Is the main problem with most Republicans that they believe the free market is ethical, and magical, in a way?
This is my main problem with the approach Republicans take to the free market and capitalism:
1. Business owners are regulated by competition in the marketplace, and this makes capitalism more competitive because of it.
REALITY: In capitalism, government is the referee. Unlike sports though, it's easier for one side to bribe the ref, sometimes make him go away. This is essentially what Republicans have done. There's nothing more a business would love to become than a monopoly, and their biggest friend is always government, whenever they're on their side.
2. Capitalism is magical, and can solve every economic problem.
REALITY: Not true at all. While Americans are taught to focus only on Cuba and Russia as examples of why socialism is bad, they are not shown very clear examples from South America of how capitalism can also fail. Perhaps that's why Latin American history isn't taught in schools. The local elites in most of those countries, from Mexico to Peru, to Brazil, are quite fond of hoarding most of their country's wealth for themselves were notorious for instigating scores of Communist revolutions, many of which still have movements surviving in Colombia and Peru, possibly elsewhere. If they don't have those movements, they have what Brazil has, masses of armed gangs fighting in the slums. These are the places most of these preppy Republicans mock and talk about when they visit their countries for Spring Break. However, they don't realize that is what America will turn into when Reaganomics runs its course. These places are very capitalist, why are they complete disasters then?
Again, this is probably why we don't learn much about Latin American history in school.
Update:Sure Paulo, I bet our system is mixed, RIGHT.
Let the market go unregulated and it will be an anarchy, a DISASTER. You will probably lose your job very quickly, your business, and your rights and pay. You are exactly who I'm talking about.
Answers & Comments
Verified answer
I call it Reagan mysticism.
There's a lot to be said for capitalism as a means of optimizing distribution in a large scale economic system.
It does need to be regulated, because in an unregulated market the advantages of competition are typically lost in fairly short order, as a few players quickly dominate the market, effectively eliminating the free market and replacing it with a few monopolies.
There is no ideal agent of regulation, but the government is the best available, that being the only public institution in which the general citizenry have any real say.
I'm riding shotgun with the zenmeister. It don't get more truthful than that! The world banking system is a monopoly. In the USA they call themselves the federal reserve. These boys need to be FIRED outright along with their enforcer the IRS & those bogus fed reserve notes. Combust thr CFR next then bring in a gold standard, problem solved.
The invisible hand of competition will do the regulating then.
Good day!
Yes, and very well put, sir/madame. I think much the same; the bottom line is that human beings are lazy, greedy, power-hungry and corrupt. They will remain lazy, greedy, power-hungry and corrupt regardless of the economic system; thus, the most successful system of political economy is that which best takes account and mitigates these tendencies. Such a system must have numerous checks and balances, not only on political power, but on economic power as well.
In my view, that which works best is the reformed American System of regulated capitalism devised by FDR. This distributes power of all sorts throughout the society, thereby compromising the best paradigm yet imagined for ensuring that prosperity is shared with those who produced it, and that no one can profit at the expense of others.
But at any rate, regulation is a must, for it is only by regulation that the honest businessman can profit in the face of system-gamers, corner-cutters, swindlers, and outright crooks. Theoretically, over the long run, the honest people will win out over the dishonest in a system of laissez-faire. However, in reality, we find that the short-run advantages of dishonesty can easily bankrupt the honest people, effectively preventing any real challenge from being brought in the marketplace.
Yes - oddly enough. Even Greenspan who one assumed was sort of smart to keep his office all those years - he turns out to be this Amazing Republican Idiot when he says - "Well, Jez - maybe we DID need bank inspectors and regulators!!!!
Apparently to Republicans it's a big revelation that their friends in the banking business and on Wall Street are a bunch of crooks....
Well.... Republicans are easy to fool!
The freer the market, the smaller the division between rich and poor....
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20...
The free market is not devastating.
Might I present some quotes from the above article:
" Hong Kong and Singapore, as they have for 13 years, rank as the world's two economically freest countries, with freedom scores of 89 and 86 percent free. Rounding out the top 10 most free economies are Australia (83), United States (82), New Zealand (82), United Kingdom (82), Ireland (81), Luxembourg (79), Switzerland (79) and Canada (79).
At the other end of the list are the least free countries. Ranking 157th, North Korea, with a freedom score of 3 percent, is the world's least free country. Ranking 156th is Cuba, 30 percent free, and in ascending order are: Libya (34) Zimbabwe (36), Burma (40), Turkmenistan (42), Congo (43), Iran (43), Angola (43) and Guinea-Bassau (45)."
Correlation is not causation, but the results of economic freedom speak for themselves. Government intervention should be minimal, to prevent monopolies and so forth. Ten examples on each side. Which country would you prefer to live in?
considering the violations of workers rights, environmental laws, and responsible bookkeeping that continue to happen in the current market system a free market would be an orgy of abuse and profit. corporations in this country do not obey the laws we have in this country because they want to. they obey because they have no other choice. businesses aren't moving to places like china because of the weather. they are relocating to those places in order to pay workers next to nothing, pollute without paying any penalties, and basically to get around every cost of being responsible for their actions. china has one labor union that one labor union is controlled by the state. it is useless in actually gaining more rights for workers. while i do not support labor unions making excessive demands, such as those of the autoworker's job banks program, i cannot imagine working 16 hr days with limited bathroom, break, and speaking rights.
a perfect example of the free market in action would be illegal immigrants undercutting legal workers of this country. if you decisions completely to the market many americans would be fired and replaced with illegal immigrants to increase profits and cut down on costs.
A free market is the most efficient way to distribute goods and services and to allocate resources. That being said, it is not always the best way. There are goods and services and resources that should not be subjected to free markets.
A mixed system of socialism and capitalism is what we have now and it is not working very well. We either need to deregulate all industries and let the free market work; or nationalize the banks, health care and other key industries and let socialism fail.
But this hybrid approach is for the birds!
"Capitalism must be well regulated to keep out the bandits" - Teddy Roosevelt
Is the main problem with most Democrats that they believe the Government is ethical, and magical, in a way?