doodle wrote:
Capitalism is just a purer expression of democracy.
Yes, in fantasyland that might be true. On this earth it is not. There is a neo-con theory that as long as you impose free markets on a society, then naturally a democracy will follow. I don't agree. Democracy without limitations and regulations is a tyranny of the majority. Capitalism without limitations and regulations quickly develops into a social nightmare. This social nightmare is the one that Marx lived through and described.
It is not a fantasyland. It is outside your door right now.
There is nothing neocon about allowing markets to do their thing. The neocon approach is to pick the winners and allow them to turn the government into a tool to protect their markets from any would-be competitors. That's not at all what I am talking about.
What you may not be understanding is that markets will
always be present--it's just a question of how they are structured and who controls them. Once you see that the government is just one more market participant trying to influence outcomes it is easier to see what I am saying.
In North Korea there is a political marketplace, it is just subject to the monopoly of the state, which won't allow any competitors to set up shop. It's still a market, though; it's just a very inefficient market.
One of the most common and misleading economic myths in the United States is the idea that the free market is natural – that it exists in some natural world, separate from government. In this view, government rules and regulations only “interfere”? with the natural beneficial workings of the market. Even the term “free market”? implies that it can exist free from government and that it prospers best when government leaves it alone. Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, a market economy does not exist separate from government – it is very much a product of government rules and regulations.
So in a state of nature, two cavemen would not be allowed to trade with one another until a caveman government was set up? That's ridiculous.
The dirty little secret of our free market system is that it would simply not exist as we know it without the presence of an active government that creates and maintains the rules and conditions that allow it to operate efficiently.
The government can perform a very valuable function in facilitating trade, resolving disputes and protecting against market failures. I don't have a problem with any of that.
Our central disagreement is in the details of how the system we presently have should deal with certain issues. You think we should just take a totally hands off approach in most cases to problems that arise and let the market solve them.
No. That's not what I am saying at all.
What I am saying is that the government is just one more market participant that is trying to influence outcomes based upon its own agenda and interests. Since these interests are often incoherent and inefficient, I would like to see as little influence as possible from this particular market participant.
For certain situations I prefer a more hands on approach and for that I immediately get labeled a marxist. That is idiotic.
I didn't label you a Marxist. If you are talking about a "hands-on" approach, though, you are often talking about the hand of the state plundering wealth that someone else created. All government action is undertaken with good intentions. A benevolent looter is still a looter.
I think that our market should be regulated in such a way as to encourage behavior among participants that is environmentally sound based on the latest science. I think we should have regulations that force us to look at issues from a longer time perspective instead of only worrying about the here and now. I see how proper government laws and regulations along with a free market have resulted in huge improvements in human standards of living in the west. But new problems constantly arise that need to be dealt with. Overconsumption and the destruction of ecosystems is a big problem today that must be dealt with. There are negative externalities in the market that are not being accounted for. THESE MUST BE DEALT WITH. If you say they don't, then I simply disagree with you.
They WILL be dealt with. It's just a question of how and by whom. If, however, the government can't keep the potholes filled, on what basis do we believe that it can protect the earth's climate, eliminate suffering or end war? That's silly.
My position is not radical. It is supported by a HUGE number of careful thinking people.
It's just a standard statist line. Many people believe the same things you believe. In many ways statism has replaced religion as a secular mental framework that provides a sense of wholeness to people's lives. People want something to believe in, and a state that can make the world a better place is very enticing.
MT, your position is highly radical actually and I just happen to disagree. On this forum I might be the outsider or the insane radical, in the world and outside of this forum that moniker belongs to the position that you take.
It's okay for you to think it's radical and to disagree.
) there are no hard and fast answers and there are plenty of gray areas for sure.
