents the distortion a monopoly would create. Thus, it's an appropriate regulation.
A monopoly distorts. Preventing monopoly prevents the distortion a monopoly would create. Thus, it's an appropriate regulation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?