Economics: Free Market Or Otherwise?

[agentmax 0]

I feel that most economies will be failed expirements. I'd think that eventually, because of the speed of technology, that people would have some identification to show a merchant their position/job, and it's value to society, which would warrent you the privilage to recieve goods and services you need for your job, and personal recreation. No exact figures, because that induces inequality. It would be based off of emotional value... that people would give products away (transaction recorded:computers!) so they could get what makes them happy from another merchant. I wonder how far off the day is that a society could run off good-will.So what if someone hacked into the system, said they were a spaceship captain, and needed several crates of liquor? They guy who 'sold' the drinks to the hacker would still get that transaction credited to him. Then he could get materials for he home he always wanted, and would retire... Bam, he's out of the system. [ADDED: The problem here is people wouldn't go to work anymore. However, without any sign of an employer or someone to verify their work's validity, their record would become suspicous, leading to arest and employment.]

[webguide 0]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree that once people get to the top of the food chain it becomes easier to stay there but in my opinion that's a great reward for working intelligently and gives everyone an incentive for beating the odds.

[agentmax 0]

I agree that once people get to the top of the food chain it becomes easier to stay there but in my opinion that's a great reward for working intelligently and gives everyone an incentive for beating the odds.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

True, that does give a purpose to our lives, however, the majority of people that have made it were middle class to start with. The technopeasants without any resources are going to take a long time to build up to our level, so what can be done to change that?

[Soleq 0]

I wonder how far off the day is that a society could run off good-will.

This will never happen. Communism basically runs under the same principle: everyone working (or sacrificing) for the common good. Sure, good-will does exist in the world, but humans are notorious for finding and exploiting loopholes and taking advantage of others. There's a saying (I can't quite remember the exact saying) that goes something like "the law exists to keep the powerful in power." This can be applied to economics as well, where our current system benefits those who have already "made it." I believe something similar to this was said a few posts before this one. In any case, it's fine and dandy to praise our system for giving everyone a chance to suceed, but the reality is that America has a definite class system, and there's an unfair disadvantage to those on bottom.

[webguide 0]

True, that does give a purpose to our lives, however, the majority of people that have made it were middle class to start with.  The technopeasants without any resources are going to take a long time to build up to our level, so what can be done to change that?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It cannot be changed. Whatever a society chooses to call their government, communist or capitilist, people always behave in the same way. Survival of the fittest.

[adamsgi 0]

The point being missed here is that there has never been a truly Communist or Marxist country. Communism was described as being spread from person to person; a gentle awakening to a new way of living. Not armies forcing this way of life on to people. When discussing what was happening in newly soviet Russia, Karl Marx said "If that is Marxism, I am not a Marxist."Capitalism is basically flawed due to the fact that Money breeds money. The people at the top need to keep the people at the bottom where they are. There is also too much emphasis on profit-making. What is the point of making a profit? If it isn't redistributed, it is useless. There are too many stories about employers making several million (or even billion) in profits, yet they still have poorly paid employees and begrudge giving them a payrise of over 3%.If there was a country who properly embraced the Communist view, and had open borders (so people who wished to share this way of life could just move there) it would become a great power in the world. People would only go there for one of two reasons - to live a lifestyle the want to live, or to try and exploit it. The exploiters would soon be discovered and shipped out.Hey - I like the idea of equality. It's the only way Fair Trade will work. Fair Trade cannot work under Capitalism because the muti-nationals will not allow it.

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

If there was a country who properly embraced the Communist view, and had open borders (so people who wished to share this way of life could just move there) it would become a great power in the world.  People would only go there for one of two reasons - to live a lifestyle the want to live, or to try and exploit it.  The exploiters would soon be discovered and shipped out.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, it wouldn't work particularly well. This is because it would have to be self sufficient in order to survive as a commune. This sort of behavior works sometimes, but it doesn't scale to everything. Just as Free Market stuff doesn't work well for some things(health care for example). A carefull blend that keeps society from falling into extremes, either of growth or of downturn, is the best.

 

It cannot be changed. Whatever a society chooses to call their government, communist or capitilist, people always behave in the same way. Survival of the fittest.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Survival of the fittest is what it most clearly is not. Social Darwinism is BS. Society works in a much more lamark fashion: the traits acquired in life by the father are passed down.

 

What occurs without carefull regulation is the have's trampling on the have nots. Power begets power. Thus, no 'survival of the fittest' occurs because the 'fit' determine what is considered fitness. It becomes a rigged game. Keeping power differences to a moderate level keeps this sort of abuse from happening.

 

Similarly, totally communistic/socialistic systems suffer from similar problems. The strong Subisidize the weak and more and more people fake being weak in order to get more for less, and eventually it all falls down.

 

Thus, you must keep the differences between the have's and have nots to a moderate level. Enough that the have nots are forced to strive for betterness, but not so large that the have's can 'rig the game'.

[webguide 0]

Actually, it wouldn't work particularly well.  This is because it would have to be self sufficient in order to survive as a commune.  This sort of behavior works sometimes, but it doesn't scale to everything.  Just as Free Market stuff doesn't work well for some things(health care for example).  A carefull blend that keeps society from falling into extremes, either of growth or of downturn, is the best.

Survival of the fittest is what it most clearly is not.  Social Darwinism is BS.  Society works in a much more lamark fashion: the traits acquired in life by the father are passed down.

 

What occurs without carefull regulation is the have's trampling on the have nots.  Power begets power.  Thus, no 'survival of the fittest' occurs because the 'fit' determine what is considered fitness.  It becomes a rigged game.  Keeping power differences to a moderate level keeps this sort of abuse from happening. 

 

Similarly, totally communistic/socialistic systems suffer from similar problems.  The strong Subisidize the weak and more and more people fake being weak in order to get more for less, and eventually it all falls down.

 

Thus, you must keep the differences between the have's and have nots to a moderate level.  Enough that the have nots are forced to strive for betterness, but not so large that the have's can 'rig the game'.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So whats the answer? Everyone tries to point out the problems with capitalism but no one has a solution. Capitalism will always rule as it reflects the way people think about life.

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

So whats the answer? Everyone tries to point out the problems with capitalism but no one has a solution. Capitalism will always rule as it reflects the way people think about life.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I gave an answer, you just didn't read carefully. To break it down:

 

Total freemarket capitalism = failure

Total communism/socialism = failure

 

Both failures occur because the differences between the haves and the have-nots becomes too extreme and volatile(either too big or too small or too random).

 

The answer is a basic market system with progressive regulation to keep these extremes from occuring.

[webguide 0]

I gave an answer, you just didn't read carefully.  To break it down:

 

Total freemarket capitalism = failure

Total communism/socialism = failure

 

Both failures occur because the differences between the haves and the have-nots becomes too extreme and volatile(either too big or too small or too random).

 

The answer is a basic market system with progressive regulation to keep these extremes from occuring.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is an abstract solution that many would like, but is just wishful thinking. Its just not how human nature works.

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

That is an abstract solution that many would like, but is just wishful thinking. Its just not how human nature works.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh, You are the expert on human nature? Its only an abstract solution since I didn't post something like an entire tax code. Its no more or less abstract than the words 'free market economy' that you are so fond of. There are MANY MANY ways to set up markets, and the rules that govern them, unless you want no rules. Which is just outright foolish.

[webguide 0]

Oh, You are the expert on human nature?  Its only an abstract solution since I didn't post something like an entire tax code.  Its no more or less abstract than the words 'free market economy' that you are so fond of.  There are MANY MANY ways to set up markets, and the rules that govern them, unless you want no rules.  Which is just outright foolish.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The way people act is human nature, so the society's/cultures on earth represent human nature. All i'm doing is reflecting how these societies behave today, your talking about how you like them to be. Me, i'm just saying I like the way the world works already.

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

The way people act is human nature, so the society's/cultures on earth represent human nature. All i'm doing is reflecting how these societies behave today, your talking about how you like them to be. Me, i'm just saying I like the way the world works already.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My point is that you can't really claim to know 'the way the world works'. Your view, like mine, is filtered by what things you pay attention to and what you don't.

 

For instance, you say that I am talking about how I would like things to be, by which I am not sure if you are referring to how I would like human nature to be, or how I would like society to be, or both.

 

In any case, 'the way the world works' is mutable. Always has been, always will be. And if you take the time to read some history, or even current events world wide, you would see there are many many versions of 'how things work'. Some seem better than others, but all of them MUST come from 'human nature' if there is truly such a thing. So, since human nature can clearly create a variety of different 'ways of working', there is no 'way the world TRULY works'.

 

You are deluding yourself if you think so.

 

You like the way the world works? I don't think you really have anything more than some ideal. And I do to. But don't claim knowledge you don't have. Especially without any strong data to back your ideas up.

[Josh_Jpn 0]

Where is survival of the fittest or true capitalism reflected in any societies behaviours? Is it survival of fittest for governments to engage in protectionist trade policies? When a country raises a trade tariff or subsidies a company(through cash grants or tax breaks or laws) it is acting directly against the theory of survival of the fittest. I highly doubt that there will be any "Capitalist" country that isn't engaging in some sort of protectionism. Wouldn't you also say a large majority of people in any given country, have strong feelings of national pride and therefore convey some feelings of nationalism as part of thier human nature? Perhaps also these feelings of nationalism would influence peoples choices on the products they purchase. You should only buy X countries products if you are a true x-ian is a very common idea. This form of purchasing goes against survival of fittest, as a person would choice his countries products, instead of the products made in the more fit company.Capitalism as with Communism fail becuase they both go against basic human wants. Communism fails becuase it doesn't deal peoples want for power(Greed, Corruption). Capitalism fails becuase it doesn't deal with peoples want for belonging (Nationalism and Protectionism). Instead I think a system needs to be made that directly rewards people for thier economic contributions, as their contributions pretain to the betterment of the social good. Thus the less you work the less worth you have but also those who soley make money and no social benefit would also be have less worth. I think the elimanation of family inhertence would be a great start to changing things, as any money passed down doesn't accurately show the receivers social worth.