)
Because special interest groups and big corporates run our government, which is overseeing the destruction of the laissez faire system, as it was meant to function.ernest_t_bass wrote: Why have Americans let Government have so much control and regulation over business? Why do Americans let Special Interest Groups run this country, and not the businesses, like it should be?
Will there ever be a fall to BIG government? Will businesses EVER be "free?"
Yes, you have unfair business practices, and those can be regulated, but why regulate the fair business practices?
(My post has a lot of tangents, and I'm too tired to formulate most of my thoughts. Please add to it, and I may add later
True, but the government was just as much to blame for the collapse as the companies. It created the conditions that led to the housing bubble, etc. The companies were just trying to take advantage of it(albeit stupidly).Footwedge wrote:Because special interest groups and big corporates run our government, which is overseeing the destruction of the laissez faire system, as it was meant to function.ernest_t_bass wrote: Why have Americans let Government have so much control and regulation over business? Why do Americans let Special Interest Groups run this country, and not the businesses, like it should be?
Will there ever be a fall to BIG government? Will businesses EVER be "free?"
Yes, you have unfair business practices, and those can be regulated, but why regulate the fair business practices?
(My post has a lot of tangents, and I'm too tired to formulate most of my thoughts. Please add to it, and I may add later
Wheteher you like it or not, or agree with the principle or not, unfettered capitalism was on the brink of complete collapse, due to the unregulation of business practices. Does "too big to fail" ring a bell?
Corporations have metastacized into huge entities that are intertwined amongst one another, transcending the spirit of fee enterprise as Adam Smith intended it to be.
A question that I don't think we will ever have answered... or, be allowed to have answered.bigmanbt wrote: Nothing is ever "too big to fail". In a true free market, companies fail because they are run inefficiently. A free market is self-regulating, why do we need to regulate something that regulates itself?
Why have Americans let Government have so much control and regulation over business?ernest_t_bass wrote: Why have Americans let Government have so much control and regulation over business? Why do Americans let Special Interest Groups run this country, and not the businesses, like it should be?
Will there ever be a fall to BIG government? Will businesses EVER be "free?"
Yes, you have unfair business practices, and those can be regulated, but why regulate the fair business practices?
(My post has a lot of tangents, and I'm too tired to formulate most of my thoughts. Please add to it, and I may add later
ernest_t_bass wrote: Why have Americans let Government have so much control and regulation over business? Why do Americans let Special Interest Groups run this country, and not the businesses, like it should be?
True "free market" without any interference will always lead to collusion and monopolistic rule. Free markets do not "self regulate". Adam Smith pretty much summed up in his Wealth of Nations that the "master" (employee) would not abide by the natural laws of supply and demand. All decisions of arbitratration would be tilted in favor of the "master" (employer) and tilted against the "slave" the employees. And yes, in his book, he always refered to the capitalist as the "master" and to the laborers as the "slaves".bigmanbt wrote: Nothing is ever "too big to fail". In a true free market, companies fail because they are run inefficiently. A free market is self-regulating, why do we need to regulate something that regulates itself?
Because it clearly didn't regulate itself.bigmanbt wrote: Nothing is ever "too big to fail". In a true free market, companies fail because they are run inefficiently. A free market is self-regulating, why do we need to regulate something that regulates itself?
You are using the 30's as your basis of laissez faire? All FDR ever did was interfere with the market. Had they let the market take care of itself in 1929, like it did in 1921, the Great Depression would never even have been talked about. Good thing he had a war to bail him out of his horrid policies. :rolleyes:Footwedge wrote: True "free market" without any interference will always lead to collusion and monopolistic rule. Free markets do not "self regulate". Adam Smith pretty much summed up in his Wealth of Nations that the "master" (employee) would not abide by the natural laws of supply and demand. All decisions of arbitratration would be tilted in favor of the "master" (employer) and tilted against the "slave" the employees. And yes, in his book, he always refered to the capitalist as the "master" and to the laborers as the "slaves".
He was dead nuts against any corporate entity, either private or public, due to the inherent collusive powers. He woud never stand for the corporate oligopolies of AIG, Lehman Bros, or Goldman Sachs.
As BCS put it above....free markets will do anything at all to grow their capital, at whatever means necessary.
Do we really want to return to the late 1800's when workers in America had a medium life span of 40 years? A situation where workers were forced to work 60 hour weeks w/out OT pay? No workers comp. for injuries? No unemployment comp for the displaced? Wages that are set wayyyy below the "natural" price that Adam Smith proposed would occur? Having kids enter the work force at the age of 13 or 14? Do we want a society whereby 5% of the elite own 95% of the wealth?
Is that what our founding fathers envisioned in our government providing for defense and the general welfare of it's citizenry?
Well...... the "communist" country of China today violates every human right laws in how they treat the working body. They practice the same Darwinist theory in violating every known labor law right instituted by Europe, Canada, and the US. Their cities are so dirty from pollution, one can't see more than 100 feet away. They lead the world in per capita in lung cancer, and cancer in general. Some of their rivers are colored red from run off pollution. Every year, they suffer 100,000 deaths from the work place accidents.
But goddamn it...they run a free market system!!! A true free market system. And by doing so, only about 5% of the cost of their goods (selling price) are labor costs. Compare and contrast to American goods, where the labor costs (with the social net programs allocated to the cost of labor) averaging 24%.
They have become the new, ruthless capitalists, with the elite skimming off billions in China, where the kids go to work in the mills and factories at the age of 13.
But don't blame it all on the Chinese capitalists in power. American business interests are "capitalizing" on the circumvention of American labor laws by building these very sweatshops, and taking their "rightful profits" whenever the goods go flying off the shelves at Wall Mart.
For those that are pro pure laissez faire, look up the living conditions in America throughout the 1930's.
25 to 35% of the American workers were unemployed. No benefits to fall back on...only food provided by the churches.
Yeah, because our government intrusion had nothing to do with the financial collapse this past year (or ever since 1929). :rolleyes:I Wear Pants wrote: Because it clearly didn't regulate itself.
bigmanbt wrote:Free markets [size=large]ARE[/size] self-regulating.
-All these companies that received bailouts, in a true market system would have been allowed to fail. No company is bigger than the market.
-Markets set their own optimal interest rates, based upon the actual capital on hand. They don't artificially lower or raise interest rates and create booms and busts, but governments do.
-Markets don't print billions of dollars off and destroy the value of our dollar, but governments do.
-Markets don't protect special interests. If your business is run efficiently, it will succeed. If you run your business inefficiently, it will fail. How is something that rewards efficiency and punishes inefficiency not self-regulating?
-Markets set their own wage prices, based on a number of different variables. There should be no minimum wage law. That sounds radical, but in order to hire someone for less than the minimum wage now, the employee has to agree to work for that amount of pay. I fail to see how implementing a "minimum wage" is letting the "natural" wage for a job be set. What if the "natural" wage is less than minimum wage now, because of the minimum wage laws we would actually be paying people more than they deserve, and hurting the businesses that actually provide the jobs in the process. I say let the market variables work themselves out and find the true "natural" wage for each job.
Like I said, the ONLY place government has in our market is for monopolies and anti-trust. Other than that, laissez faire, or let it be.
I have a feeling people are talking past one another.QuakerOats wrote: From Footwedge: "Wheteher you like it or not, or agree with the principle or not, unfettered capitalism was on the brink of complete collapse, due to the unregulation of business practices. "
Completely incorrect! We don't have "unfettered capitalism", and we have not had it for a long time. We have massive government intervention, intrusion, and encroachment into what once was a free market system. You see where it has gotten us. Until we remove government intervention, the markets cannot function efficiently or properly. Otherwise the free markets are the best allocators of resources, the drivers of innovation, and the engine of wealth creation. The government is a leach and a parasite on all those foundations for growth and prosperity.
About a hundred years ago a US president said "America's business is business"; today we have a radical whose policy agenda and actions say "America is going out of business"!
Incredibly stunning and sad.
bigmanbt wrote:Footwedge wrote: True "free market" without any interference will always lead to collusion and monopolistic rule. Free markets do not "self regulate". Adam Smith pretty much summed up in his Wealth of Nations that the "master" (employee) would not abide by the natural laws of supply and demand. All decisions of arbitratration would be tilted in favor of the "master" (employer) and tilted against the "slave" the employees. And yes, in his book, he always refered to the capitalist as the "master" and to the laborers as the "slaves".
He was dead nuts against any corporate entity, either private or public, due to the inherent collusive powers. He woud never stand for the corporate oligopolies of AIG, Lehman Bros, or Goldman Sachs.
As BCS put it above....free markets will do anything at all to grow their capital, at whatever means necessary.
Do we really want to return to the late 1800's when workers in America had a medium life span of 40 years? A situation where workers were forced to work 60 hour weeks w/out OT pay? No workers comp. for injuries? No unemployment comp for the displaced? Wages that are set wayyyy below the "natural" price that Adam Smith proposed would occur? Having kids enter the work force at the age of 13 or 14? Do we want a society whereby 5% of the elite own 95% of the wealth?
Is that what our founding fathers envisioned in our government providing for defense and the general welfare of it's citizenry?
Well...... the "communist" country of China today violates every human right laws in how they treat the working body. They practice the same Darwinist theory in violating every known labor law right instituted by Europe, Canada, and the US. Their cities are so dirty from pollution, one can't see more than 100 feet away. They lead the world in per capita in lung cancer, and cancer in general. Some of their rivers are colored red from run off pollution. Every year, they suffer 100,000 deaths from the work place accidents.
But goddamn it...they run a free market system!!! A true free market system. And by doing so, only about 5% of the cost of their goods (selling price) are labor costs. Compare and contrast to American goods, where the labor costs (with the social net programs allocated to the cost of labor) averaging 24%.
They have become the new, ruthless capitalists, with the elite skimming off billions in China, where the kids go to work in the mills and factories at the age of 13.
But don't blame it all on the Chinese capitalists in power. American business interests are "capitalizing" on the circumvention of American labor laws by building these very sweatshops, and taking their "rightful profits" whenever the goods go flying off the shelves at Wall Mart.
For those that are pro pure laissez faire, look up the living conditions in America throughout the 1930's.
25 to 35% of the American workers were unemployed. No benefits to fall back on...only food provided by the churches.The Great Depression would not even had been talked about? You cannot be serious. The roaring 20's was an economic boom for America....mainly due to American businesses filling the need in supplying war torn European with loans, and goods. The US was on top of the world, mainly because she was left unscathed by the "War to End all Wars."You are using the 30's as your basis of laissez faire? All FDR ever did was interfere with the market. Had they let the market take care of itself in 1929, like it did in 1921, the Great Depression would never even have been talked about. Good thing he had a war to bail him out of his horrid policies. :rolleyes:
Speculators entered the fray, and artificially inflated the value of corporate America, setting the groundwork for the biggest economic bubble to pop. And pop it did...big time.
So FDR stepped up and did some unprecedented things....He implemented unproven policilies of an English economist named John Meynard Keynes. Keynes believed that in economic down cycles, the government could kick start the economy by deficit spending. While Keynes focused in on the social aspect, his philosophy has been used more extensively during war times.
The result of FDR's "new deal" was a substantial cut in the unemployment numbers...from 25/35% down to the upper teens. In 1936, FDR got cold feet regarding the public debt that he was racking up. So he put a moratorium on his spending. The result? The GNP stagnated, and unemployment once again began to rise.
But you are correct about entering the War. Entering the war was the apex of government "interference" ..to the tune of public debt hitting a peak of 130% versus GNP.
Funny how people are OK with military Keynesism, but not social Keynesism, isn't it?
I would be fine with that as well. Except that we now live in a global economy whereby American law imeans absolutely nothing. As I posted above, Malaysia, Vietnam, Laos, and particularly China and India run a "totalitarian" capitalist system that shitcans the basic human rights that most Americans believee in. As for anti trust/monopolies....these are the natural progression of unfettered capitalism...as clearly stated by Adam Smith, the recognognized father of capitalism.The only regulation that the government should have is over monopolies and anti-trust matters. Other than that, the government should be hands off.
Then you are ignorant as to the labor situation in America post civil war. People in our country worked under the exact same conditions that exist today in China.In this day and age, Smith wouldn't have been nearly as worried about the abuse of the labor. We (meaning America, cause I could give a damn about anywhere else) would never allow children to be forced into labor. Saying our country would become China with laissez faire in place is just idiotic, imo.
Life expectancy...40 to 45 years. OT pay? Not a dime. Health insurance? Nope. Pensions? Hilarious. Workman's Comp? Well, if you got sick, too bad. Hurt on the job? Good riddance. Unemployment comp? Get the f out.
Like I've said repeatedly, China/India and others work a system of "corporate/capitalist totalitarianism".
According to the Austrian School of Economics, commercial transactions should be subject to the smallest possible imposition of forces they consider to be coercive. But what do these guys know, they only predicted each of our burst bubbles over the past few decades.What Von Mises writes is not conducive to a global economy...an economy where different entitiies write their own set of rules. (and blatant violations of human rights)[quote/]
The Austrian School of economics differs greatly in recognizing what Adam Smith viewed as caveats to his system.
Companies are in fact "too big too fail" as a result of liberalizing merger criteria, the softening of anti trust laws, the tolerance of oligopoly reign, and corporate America's clamp on the legislature.Free markets are self-regulating.
-All these companies that received bailouts, in a true market system would have been allowed to fail. No company is bigger than the market.
The repeal of Glass Steagal was the number one reason for the recent meltdown.
Governments do not create booms and busts. Economic cycles do....fueled by speculation of the collusive investor sector. The government, through the corporate interests, control the Fed via the central banks in their monetary policies. The FED is not a government entity...but in fact a corporate entity. Monetarist's like Milton Freedman acknowledge as much.-Markets set their own optimal interest rates, based upon the actual capital on hand. They don't artificially lower or raise interest rates and create booms and busts, but governments do.
-Markets don't print billions of dollars off and destroy the value of our dollar, but governments do.
Then congratulations. By default, you subscribe to the Chinese capitalist model that was in place in America during the Industrial Revolution. You are pro sweat shop, child labor, no worker rights, only a working relationship dictated by the [master] and followed by the slave. These are the terms used by Smith in his masterpiece "Wealth of Nations" when describing the "negotiations" between employer and employee.Markets set their own wage prices, based on a number of different variables. There should be no minimum wage law. That sounds radical, but in order to hire someone for less than the minimum wage now, the employee has to agree to work for that amount of pay. I fail to see how implementing a "minimum wage" is letting the "natural" wage for a job be set. What if the "natural" wage is less than minimum wage now, because of the minimum wage laws we would actually be paying people more than they deserve, and hurting the businesses that actually provide the jobs in the process. I say let the market variables work themselves out and find the true "natural" wage for each job.
Read the Wealth of Nations and then you will understand that the "natural" price is never "natural" at all.Like I said, the ONLY place government has in our market is for monopolies and anti-trust. Other than that, laissez faire, or let it be.
The drivers of innovation and the direction of capital has headed overseas . "The "business of America is business" has a whole new flavor...but those that listen to Pavlov's bell ring still have their salivary glands activated.QuakerOats wrote: From Footwedge: "Wheteher you like it or not, or agree with the principle or not, unfettered capitalism was on the brink of complete collapse, due to the unregulation of business practices. "
Completely incorrect! We don't have "unfettered capitalism", and we have not had it for a long time. We have massive government intervention, intrusion, and encroachment into what once was a free market system. You see where it has gotten us. Until we remove government intervention, the markets cannot function efficiently or properly. Otherwise the free markets are the best allocators of resources, the drivers of innovation, and the engine of wealth creation. The government is a leach and a parasite on all those foundations for growth and prosperity.
About a hundred years ago a US president said "America's business is business"; today we have a radical whose policiy agenda and actions say "America is going out of business"!
Incredibly stunning and sad.
I am not pro Keynesian as a long term solution I am actually a deficit hawk that believes in sound money. However, I do recognize the short term band aids for down economic times. The problem with it...other than the 1950's, we never got the public debt back into a managrable amount.bigmanbt wrote: I still stand by what I said that none of those practices would happen in a free America. We would never become what China is now. With the ability to move about at a much faster pace, there isn't an employee that would accept a job under the conditions they have in China now. They would find another job that paid them fairly, and treated them fairly. There is no way a company that uses child labor, pays less than the natural wage, and gives zero benefits would last in America today. The times have changed recently and companies now need talented people, talented people do not need businesses. Because of this, people expect to be compensated according to their abilities. If they aren't, they will move on to a different company. The employee value proposition and employment branding are huge. Without the ability to recruit the talented people, a company will go under. And very few talented people are going to want to work for a company that exploits it's employees and when they aren't compensated for their efforts.
As far as the Fed being a corporate entity, I can see the argument there. But they are sanctioned by the government and created by the government. So I would label them as a government entity.
I would take Mises over Keynes any day. Keynes system has nearly bankrupt the US. Fiat money doesn't work because you have nothing to back it. And without anything to back it (i.e. gold), the government can print new money freely. By increasing the supply of money, the value of each American dollar dips, creating basically a tax upon the poor and middle class. There are no checks to a fiat money system it can be abused too easily. It works great in theory, but there is no mathematical formula for the human equivalent, which is what Mises says.
I also stand by that no company is too big to fail. If it is, it is the government's fault for not-regulating anti-trust and monopolies like they were suppose to.
Deficit spending is a cop-out. Again, in theory it may work, but all it does is artificially prop up the economy and set it up for further busts in the future. Check the booms and busts of America's history. They have happened much more regularly since the introduction of the fiat money system. Lke I said before, the economy was on the brink in 1921, but because the government didn't interfere, it recovered by the next year. In 1929, the government interfered and then we had the Great Depression. I don't know how this isn't a ringing endorsement for laissez faire. Murray N. Rothbard's book on the economy of the United States prior to WW2 should illustrate this point throughly.
I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. When it comes to economics I tend to agree with the Austrian School (and will be studying there this summer) and you seem to side with Keynes. Those 2 sides will never agree on economics.