Support NeoGAF

[pigeon]

This seems to be a symptom of the status quo that I believe is more accurately described as:

State Monopoly Capitalism (used by Lenin), Crony Capitalism, Corporatism, or more commonly known as a mixed economy.

See, if I feel like if somebody in this thread posted about "true communism" and how it would definitely work if we tried it, they would get laughed at. I have a similar reaction to you suggesting that the problem is that the current system isn't capitalist enough.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

But you're just describing regulatory capture here, which is itself a fundamental consequence of capitalism.

I don't think its a fundamental consequence of capitalism, how do you get to that assumption? I do see how how it fits into Marx's ideas since I do feel its on a historical continuum with a continual accumulation of wealth in fewer and hands. But I don't think its "capitalistic".

Also Adam Smith seemed to warn against it

The proposal of any new law or regulation which comes from [businessmen], ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it.

The problem I have with Marx is he seemed to miss the fact capitalism could reinvent itself as it did with the New Deal (which I don't think was socialism). He seemed to be the opposite of the randians who see every regulation as socialism and evil with everything not nationalized as being the evil capitalism.

 

[zero shift]

People seem to forget that Marx goes more in hand with Plato than Rand. He was a philosopher not an idealogist.

 

[The Technomancer]

Marx was a very important thinker and he's made one of the largest impacts on economic and political thought. With that being said most of his work is pretty outdated right now. It's still important to read his stuff for perspective though.

Marx thought that his own work was outdated as soon as it was printed, he actually says so in his text. He wanted his ideas to be thought about, not taken as literal instruction necessarily.

 

[Kad5]

See, if I feel like if somebody in this thread posted about "true communism" and how it would definitely work if we tried it, they would get laughed at. I have a similar reaction to you suggesting that the problem is that the current system isn't capitalist enough.

That isn't what i'm even talking about. If you're going to say that the status quo causes vast economic problems that's fine but don't go around blaming it on free markets when it's something we don't even have. At this point i'm not here to even talk about the idea of having an actual free market but rather i'm saying that you're definition of capitalism has nothing to do with a free market. (There is such a thing as a socialist free market btw). If you equate capitalism as an umbrella term for the previous terms I used that's fine but you can't objectively say that free markets have anything to do with it in the same way that someone can't say that communism existed in the soviet union. It's dishonest.

People can easily claim that the rich get richer in society through the use of government help. What do you say about that?

 

[pigeon]

That isn't what i'm even talking about. If you're going to say that the status quo causes vast economic problems that's fine but don't go around blaming it on free markets when it's something we don't even have.

Who did that? I was talking about capitalism the whole time. But I still find your position pretty straightforwardly absurd if it relies on a concept (no-government free market) that's inherently meaningless.

People can easily claim that the rich get richer in society through the use of government help. What do you say about that?

That it's called regulatory capture and I literally just posted about it? And that's why we need strong socialist systems in our government to fight that process?

 

[Kad5]

That it's called regulatory capture and I literally just posted about it? And that's why we need strong socialist systems in our government to fight that process?

Care to humor me on what your ideal socialist system is?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Marx thought that his own work was outdated as soon as it was printed, he actually says so in his text. He wanted his ideas to be thought about, not taken as literal instruction necessarily.

His work in Das Kapital and smaller works I would say are not literal but he literally lists demands in this:

Though he did seems to mature in his later years and move into a more theoretical phase.

 

[zero shift]

^^^ That doesn't go against his point.

 

[pigeon]

Care to humor me on what your ideal socialist system is?

Well, "ideal" is a tricky word. I'm more interested in how we can modify our existing systems towards a socialist goal. As I posted before in this thread, I think I'd start by guaranteeing a basic support level of income for everybody, to allow them to make decisions without coercion. Increasing taxes like high income taxes and capital gains also help to level the playing field and reduce the risk of regulatory capture. From there we can build outwards. I suppose in the long term I'd like to make available to the public the great levels of post-scarcity economics that are currently present, and keep pace with development.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I'm not opposed to a minimum income system myself, but I find that then the justifications for high taxes as a method for economic engineering (as opposed to simply raising revenue) becomes incredibly tenuous.

 

[The Technomancer]

I'm not opposed to a minimum income system myself, but I find that then the justifications for high taxes as a method for economic engineering (as opposed to simply raising revenue) becomes incredibly tenuous.

My justification for increased taxes is that wealth does not exist in a vacuum and is intrinsically power, and that society has a vested interest in monitoring the amount of power any one individual can hold. Where do you disagree?

 

[CyclopsRock]

My justification for increased taxes is that wealth does not exist in a vacuum and is intrinsically power, and that society has a vested interest in monitoring the amount of power any one individual can hold. Where do you disagree?

Well,firstly I explicitly said income tax, not tax generally. We tend to acknowledge that sin taxes discourage consumption of this items, and I think there are better things to disincentivise than employment. But also your basis for higher actual taxes was justified by your desire to monitor wealth. Monitoring and doing aren't the same thing.

 

[pigeon]

For you, Kad5, from Matt Yglesias:

Crack open a really banal mainstream neoclassical economics textbook and you'll learn that free market solutions are generally the efficient ones (i.e., they create the biggest economic pie regardless of distribution) with a few minor exceptions:

— The air pollution impacts of modern electrical power generation, industrial activity, and transportation can't be efficiently bargained away because the transaction costs are way too high.
— So-called "public goods" like basic scientific research or musical recordings will be underproduced absent some combination of state subsidy and state-created intellectual property monopolies.
— Basic infrastructure (roads, electrical lines, sewers) won't be provided properly without some eminent domain and they won't be priced correctly due to the monopolistic nature of the market.
— Absent deposit insurance and regulation, banks will be subject to runs and economically destructive panics.
— Without a central bank minding the store properly, the entire macroeconomy will fall into periodic recessions lasting months or years.

Obviously there's lots of other stuff people disagree about—health care and education, importantly—but this is the banal core. Unfettered markets are fine except for activities that might involve the transportation or production of goods, the production or transmission of electricity or scientific knowledge, or access to the financial system. So actually when you think about it, that's basically everything. The basic economic foundations of industrial capitalism as we've known them for the past 150 years or so have an activist state at their core. Building political institutions capable of doing these things properly is really difficult, and one of the main things that separates more prosperous places from less prosperous ones is that the more prosperous places have done a better job of building said institutions. There's also the minor matter of creating effective and non-corrupt law enforcement and judicial agencies that can protect people's property rights and enforce contracts.

The point is, it takes an awful lot of politics to get an advanced capitalist economy up and running and generating wealth. A lot of active political decisions need to be made to grow that pie. So why would you want to do all that? Presumably because pie is delicious. But if you build a bunch of political institutions with the intention of creating large quantities of pie, it's obviously important that people actually get their hands on some pie. In other words, you go through the trouble of creating advanced industrial capitalism because that's a good way to create a lot of goods and services. But the creation of goods and services would be pointless unless it served the larger cause of human welfare. Collecting taxes and giving stuff to people is every bit as much a part of advancing that cause as creating the set of institutions that allows for the wealth-creation in the first place.

The specifics of how best to do this all are (to say the least) contentious and not amenable to resolution by blog-length noodling. But the intuition that there's some coherent account of what the "market distribution" would be absent public policy is mistaken. You have policy choices all the way down.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/03/30/myth_of_ownership_and_the_distribution_of_income.html

Emphasis mine.

 

[empty vessel]

I think Yglesias put that well. It's a point I often try to make, which is that economies serve people, not vice versa. We use capitalism as a mode of production because the society has decided (rightly or wrongly) that doing so is in the best interest of the whole. And because society sets up the system to produce a specific and presumably equitable objective, there is nothing remotely wrong, immoral, or violative about making adjustments to outcomes, since, after all, it is particular outcomes--not processes--that are sought to be achieved in the first place.

This is why I have no qualms at all about taxing extremely high incomes at extremely high rates. Those incomes were obtained pursuant to a social system set up to attain a particular social outcome thought fair and just. When, for whatever reason, that equitable outcome isn't produced by the social system put in place, we certainly have the prerogative to produce it more directly, as through taxation. In fact, taxation's usefulness for directly accomplishing social outcomes is precisely why it is such a huge target of the right, which wants individuals to be dependent upon capital (and the relatively small pool of individuals who possess it) rather than themselves collectively.

 

[Kad5]

For you, Kad5, from Matt Yglesias:



http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/03/30/myth_of_ownership_and_the_distribution_of_income.html

Emphasis mine.

"Without a central bank minding the store properly, the entire macroeconomy will fall into periodic recessions lasting months or years."

How's that working out with a central bank so far?

"Unfettered markets are fine except for activities that might involve the transportation or production of goods, the production or transmission of electricity or scientific knowledge, or access to the financial system."


Right...because we all know that without government no one could figure out how to transport the goods they produce, but they'll become super rich anyway.

 

[pigeon]

"Without a central bank minding the store properly, the entire macroeconomy will fall into periodic recessions lasting months or years."

How's that working out with a central bank so far?

Is this really your whole response? Central banks can't act at the zero lower bound. That doesn't mean they're useless! What are you suggesting a nonexistent central bank would have not done better?

"Unfettered markets are fine except for activities that might involve the transportation or production of goods, the production or transmission of electricity or scientific knowledge, or access to the financial system."

Right...because we all know that without government no one could figure out how to transport the goods they produce, but they'll become super rich anyway.

If you're not going to read and understand the points being made, why reply to them?

 

[Kad5]

Is this really your whole response? Central banks can't act at the zero lower bound. That doesn't mean they're useless! What are you suggesting a nonexistent central bank would have not done better?

Personally i'm a fan of the idea of Free Banking.

If you're not going to read and understand the points being made, why reply to them?

What makes you think that I don't understand the point?

The article claims that things like roads and banking cannot be accomplished without government so because of that we need a strong centralized government that should be supported.

I mean just look at our banking system. Heck even some of ours roads are in terrible quality. Are you seriously using roads as an appeal for a strong central government?

Also, in response to your other post i'm actually open to the idea of a basic income so i'm not completely against that.

 

[daviyoung]

I mean just look at our banking system. Heck even some of ours roads are in terrible quality. Are you seriously using roads as an appeal for a strong central government?

Public amenities should be publicly funded, publicly owned and held publicly accountable. At the moment, they're not, which is why your banking system and roads are shit.

 

[Kad5]

Public amenities should be publicly funded, publicly owned and held publicly accountable. At the moment, they're not, which is why your banking system and roads are shit.

^So you think the central bank should be held more accountable to the government then? Either congress or the white house I take it?

I'm not convinced that will help things too much considering the issue of regulatory capture in our plutarchal system..

 

[RJT]

Personally i'm a fan of the idea of Free Banking.

Seriously? You want to devolve into basically a barter economy? Congratulations, you made Bitcoins sound reasonable...

 

[daviyoung]

^So you think the central bank should be held more accountable to the government then? Either congress or the white house I take it?

I'm not convinced that will help things too much considering the issue of regulatory capture in our plutarchal system..

Considering the US banks are so deeply entwined in the pockets of capitalists and privateers I wouldn't want to suggest anything other than a revolution.

 

[Kad5]

Considering the US banks are so deeply entwined in the pockets of capitalists and privateers I wouldn't want to suggest anything other than a revolution.

^I can agree with you on that.


Also, @RJT: Free banking systems have worked just fine when historically done.

 

[pigeon]

Personally i'm a fan of the idea of Free Banking.

Yes, Kad, I know you are, because of multiple posts by you that go just like this -- uninformed critique of a government institution, followed by an unadorned link to a page that's part of a Wikipedia series on Libertarianism. If you want people to take you seriously, you need to come up with a better response than "we're in a recession, therefore central banks are useless." If you don't want people to take you seriously, keep it up.

What makes you think that I don't understand the point?

Well, I read your comment, and I attempted to construct a theory of mind that predicted that you would understand the point and still make the posts you did, and I failed, and then I attempted to construct another theory of mind that predicted that made those posts because you completely misunderstood the entire piece, and everything fell into place.

The article claims that things like roads and banking cannot be accomplished without government so because of that we need a strong centralized government that should be supported.

Technically, the article doesn't claim this, it offers specific arguments as to why it's the case, and points out that even a basic understanding of macroeconomics would already have taught this to you.

I mean just look at our banking system. Heck even some of ours roads are in terrible quality. Are you seriously using roads as an appeal for a strong central government?

This just isn't a meaningful response. "Some roads are bad?" Really? If you want to suggest that a decentralized government would build roads better, you must explain how a decentralized government would deal with targeted land scarcity and monopolistic issues more effectively when creating a transportation system.

But maybe you could do that in your own thread. Have you considered starting a thread for talking about libertarianism? Or have you tried that already?

 

[Kad5]

Yes, Kad, I know you are, because of multiple posts by you that go just like this -- uninformed critique of a government institution, followed by an unadorned link to a page that's part of a Wikipedia series on Libertarianism. If you want people to take you seriously, you need to come up with a better response than "we're in a recession, therefore central banks are useless." If you don't want people to take you seriously, keep it up.

Ok so why exactly are you against Free Banking and in favor of a monetary monopoly? It's worked just fine in America and Sweden.

 

[daviyoung]

Ok so why exactly are you against Free Banking and in favor of a monetary monopoly? It's worked just fine in America and Sweden.

yes, over a hundred years ago, for very short periods of time

 

[Kad5]

yes, over a hundred years ago, for very short periods of time

1863-1913 is a short period of time?

Sweden had free banking from 1830-1850 and then 1860-1902.

 

[daviyoung]

1863-1913 is a short period of time?

relatively speaking yes

I don't even know why I'm humouring you tbh

 

[Kad5]

relatively speaking yes

I don't even know why I'm humouring you tbh

Well can you at least explain your appeal for a monetary monopoly? You don't have to make things personal it's just a discussion. Is there something wrong with me being involved with a discussion?

 

[Wazzim]

Something about private banks being able to have unlimited monetary powers and making the rest of society their slaves.

 

[CyclopsRock]

The UK government has gone about the largest money-printing exercise, as a percentage of GDP, of any industrialised nation during this crises. We've printed around $650bn. Our inflation has also been over its 2% target for the last 39 months whilst keeping its interest at a historical low of 0.5%. In essence, money has been taken from savers and bank account holders at a rate that makes the originally mooted rates in Cyprus look like a honeymoon, given the discrepancy between inflation and interest rates due to the activity of the central bank. This is at the same time as inflation has been 3x higher than than the increase in wages for the better part of half a decade. There is a big limit to the ability of a central bank to mitigate recessions before the results of its activities are worse than the problems it's attempting to fix.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

inb4 iron law

 

[RJT]

1863-1913 is a short period of time?

Sweden had free banking from 1830-1850 and then 1860-1902.

So in the beginning of the 20th century the banking system worked well? Sure, let's depend on wealthy individuals instead of governments to avoid bank runs...

 

[Kad5]

So in the beginning of the 20th century the banking system worked well? Sure, let's depend on wealthy individuals instead of governments to avoid bank runs...

Our government is run by wealthy individuals.


The argument I keep hearing literally sounds like: We have to prevent a small group of powerful people from controlling society so let's make a monopoly consisting of a small group of powerful people to run things.

 

[pigeon]

Our government is run by wealthy individuals.

Which is why campaign finance reform and higher wealth taxes are critical elements in creating a socialist system.

The argument I keep hearing literally sounds like: We have to prevent a small group of powerful people from controlling society so let's make a monopoly consisting of a small group of powerful people to run things.

To be specific, we need to alter the selection process away from a self-reinforcing system where people with power are more likely to get more power towards a system which itself attempts to limit the unrestricted growth of power.

If your argument is really that you're against government in general, could you maybe go to another thread and stop shitting up this one?

 

[RJT]

Our government is run by wealthy individuals.


The argument I keep hearing literally sounds like: We have to prevent a small group of powerful people from controlling society so let's make a monopoly consisting of a small group of powerful people to run things.

So let's fix the real problem: democracy isn't working.

 

[empty vessel]

1863-1913 is a short period of time?

Wait, you are arguing that the US model of banking between 1863 and 1913 was good? This was a notoriously economically volatile period in US history. Bank runs do not optimize economic activity.

 

[Kad5]

Wait, you are arguing that the US model of banking between 1863 and 1913 was good? This was a notoriously economically volatile period in US history. Bank runs do not optimize economic activity.

Upon further reading on the Free Banking article I linked earlier it turns out that wasn't a good example of Free Banking considering that the banking system was dominated by National Banks.

According to the same article however when Sweden tried Free Banking there was only one bank that went bankrupt for 70 years and that was because of fraud instead of excessive lending.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Shit, they figured us out guys.

 

[daviyoung]

US political spectrum produces a completely different rainbow to the rest of the world.

 

[LuffyZoro]

Shit, they figured us out guys.

I didn't realize Bush was a progressive.

 

[dutchguyjack]

Relevant - the horrors of socialism: http://www.it.ca/~paul/collection/flv/TheDailyShow-TheStockholmSyndrome.html

Having lived in several countries over the course of my life, including Sweden, I can say that I've become a big supporter of the Nordic socialist model, and I believe it's something we as a society should strive for.

 

[Jimothy]

Shit, they figured us out guys.

Classic Felton.

I never knew Hitler was a leftist.

 

[Angry Fork]

Relevant - the horrors of socialism: http://www.it.ca/~paul/collection/flv/TheDailyShow-TheStockholmSyndrome.html

Having lived in several countries over the course of my life, including Sweden, I can say that I've become a big supporter of the Nordic socialist model, and I believe it's something we as a society should strive for.

The cribs camera angles/zoom ins on the swedish pop star's bed lol.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Classic Felton.

I never knew Hitler was a leftist.

National SOCIALIST, duh!!!

I once saw someone say that Obama is the biggest Nazi threat to America since FDR.

 

[phaze]

Classic Felton.

I never knew Hitler was a leftist.

Economically he was though, I'm fairly sure.

I can understand why Kennedy is in the top for them but why Truman ? And why Bush as progressive?

 

[makingmusic476]

It's been drilled into the public mindset that socialism = authoritarianism because of decades of "Freedom WILL Conquer Communism!" propaganda, when in reality the fight was capitalism vs communism, which is why the US Government supported many, many dictators across Latin American and the Middle-east simply because their economies were capitalist and they were opposed to Communism.

The more I read about the Cuban model and the early Soviet model, the more I think they would've worked very well had the party not begun nominating candidates in place of the people and had the party not begun "reeducating" those of a differing political visions.

And had the US not enacted embargoes on Cuba, etc.

I was watching something last night (think it was Bill Maher, that annoying but occasionally on point schmuck) in which somebody pointed out that the US would embargo a nation like Cuba for "authoritarianism" but would trade openly with countries like Saudi Arabia, despite the latter being similarly oppressive, if not far more oppressive re: women, the disabled, homosexuals, and other groups.

 

[Acorn]

Economically he was though, I'm fairly sure.

I can understand why Kennedy is in the top for them but why Truman ? And why Bush as progressive?

No he wasn't, he spent his money on Military causes. Not on stimulating the economy, although obviously war and war building did create a huge demand for employment.

This isn't really the case as much anymore as with the advent of automated production lines etc etc there is not as much need to vast employment to support a war effort.

The only way you can say he was economic socialist is if you subscribe to the view that war mongering is an inherent trait of socialism (Due to people believing that Stalin et al were socialist, when the system was much closer to crony capitalism).

 

[Karakand]

Shit, they figured us out guys.

I like the equating of Adolf Hitler with tribal governance and a pre-Christian healer profession/position.

 

[zero shift]

National SOCIALIST, duh!!!

I once saw someone say that Obama is the biggest Nazi threat to America since FDR.

Its funny because Hitler himself stated that he only added the word "Socialist" to his parties name to gain attention of voters. Same reason why he added the color red. He knew there was nothing socialist about his party. He hated socialism actually. Though he hate capitalism as well. Hitler was a centrist economic wise. He had a lot more in common with FDR than Mussolini or Stalin on the economic front.

Economically he was though, I'm fairly sure.

No he wasn't at all. He was the purely a centrist, and for time time definitely practiced more toward the right wing. He was actually more pro-market than most European countries. I believe only America, Portugal, Spain, and Italy were more right wing in economics than he was.

I like the equating of Adolf Hitler with tribal governance and a pre-Christian healer profession/position.

Mussolini is even funnier. He even called his model "Corporatism".

It's been drilled into the public mindset that socialism = authoritarianism because of decades of "Freedom WILL Conquer Communism!" propaganda, when in reality the fight was capitalism vs communism, which is why the US Government supported many, many dictators across Latin American and the Middle-east simply because their economies were capitalist and they were opposed to Communism.

You even see this today. Look how much shit Venezuela gets despite having more free press than many surrounding nations (Colombia, Honduras) and being more free than it was prior to Chavez (with someone who would regularly kill protestors). Or how Cuba is painted as North Korea when China and Turkmekistan (regular trade partner with the latter practically being an ally) are worse in nearly every respect.