Poll: Why we need economic regulation.

[Trace2010]

Just put me in charge. I have yet to see a single politician with a brain or common sense, I have both. I will rule the nation with an iron fist, all in the name of a better life for the common joe.

Also, I'll outlaw Rap.

Thank you Mr. Obama. But since all of these rappers have come together to contribute and campaign for you, I think you should just stick to your "breathalyzer" quotes instead.

 

[stompy]

I'm for minimal economic regulations. Nothing extremely Randian, but not too socialist either. What I support is a safety net for the population, that allows anyone to succeed and rise up, regardless of the economic situation they were born into. By that, I mean that everyone is entitled to basic community services, like health care, police, education, etc, as long as they pay their taxes.

As for the 'socialist vs. capitalist' argument that's going on, it all depends on the government. Socialism doesn't work because most socialist countries end up being run by cold-hearted rulers that control the country and economy with an iron fist. Capitalist countries end up fuelling the divide of rich and poor. The best government, in my opinion, is a healthy balance.

 

[Saskwach]

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?

The government, as Werepossum has been shouting to the rafters for the last few weeks, is as much to blame for America's latest financial upsets as bankers. In fact, the mistakes the government made were for exactly the same reason that you trust it: making people happy. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were ordered to give (I think) half of their mortgages to people who couldn't possibly afford them and to ignore any signs that this was the case - credit history, income, etc. This was all to give housing to low and middle income earners who only wanted a house. Government isn't just partial to grave abuses of power, it often abuses this power for the people - and only worsens their lot. At least when business breaks the rules of sound economic policy it (usually) either a) sinks or b) gets taken to task by the government. But who gets the government to pull up its socks?
As for China, I've heard its system referred to as "crony capitalism": it's capitalism with everyone in government giving their family and friends the big jobs. I can't remember or find the stats but I can say with reasonable confidence that 90% or more of big business is owned and run by Party members or friends and family of members.

 

[Eyclonus]

This was all to give housing to low and middle income earners who only wanted a house. Government isn't just partial to grave abuses of power, it often abuses this power for the people - and only worsens their lot. At least when business breaks the rules of sound economic policy it (usually) either a) sinks or b) gets taken to task by the government. But who gets the government to pull up its socks?

Not many people seem to remember that point of the government coercing the evil corporations into giving people a leg up.
To answer your question, in a democracy, as America repeatedly touts itself, the people are meant to give the government a good kick up the arse to keep them on track.
Looking at wikipedia says on your electoral system, it seems like the only people who give the aforementioned motivation are other politicians, often from the opposition or the incumbent party. Of course we can all correctly deduce that this kick rarely ever comes round due to the fact politicians will rarely if ever take an unflinching stance on something unless it is gay, or evolving.

 

[Mathew952]

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.

That, and you completely destroy any incentive to invent new things. When 2 large companies compete, they innovate and invent new things in order to get on top. When the government runs everything, there is no real reason to try to push ahead.

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.

 

[Mathew952]

This was all to give housing to low and middle income earners who only wanted a house. Government isn't just partial to grave abuses of power, it often abuses this power for the people - and only worsens their lot. At least when business breaks the rules of sound economic policy it (usually) either a) sinks or b) gets taken to task by the government. But who gets the government to pull up its socks?

Not many people seem to remember that point of the government coercing the evil corporations into giving people a leg up.
To answer your question, in a democracy, as America repeatedly touts itself, the people are meant to give the government a good kick up the arse to keep them on track.
Looking at wikipedia says on your electoral system, it seems like the only people who give the aforementioned motivation are other politicians, often from the opposition or the incumbent party. Of course we can all correctly deduce that this kick rarely ever comes round due to the fact politicians will rarely if ever take an unflinching stance on something unless it is gay, or evolving.

Or melting.

 

[Mathew952]

I'm for minimal economic regulations. Nothing extremely Randian, but not too socialist either. What I support is a safety net for the population, that allows anyone to succeed and rise up, regardless of the economic situation they were born into. By that, I mean that everyone is entitled to basic community services, like health care, police, education, etc, as long as they pay their taxes.

As for the 'socialist vs. capitalist' argument that's going on, it all depends on the government. Socialism doesn't work because most socialist countries end up being run by cold-hearted rulers that control the country and economy with an iron fist. Capitalist countries end up fuelling the divide of rich and poor. The best government, in my opinion, is a healthy balance.

Another issue with socialism is that due to the lack of motivation for people to work harder, as well as the gigantic government involved, Corruption, waste, and lost efficiency are usually the main culprits in the fall of a Socialist society.It does work much better in smaller countries, however,where the government can effectively manage everything.

 

[mipegg]

Isn't the point of capitalism that one guy can claw his way to the top and make everyone else bow down to him? It's like insecure, materilistic people with god-complexes made it up or something... oh, wait.

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

Because what else is there? Communism is a steaming pile of nonsense that results in people not getting anything for hardwork, stop enjoying it and try revert back to being able to do what they want when they want. Rather than whats 'best for the whole'

 

[Unknower]

I think government should have some control, so that the rich guys don't oppress the workers.

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.

China is as communist as I'm Swedish. Sure, my first name is Swedish, but that doesn't mean I'm Swedish.

 

[Booze Zombie]

I never once mentioned Communism, I in fact meant "Why don't we wait for Capitalism to crumble and invent a new form of government?".

We've got a whole generation of people with capable minds, why not put them to use making something new?

 

[Eyclonus]

I never once mentioned Communism, I in fact meant "Why don't we wait for Capitalism to crumble and invent a new form of government?".

We've got a whole generation of people with capable minds, why not put them to use making something new?

This new generation seems to be dividing itself fast along the lines of leftwing conformists obsessed with anything tennuously linked with Marx, leftwing freaks that believe we'll somehow still have the internet after the destruction of every human institution, Randists that believe it would lead to a leftwing utopia, Randists that use the same principles as justification for more corporate canvasing of government duties, Christians/Muslims/Scientologists that believe a divine God/Allah/Rubber Godzilla thing will appear to rule them all, and the cynicals, tagged as centrists, who would rather do other things then go through the eternal blow-jobbery and arse-kissing of politics.

 

[Hunde Des Krieg]

in the 1800s when monopolies were at the top, they were eventually broken by a combination of unions and president theodore roosevelt, but now, the companies and corporations of today, are getting away with similar bullshit due to a little thing called outsourced labor, it is just like mathew952 said about the corporate controlled workforce, except today that workforce is made of poor people in other countries. meanwhile americans that do work for companies in this country don't get paid what they deserve, most corporations can probably afford to pay almost all their workers with 100,000 dollar salaries, but they don't because for some reason their CEOs get to make 100,000,000 dollar salaries. where is the justice?

 

[Hunde Des Krieg]

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.

uh dude the soviet union was bankrupted and destroyed thanks in part to the united states powerful economy and industry, and china is only as wealthy as it is today thanks to its ties to the US, also, china's economy is a free market masquerading as a communist system, if china was truly communist, they wouldn't have a middle class.

 

[AntiAntagonist]

uh dude the soviet union was bankrupted and destroyed thanks in part to the united states powerful economy and industry, and china is only as wealthy as it is today thanks to its ties to the US, also, china's economy is a free market masquerading as a communist system, if china was truly communist, they wouldn't have a middle class.

They're 中国人 they're supposed to have a middle! Ok Chinese joke over...

China gets a lot of money from the US, yes. However ties to African and Middle East nations can't be ignored either.

 

[Mathew952]

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.

I'm angry at the republicans, becuase they are the "great deregulators" who got us into this mess. And I wasn't trying to connect to the bailout, rather point out flaws in the republican ideals, how they were applied, and why they didn't work. And in this time when large corporations have us by the neck, we need to make sure that their power can be checked.

 

[nmmoore13]

I'd just like to point out a small thing. As far as I know, there has never been a true, laissez faire capitalism system in place. So to say "look, america - going down the shitter and - doing fine, therefore, socialism is better," is a flawed arguement because America is no where near a true capitalism.

 

[Anton P. Nym]

I'd just like to point out a small thing. As far as I know, there has never been a true, laissez faire capitalism system in place. So to say "look, america - going down the shitter and - doing fine, therefore, socialism is better," is a flawed arguement because America is no where near a true capitalism.

Oddly enough, the Trotskyites and hardline Marxists say the same thing about the Soviet Union and Communism.

Frankly, I think the US ignores foreign examples far too often to gaze at the navels of their own dogmas. Certainly the Scandanavian countries' prosperity and political freedom call into question the idea that state involvement in the market leads to inefficiency and oppression, as does the example of Switzerland. Perhaps their experiences don't map entirely onto the American economic and political experiences, but surely something can be learned by taking a good, hard look at them.

-- Steve

 

[SanitysEclips3]

I think a mixed economy is the best way to go; business is not unchecked, but it still exists. Basically, the businesses can do what they like to an extent, but if they get to powerful the government steps in.

Currently, the problem is that business is powerful enough to influence the workings of the government and the lives of the citizens for the worse.

 

[werepossum]

I never once mentioned Communism, I in fact meant "Why don't we wait for Capitalism to crumble and invent a new form of government?".

We've got a whole generation of people with capable minds, why not put them to use making something new?

Capitalism isn't a form of government, it's an economic system. The USA is a constitutional republic with democratically elected representation, except for the president and vice president who are elected by the states (currently by democratic vote, although that's not constitutionally required.)

Hong Kong has the closest thing to a true capitalist economy, followed by Singapore, Ireland, Australia, and the United States. The first two have less socialism than in most developed countries, leading to a moderate per capita income (think Spain or Italy) in spite of having few natural resources. Of course, a moderate per capita income plus little socialism makes them very bad places to be without marketable job skills, although fairly good places for entrepreneurs and skilled workers. Among economically socialist countries, Sweden and especially Norway stand out as very successful but not particularly economically free.

Interesting links:
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/pdf/index2008_execsum.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita

 

[Booze Zombie]

I always thought that certain forms of government were irreversibly linked with certain economic systems? E.g Democracy and Capitalism.

I was also under the impression that if one falls, the other would follow shortly thereafter, is this not the case?

(This is why I had mentioned Capitalism as if it were Democracy, I had basically thought of them as one and the same, with proponents of one system supporting the other.)