Economics: Free Market Or Otherwise?

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

A lot of the topics here have focused on Religion, so I decidede to switch things up.What are your views on economics? Free Market all the way? What about market failures. Do you think there are ways of making communism work?

[tattoopunk 0]

fair trade not free trade. we need to establist a system that supports the working class, not just in the United states, or whereever you may be, but world wide. we need to stop exploiting the cheap labor over seas. A company can take a job that would pay about $10 an houre in the US where as they could pay some one 25 cents an hour. They are exploiting this and not truly providing for their laborors. why not double ot tripple their wage? it is easy enough to afford, and it will help that countries economy.Personally i believe in the barter, or trade, system. It just seems to be the most benifitial to everyone involved, though this leaves little oportunity for vast wealth, somethin most people strive for.

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

Personally i believe in the barter, or trade, system.  It just seems to be the most benifitial to everyone involved, though this leaves little oportunity for vast wealth, somethin most people strive for.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I find this view interesting given your support for workers rights. The poor and the working class have the least, and generally need whatever they have, and therefore would be in the worst position in such a system. They could barter their work for food, but then they would be working for many people, and that would make things inefficient for them and cause them to have to work even harder than they do now for the same stuff.

[tattoopunk 0]

in a barter system, the workers still produce goods, mosy liky by their own means, in capitolism this would mean they were creating their own capitol, and thus have a commodidy to trade for food, or another product that they need, they decide what they get, they set their own standards, if you will we would be like the ancient aztec people, but with some more advanced technology. I think that this system would force people to use alternative power supplies, if the want electricity in their homes they would have to use wind and solar power. It gets a little difficult to see happening in a country like the US short of post-nuclear war, but possible in smaller cuntries.

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

in a barter system, the workers still produce goods, mosy liky by their own means, in capitolism this would mean they were creating their own capitol, and thus have a commodidy to trade for food, or another product that they need, they decide what they get, they set their own standards, if you will we would be like the ancient aztec people, but with some more advanced technology.  I think that this system would force people to use alternative power supplies, if the want electricity in their homes they would have to use wind and solar power.  It gets a little difficult to see happening in a country like the US short of post-nuclear war, but possible in smaller cuntries.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is a reason money was developed: It allows for more efficient exchange.

 

For instance:

A person raises some cows and wants to trade them for veggies or something.

The person with the veggies has no interest in cows, and has no interest in messing with selling them to someone else.

 

So, cow guy must find an intermediary thing to trade for that veggie man IS interested in. Multiply this times society and the usefullness of a universal exchange unit becomes obvious.

 

Currently, workers 'barter' their time/labor in return for universal exchange units(money) which they then barter for other services.

 

The error you are making is that everyone has access to a commodity to trade, such as a good. Really, what people generally have is their service, their direct labor.

[tattoopunk 0]

I totally see your point, and thank you. I guess it just doesn't seem plasuable in modern society, though that is why i am a fair trade advocate.

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

I totally see your point, and thank you.  I guess it just doesn't seem plasuable in modern society, though that is why i am a fair trade advocate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree, fair trade is a very good goal. Now, what needs to happen is to create an actually fair definition of fair. Which strikes me as hard. Here is to hoping it can be pulled off.

[tattoopunk 0]

exactly, most people assume that the idea of free traid is fair foe everyone, whereas in reality, the people we buy, coffee for example, from really arn't making what they should. They make just enough to get by, that dosen't seem fair compaired to the conditions that some of our 'most emportant' employees make every year.

[Josh_Jpn 0]

I think the focus of economic reform needs not to focused so tight on goods trade and more focused on monterrey exchange/trade policies. What needs to be fixed is the wealth redistrubition system and also environmental costs. An instance of where wealth redistrubition needs to be fixed is corporate tax breaks and subsidies. Tax breaks and subsidies work against both free trade and fair trade, as they seek to give a monterrey advantage to a company over another company. Thus creating a unfair sitituation in the market place and also aiding market efficiencies as the subsidied company is not producing its goods in an efficient fashion, shown by it's need for the subsidy.

[Soleq 0]

In ideal conditions, both capitalism and socialism (read communism) both are the "perfect" economic systems. However, since humans are inherantly greedy (see theory of rational self-interest), both systems are flawed.Capitalism thrives off of the "I have more than you" mentality. People generally want more: more money, more land, more power, etc. However, due to limited resources, there has to be a point where not everyone can achieve "more." John Stewart Mill was essentially the father of captialism, and even his definition of the ideal capitalistic society included those who were disadvantaged. Now, granted that Mill believed these people were there because of their own choices, they nevertheless were poor and at the whim of the more successful.On the flip side of this lies socialism. While I'd personally love to see a well-executed socialistic economy, the truth is that socialism ignores human greed. While capitalism runs smoothly with greed, socialism crumbles. Why? Because the entire philosophy of socialism is equality (in this case economic). If everyone was guaranteed the same wages, no matter what job you had (as in a complete socialistic economy), personal motivation would basically be non-existant. Humans follow the same rule as most applications in physics: we'll attempt tasks that require the least amount of work. Hence, with socialism there's way too much incentive to take the easy way out and let others carry the work. Now, if everyone did that, you have the entire economy flushed down the tubes. I guess it's important to note that most "socialistic" governments now (with the possible exception of China, mainly because I know nothing about specifics of their economy) are really capitalistic with socialistic programs. And granted, I believe that Russia's communism experiment's failure was rapidly hastened due to Lenin's impatience and Stalin's intolerance.After writing the above, I really can't think of a "perfect" economic system. I suppose the capitalism is the most likely to succeed, but the current American system favors the elite far too much. Fair trade is a nice concept, and I agree with MTF's statement of creating a fair definition of "fair," but one has to agree that most of these unfair practices are brought on by political agendas that stem out of basic greed. So by creating an honest fair, you're going against the entire principle of capitalism, which simply won't happen.

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

After writing the above, I really can't think of a "perfect" economic system.  I suppose the capitalism is the most likely to succeed, but the current American system favors the elite far too much.  Fair trade is a nice concept, and I agree with MTF's statement of creating a fair definition of "fair," but one has to agree that most of these unfair practices are brought on by political agendas that stem out of basic greed.  So by creating an honest fair, you're going against the entire principle of capitalism, which simply won't happen.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As in many cases, I think the answer lies in the middle path. On one hand, we must recognize and honor human work, skill, and such as per a capitalistic system. On the other hand, we must recognize that not all people are disadvantaged of their own choices. They may be born into a poor family, or even have had some *BLEEP* luck.

 

To do this society must seek a balance. Helping those in need without putting undue burden on those with a great deal. Oddly, doing so is actually more effective than a straight capitalistic system or communism in terms of social and economic stability, having not the slowly grinding problems of communism nor the sudden market failures and corruption of pure capitalism.

 

Programs that fit this view are things like weak affirmative action, progressive taxation, and need based scholarships combined with aptitude based grants, as well as such institutions as social security which keep large segments of the population from suddenly becoming destitute (which causes extreme social unrest and inefficiency).

[webguide 0]

There is no such thing as a good communist country, well none that I would want to live in anyway. If you can think for yourself in a capitalist country then you will become very successful or else you will lose bigtime. This is the reason why the US has one of the highest poverty levels of any "first world" country, but also some the richest individuals in the world. It is survival of the fittest, which I wholeheartedly support.

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

There is no such thing as a good communist country, well none that I would want to live in anyway.  If you can think for yourself in a capitalist country then you will become very successful or else you will lose bigtime. This is the reason why the US has one of the highest poverty levels of any "first world" country, but also some the richest individuals in the world. It is survival of the fittest, which I wholeheartedly support.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Except this view misses a large part of how things work. It takes money to make money, etc. Those with money have an easier time making more money than those who dont. For instance, a person with money a year ago could have invested it in apple and trippled their money in a year(sadly my parents who have money didn't listen to my advice). The laws of the US, at least, are weighted towards keeping the existing wealthy people wealthy, because those people pay the politicians to do so. Granted, this doesn't prevent some from beating the odds and 'making it', but these statistical anomalies should not make you think that this 'can happen to anyone'. Yes, drive and such helps, but luck and the right friends help a lot more. Believe me, I have benefited so many times from the latter and had the former be useless on as many occasions.

[webguide 0]

Except this view misses a large part of how things work.  It takes money to make money, etc.  Those with money have an easier time making more money than those who dont.  For instance, a person with money a year ago could have invested it in apple and trippled their money in a year(sadly my parents who have money didn't listen to my advice).  The laws of the US, at least, are weighted towards keeping the existing wealthy people wealthy, because those people pay the politicians to do so.  Granted, this doesn't prevent some from beating the odds and 'making it', but these statistical anomalies should not make you think that this 'can happen to anyone'.  Yes, drive and such helps, but luck and the right friends help a lot more.  Believe me, I have benefited so many times from the latter and had the former be useless on as many occasions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, there will always be people that are on the bottom of the food chain, but thats life no matter how unfair it sounds. Thats why all the communist countries our so completely corrupt, there is always someone on top. In the case of communist societies they provide the illusion of a fair system in order for the leaders to prosper. People that simply work hard don't get to the top, people that work intelligently do.

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

Yes, there will always be people that are on the bottom of the food chain, but thats life no matter how unfair it sounds. Thats why all the communist countries our so completely corrupt, there is always someone on top. In the case of communist societies they provide the illusion of a fair system in order for the leaders to prosper. People that simply work hard don't get to the top, people that work intelligently do.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You misunderstand, I don't claim that people will not be on the bottom of the foodchain or anything of that sort. I am pointing out a difference in food chains, eg how low the bottom rung is and how much work and drive translate into being 'at the top'. The truth is once at the top the laws are such that they can stay there easily, as in, NO LONGER having drive and working and so on. Similarly, having an extreme difference between the top and bottom of society creates problems of its own. I am not saying there should not be a difference, simply not an extreme one. A middle way.