I saw a few threads around here a bit back with things like ask a Christian or ask a southerner, so I thought I'd start my own. I am a big supporter of free market capitalism and I truly believe it is the road to prosperity and equality. So go ahead, ask me something. I am especially looking to you Keynesians because it is your anti-capitalist policies that have made and continue to make this crisis worse than it would've been, yet you still insist upon them.
Do you support going back to laisseiz faire? Yes or no, please, although a following rationale would be acceptable. Note: US circa 2000 or 1985 or whatever is NOT Laisseiz faire.
I do not support the bailouts, so yes, no bailout. Yes, I support going back to laisseiz faire and I know that 2000 or 1985 isn't Laisseiz Faire, in fact nothing after 1913 (when the Fed was created) is and certainly not after Hoover's blatant attack on capitalism during the 20s.
Hoover's blatant attack on capitalism? I don't even want to hear your thoughts on FDR or Obama. So basically, you are saying that you support Laissez faire as in England circa 1800. If so, what do you think of the sadler comission, and why do you think these conditions wouldn't arise if we were to return to laisseiz faire? Or, if you know that they would, why is this okay?
This sort of thing would not happen for several reasons. The workers would fight back for what they think they deserve until they can come to a mutual consensus with their employer. All the government has to do is protect our borders (which goes along with national security and is something I do support- I am not an anarchist) and keep us from getting too many illegal aliens. With a smaller workforce, workers will be able to demand more and an equilibrium for wages, working conditions, etc. will be met through the laws of supply and demand. They could also form unions, as long as they were voluntary. Believing in free market capitalism is believing in freedom and the choice to do as one pleases and along with that comes a responsibility to stand up for what one believes in also. As long as people aren't apathetic (and in free markets they usually aren't since they have to stand up for what they want otherwise they risk getting nothing) the system works. Also, please note that the government would still hold the employers accountable for any sort of abuse or violence towards the workers because that is an issue of protection. It all really comes down to what you think government should do. As a capitalist, I believe the government should only protect the people from killing/abusing each other, from being killed/abused by other nations (national defense), and it should uphold contracts, property rights, and the law- which are the cornerstones of capitalism.
History shows that in an industrial society, the employer has all of the powers, unless there are labor unions involved. Labor unions will demand the same things that you hate- protection for workers, increased economic equality, equal opportunity etc etc etc.
First of all, who said I hate these things? Second, who said they can't form labor unions? In fact, I clearly said A capitalist economy shouldn't favor anyone- laborers or employers. It should be equal for everyone and it is if the government doesn't get involved and allows people to peacefully assemble in whatever ways they choose- be it labor unions, strikes, or whatever.
Well, you never did, but those things often need government intervention, which you do seem to, if not hate, dislike intensely (Yes, there is a difference, if small) It definitely shouldn't- yet it does. Inheritance, the higher social class that comes with riches and success, means that not everyone in a laisseiz faire society starts from the same position. And you seem to have an irrational hate of the government- do whatever you want- so long as you do it outside the country. Government intervention doesn't magically destroy the economy affected, although it may be detrimental, it isn't an automatic evil. I will have it known, right now, before you call me a socialist or some such, that I am not democrat or republican, or centrist, or communist, or fascist. I'm [put name here]- It's a radical technological ideology.
Can you tell me why that needs government intervention (so long as it doesn't have to do with contracts)? Enlighten me. As for the government, I do not hate it, otherwise I would probably be an anarchist. I simply think government should stick to the things I mentioned, which are basically the same things our Constitution and founding fathers believed in. Yes, but people are able to climb the social ladder by working hard. Do you not understand that? Again, I do not hate government. As for its impact on markets- why don't you look at the last 100 years and tell me how government intervention in the markets had been? I would not call someone a socialist/republican/democrat/whatever unless they actually said they supported socialist/republican/democrat/whatever policies. You are simply questioning me and what I believe in and that is completely different. What is this idealogy you believe in anyway (if you don't mind sharing)? You make me out to be some kind of radical capitalist who just attacks people. I am really no such thing- I just believe in freedom, the Constitution and what this country once stood for and I truly believe that free market capitalism is the path back to prosperity. I assume when you ask this you are saying prior to the passing of the Federal Reserve Act and the 16th amendment? But the answer is still no because that model wasn't everything I believe in either and it definitely had flaws.
I think this is kind of an appeal to authority fallacy- why should the founding fathers know better than us how to run america circa 2009? But you have to admit that, in the absence of some sort of intervention*, it would be so much easier for the children of those that are already rich to stay where they are, than for the poor, uneducated, industrial worker to climb that ladder. *I'm not saying that this intervention has ever been done by government, although mandatory education has gone a good way on this score. The new deal, maybe? Got us out of the great depression? Or, if you say it was WWII, then wasn't it still government spending? Well, thank you. I suppose I'm used to political debated getting quite nasty, so it always helps to be ridiculously clear. I apologize for misjudging you. I believe that right now, we should cut military, or nearly cut it, just prevent our borders and sovereignty from being invaded. Double or triple education and technology research, so that we can go towards a vingian singularity, and bring our civilization out towards the stars. I say do it now. I've yet to think of a name for it, though, and although radicalism might be on the 'left', I consider it to be a third way. And yes, I might support reduction in government intervention, although perhaps more of a Keynesian economy, because the down part of the buisiness cycle is not helpful towards these goals. I don't think that an untempered free market will lead to prosperity for all. for some, but not for all, or even a majority. Once again, I apologize for misjudging you, although none of that was implied. I'll make a thread on my ideology as soon as I come up with a name. Don't let me hijack your thread. I assume when you ask this you are saying prior to the passing of the Federal Reserve Act and the 16th amendment? But the answer is still no because that model wasn't everything I believe in either and it definitely had flaws.[/QUOTE]
And why did their ideas lead to the most prosperous nation in the world in less than 150 years, whereas today we find ourselves in a crisis that is one of the worst, if not the worst, in our history? Also, the fundamentals in governing and economics don't change although technology may. The ideas of freedom and being able to peacefully elect our leaders were revolutionary, don't you think? What makes you think that without intervention people will stop caring? People who are hard working will always try to get what they want. In fact, I can make the argument that intervention hurts people's chances at getting to the top by placing restrictions on them such as income taxes. As for education, people know the value of it today and those that want to get to the top do care about it and again, they would make their own decision to be educated. Those that don't want to be educated, don't get educated regardless of whether or not you have mandatory schooling. Also, if the states want to provide public education, that is fine because under the Constitution they can do so. The Dept. of Education has only been a bureaucratic institution and has only hurt the system with things like No Child Left Behind. It is time to put the power of making curriculums back in the hands of the people who know what their children should be learning: parents and communities. The New Deal only extended the depression. Don't agree with me? Then how do you explain the depression of the early 1920s, which ended in only 2-3 years after the government let the market resolve the issues itself? Hoover and FDR just regulated the heck out of the economy and extended the depression, just as Obama is doing right now. As for WWII, that may have helped too, but the real cause was basically the restructuring of the global economic system. Anyway, do you really propose a world war every time we are in a recession or depression? And one more thing- who said I am against government spending for national security? We had to fight back after Japan attacked us in WWII- it is a totally different situation. No problem, I know what you mean, but I try to keep it as civilized and calm as possible Interesting theory, but have you thought of the free market alternative? Historically free market institutions are a lot more efficient than their government counterparts because of the lack of bureaucracy and conflicting motives. Why not cut taxes and regulations and let the free market research for the future because they will do it- the more money these tech companies have, the more they funnel it to research. By making the government do it, you only lose money as it reaches the government from the people and it ends up being less efficient. As for the Keynesian economy, we are pretty Keynesian right now. The Federal Reserve is a huge Keynesian entity. Keynesianism has failed in the last 100 years and that is what we have to move away from. Keynesianism leads to bigger bubbles and bigger recessions (the down part of the cycle) because it inflates regular bubbles with rates that are lower than they should be. On the flip side, when rates are too high it stagnates growth for the obvious reason. It would be the best to let the market set the rate, so that it is sustainable. Keynesianism is largely why we have this business cycle of drastic ups and downs and without it, markets would be a lot more stable. It will lead to prosperity for those who work hard and actively seek it. Oh, you aren't hijacking it at all- feel free to ask questions and countering with why you think your ideas are better and I'll answer with why I think mine are better Looking forward to your thread though- should be interesting.
Well considering that I adopted this position yesterday (literally) my views are by no means set in stone. It stems from the idea that doing good is increasing value, value being a human concept derived from how much good it does you to have it. IOW, usefulness. The best way to do this is to expand civilization, since turning, for example, the rock that is iron ore, into a car increases usefulness immensely. My problem with laisseiz faire is that it promotes a high gini coefficient, and a hereditary class of workers in opposition to a hereditary class of managers and wealthy people. We both support a full meritocracy- we just disagree on structure. I actually think we should base pay on the amount of energy put into you work (and thinking does use energy!), as opposed to an arbitrary value determined who knows how. This is, of course, until the singularity, at which point, we will upload onto a computer, and effectively unlimited capacity.