Poll: Why we need economic regulation.

[HSIAMetalKing]

It's a good thing we have all these high schoolers who wandered onto the Escapist forums in order to solve all of the world's economic problems. (Don't post to let me know that you're not in High School, I don't care)

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

Why don't we just let capitalism crumble and try to make something new?

Because socialism and communism are not new and so far they have failed.

The only thingy remotely like communism is stalinism. I think you are getting it wrong, Communism has not ever been tested.

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

Why don't we just let capitalism crumble and try to make something new?

Because socialism and communism are not new and so far they have failed.

The only thingy remotely like communism is stalinism. I think you are getting it wrong, Communism has not ever been tested.

To the fullest degree... no, it hasn't. But we have seen enough inspired iterations of it to understand why the concept doesn't create the most robust economy or standard of living. I mean I can say the same trite notion about a true free market never really existing but that would be pointless.

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

Why don't we just let capitalism crumble and try to make something new?

Because socialism and communism are not new and so far they have failed.

The only thingy remotely like communism is stalinism. I think you are getting it wrong, Communism has not ever been tested.

To the fullest degree... no, it hasn't. But we have seen enough inspired iterations of it to understand why the concept doesn't create the most robust economy or standard of living.

And until we get uncorruptable people/Robots as the government it will never work.

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

And until we get uncorruptable people/Robots as the government it will never work.

I still think that the psychology of the work force would suffer. Some people just aren't inspired to grind away in the middle for the masses. Addittionally, asking people who live from a singular subjective perspective of reality to grasp the overall causality of their actions is a bit too much to ask.

Hell, i feel ripped off when i buy gas because i can't see the gas going in with my own two eyes.

 

[Imitation Saccharin]

Because socialism ....not new and so far they have failed.

Except for all those times it worked.

 

[TheBadass]

Why do Randians feel that big corporations are any more trustworthy than big governments, and why do Marxists feel the reverse? Governments and corporations are both human institutions, prone to the same human foibles when confronted with ultimate power. A balance of powers keeps both useful while limiting their potential frightfulness.

-- Steve

I've got to poke a whole in your argument here, unfortunately: while yes it's true that both governments and corporations are human institutions, they are not prone to the same foibles. In a democracy, the governments have an incentive to keep the masses happy: staying in power. That's opposed to big corporations which, when in a free market, have every incentive to fuck everyone over, all in the name of profits. So yeah, when it comes to economics I trust the government one hell of a lot more than corporations.

Because socialism and communism are not new and so far they have failed.

When the hell did half of Europe and China fail? Did I miss a newsletter?

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

Because socialism ....not new and so far they have failed.

Except for all those times it worked.

Perhaps "failed" was too strong of a term. You get the the idea though and I don't believe we need to rally around the semantics.

 

[Imitation Saccharin]

Perhaps "failed" was too strong of a term. You get the the idea though and I don't believe we need to rally around the semantics.

Socialism has succeeded and failed at different times and places, like capitalism.

Your point is untrue.

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

Why do Randians feel that big corporations are any more trustworthy than big governments, and why do Marxists feel the reverse? Governments and corporations are both human institutions, prone to the same human foibles when confronted with ultimate power. A balance of powers keeps both useful while limiting their potential frightfulness.

-- Steve

I've got to poke a whole in your argument here, unfortunately: while yes it's true that both governments and corporations are human institutions, they are not prone to the same foibles. In a democracy, the governments have an incentive to keep the masses happy: staying in power. That's opposed to big corporations which, when in a free market, have every incentive to fuck everyone over, all in the name of profits. So yeah, when it comes to economics I trust the government one hell of a lot more than corporations.

Because socialism and communism are not new and so far they have failed.

When the hell did half of Europe and China fail? Did I miss a newsletter?

Add in the fact that the government is practically ran by corporations.(PAC funding during the presidential campaign for favors later, Lobbyists.)

 

[werepossum]

the only regulation that is needed is anti monopoly/anti trust laws. Other than that the government should stay out.
Also what's wrong with the rich having power? If I work my butt off 60 hours a week to rise to the top shouldn't I have a bigger say(through influence) than John smith working at walmart as a stockboy?

Hard work doesn't gaurentee you will be rich though. look at paris hilton. she was born into money, and din't have to work for a dime of it.

She actually does work - she has clothing lines, perfume lines, I don't know what all (not a follower of pop culture other than to curse the news at the idea that people would purchase a perfume because Paris Hilton approved/wears/designed it.) She has a better energy policy than McCain or Obama. And people pay her thousands of dollars to show up at parties. (And yes, those people should be hunted down and beaten until dead.) However, your refutation of sneakypenguin's point is flawed. You state that hard work won't necessarily make you rich (which is true, but it really, really helps), but your example instead proves that it's not ONLY hard work which can make you rich; there's always dumb luck.

A totally unregulated economy would be the most wealthy overall, but that wealth would be distributed very unevenly. Probably a totally unregulated economy would lead to a Marxist revolution and thus a heavily regulated economy. Even during ancient and medieval times there was economic regulation - standardized weights, measures and composition, fixed prices, labor laws, fixed wages, give and take between royalty and/or central government versus townfolk/merchant class versus aristocracy/local government.

 

[werepossum]

The problem isn't one of noble entrepeneurs/public-servants vs. vile bureaucrats/capitalists, it's one of big vs. little.

The more you concentrate power, the more prone that power is to abuse. You need to diffuse that power, balance it, so that you don't get a minority using its concentrated power to tyranise the majority. Whether it's government or corporate doesn't matter, it's the concentration of power that's the problem and why you need limits on both regulation and market-freedom.

Why do Randians feel that big corporations are any more trustworthy than big governments, and why do Marxists feel the reverse? Governments and corporations are both human institutions, prone to the same human foibles when confronted with ultimate power. A balance of powers keeps both useful while limiting their potential frightfulness.

-- Steve

Thou art wise beyond thy years, however they may be numbered. A wiser, truer post I've not read, even counting my own, and I can add nothing but praise.

 

[Lost In The Void]

I Think a mix of socialism and Capitalism is the way it allows for a certain amount of control thus reducing the amount of monopolies and piss poor business decisions by bank CEO's. An example would be America's economic crisis right now. Because banks are run like a business the Boss Man can make a stupid decision and sink everything in one beautiful blow to the economy where as here in Canada most if not all banks are goverment controlled, which does not avoid dumb decisions but is a better safe guard against it.

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

Perhaps "failed" was too strong of a term. You get the the idea though and I don't believe we need to rally around the semantics.

Socialism has succeeded and failed at different times and places, like capitalism.

Your point is untrue.

Since when was a socialist or communist country ever the #1 world power? As for capitalism failing, it only fails when government intervenes or when corporations stifle the free market.

And what exactly are you considering as a socialistic "success". Clearly our use of the terms success and failure are subjective.

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

I Think a mix of socialism and Capitalism is the way it allows for a certain amount of control thus reducing the amount of monopolies and piss poor business decisions by bank CEO's. An example would be America's economic crisis right now. Because banks are run like a business the Boss Man can make a stupid decision and sink everything in one beautiful blow to the economy where as here in Canada most if not all banks are goverment controlled, which does not avoid dumb decisions but is a better safe guard against it.

It's a bit more complicated than that. Government backed lending firms began wreckless business practices (because they were socialistically backed by the government) which set into motion the template by which credit and lending practices have been carried out for the last decade.

Capitalism didn't fail here, socialism did since the government inadvertantly created the financial incentive which everybody thought they had exploited.

It's the beaucratic equivalent of cane toads.

 

[Alone Disciple]

Rant mode on:

I guess it was only a matter of time before someone here on Escapist who is neither an economics professor let alone financial advisor is able to make the leap to connect today's global economy to that of one over 100 years ago and then tie it to the makeup of 'all' Republicans. :sighs:

You're confusing me.: "The companies had complete control over their lives, If they quit, they had almost no where else to go, and not only that, because they lived in factory housing, they also were out of a house. Eventually, after many year of unionizing, and getting the government to actually do something, these companies were shrunk down and broken apart...."

So are you for government intervention or not? You seem to indicate without the governments involvement the middle class suffered under oppressive companies, but then your sarcastic tone seems to be blaming 'republicans' that they want to deregulate thus putting us back to square one.

Eh, I suppose everyone has to be an arm-chair quarterback here sooner or later.

:Rant mode off.

 

[Imitation Saccharin]

Since when was a socialist or communist country ever the #1 world power? As for capitalism failing, it only fails when government intervenes or when corporations stifle the free market.

I call shenanigans. It was implicit that "failure" meant a breakdown of the economy and/or very low quality of life.

Hence, capitalism failed in Russia after the fall, succeeded in America. Socialism failed in many parts of Africa, but succeded in most of continental Western Europe.

 

[mark_n_b]

Perhaps "failed" was too strong of a term. You get the the idea though and I don't believe we need to rally around the semantics.

Socialism has succeeded and failed at different times and places, like capitalism.

Your point is untrue.

Since when was a socialist or communist country ever the #1 world power? As for capitalism failing, it only fails when government intervenes or when corporations stifle the free market.

And what exactly are you considering as a socialistic "success". Clearly our use of the terms success and failure are subjective.

You have got to be kidding me right? Let's ignore the fact that the U.S.S.R. was a major worlds power that made the U.S. capitalist machine wet its pants for over half a century, but China is considered by most economic analysts to be the next great financial power of the world (and they aren't saying five hundred years from now they are saying within our lifetime). That's just two examples of Communist world powers.

As for Socialism, almost every industrialized country on the planet considers a large number of socialist policies in their political construction.

Of course gauging from your response, I can tell you got a little of the right wing crazy and probably do not really know what constitutes economic social policy, which is a huge shade of grey across the financial regulatory spectrum.

There have been a few really strong pure fascist governments too. If you really hate the left wing, Nazis Germany was one of the fastest growing economies recorded in the planets history. But I don't really think that's the kind of system I could get behind.

 

[werepossum]

SNIP
You have got to be kidding me right? Let's ignore the fact that the U.S.S.R. was a major worlds power that made the U.S. capitalist machine wet its pants for over half a century, but China is considered by most economic analysts to be the next great financial power of the world (and they aren't saying five hundred years from now they are saying within our lifetime). That's just two examples of Communist world powers.
SNIP

Um, the Soviet Union took the combined wealth of a dozen nations and built it up into bankruptcy. Germany is still undoing the damage done by communism to her eastern region. Red China was North Korea writ large until Nixon foolishly opened it up to the west, and still no better than Cuba writ large until Clinton foolishly removed the tech barriers. Now China is very successful, but it's from using the power of capitalism, not communism. Sorry, you fail.

Badass, you forgot two big differences. First, corporations cannot force you to use their products or services by armed might or force you to finance them; government can and regularly does both. Second, if you do not use a corporation's products or services but instead go to a competitor, that corporation suffers and unless the situation is reversed, will go out of business. Thus corporations have a huge incentive to keep customers happy; their own survival. If government programs are hated and don't work, they can still be continued and even expanded, and almost always are. While you can change the management, government seldom allows competitors and is even less often forced into a new path.

The rest of you sit perfectly still; only Steve may dance.