Right-Wing Dogma Has Had Its Day - Unemployment Trends Are An Example Of How Economic Orthodoxy

[interestrateripoff]

two Wolves I totally agree with you. I'm so sick of hearing we need more market intervention, more taxes, more borrowing, more regulation & more money printing.

People seem to have called a day on capitalism without understanding that they have never really had it to begin with, and how could capitalism possibly fail if it wasn't there in the first place??

Every market in our current economy is regulated to the hilt. The economy is now directed by government by a massive degree. One only needs to look at the Smithonian institute to find that the government now make up somthing like 40% of all economic activity. People need to understand that this is a massive percentage and is a blot against the capitlist system itself and against our personal freedoms too.

I have no problem trying capitalism first and seeing if it works, but i'm am not prepared to give up on it when I see government spending my money on propping up bankcrupt banking conglomerates. I am not prepared to call a day on capitalism when I pay total taxes of 50% like a surf from some bygone era so the goverment can give it to 'too bif to fail' manufacturing companies. I am not prepared to call a day on capitalism when I see left wing idiots tumpeting 'save the world' bull. and then bankers and politicians calling carbon dioxide a poisen and waking a 20% tax onto my electricity bill for it. Our monetary system has been hijacked, our incomes robbed and whatever market left is being regulated out of existence.

The right wing - if you mean capitalism - has not existed in a very long time man. You hit the nail head

I think free market capitalism has a problem it will immediately create winners and losers, the winners will do all they can to preserve there advantage.

The winners will abuse there position because they will have wealth, with wealth they will discover they have power. This they will abuse for their own benefit and start creating distorts in the market mechanism. Some will risk all and lose but some will get even more powerful and wealthy, the system will start to become unstable and collapse. People will say this won't happen again lets try again, but then some people will get wealthy and gain power they will then seek to keep the advantage to them at all costs.

To be honest political systems will evolve to try and counteract the accumulation of power via wealth. Just like now this will be subverted by big corporations / rich people and of course the political elite will see how they can prosper.

Nothing can ever stop this from happening no matter what you do I think it's part of how humans act its in our nature.

[Tired of Waiting]

Communist dictatorship are the result of taking socialism to it's logical conclusion, just as Somalia is the result of taking anarchism to its logical conclusion.

Where 'mixed economies' have been adopted the result is usually high taxation, excessive government interference, over regulation and a poverty problem that never gets resolved. Just look at New Labour, their aim (I believe) was to make this country fairer but they ultimately lost their way ended up swamping us with beaurocracy and hailing rising house prices as some sort of economic miracle.

You cannot have a central force dictating the entire economy, the evidence says that it never works.

+ 1

Even developed western social democracies (even Sweden) struggle with the problem of the providers of public services (the state bureaucracies) taking the lion's share, to the cost of the recipients of these services: the people in general. The public sector is much less "customer oriented" than the private sector (forced to be, otherwise it is exterminated by its competition).

[sj032]

I'm sure last time I looked there was a 2.5% climate change levy on my gas or electricity bills. +5% VAT

You're right, of course. But as is usually the case with taxation, what starts out as 5% has a way of steadily rising. I believe at some point even the top income tax rate was 10%. Imagine that eh

I think it's the point which i am trying to get across. The point is that im paying a tax on energy with no real scientific support backing it up. The larger point then of course is should it be in a government's remit to do this?? Me thinks not

[sj032]

Funny that many socialists (reasonably) argue that socialisim never failed because it was never implemented properly, while capitalists (reasonably) argue that capitalism never failed because it was never implemented properly either.

I simply cannot agree and see nothing 'funny' in the comparison.

Looking through history, I can clearly draw your attention to a number of periods or societies where capitalism was allowed more leeway than it is today. Generally capitalist economies usually also bring a heavy dose of personal freedom too. During these periods prosperity has increased to the benefit of peoples and governments alike.

I ask you sir to consider if such examples exist regarding socialism. Socialism is the road to serfdom sir, and if you belive that you can reasonably agrue a case for such evils I wish you the greatest luck

[interestrateripoff]

I simply cannot agree and see nothing 'funny' in the comparison.

Looking through history, I can clearly draw your attention to a number of periods or societies where capitalism was allowed more leeway than it is today. Generally capitalist economies usually also bring a heavy dose of personal freedom too. During these periods prosperity has increased to the benefit of peoples and governments alike.

I ask you sir to consider if such examples exist regarding socialism. Socialism is the road to serfdom sir, and if you belive that you can reasonably agrue a case for such evils I wish you the greatest luck

In recent history the most capitalist country was the UK during the early part of the 19th century. Dickens has some quite good commentary on how well it was working.

The great stink is an excellent example of how capitalism worked or rather didn't same with the Cholera epidemics of the time, the poor died the rich didn't care until of course the rich started dying then something had to be done.

Edited September 6, 2010 by interestrateripoff

[sj032]

I think free market capitalism has a problem it will immediately create winners and losers, the winners will do all they can to preserve there advantage.

The winners will abuse there position because they will have wealth, with wealth they will discover they have power. This they will abuse for their own benefit and start creating distorts in the market mechanism. Some will risk all and lose but some will get even more powerful and wealthy, the system will start to become unstable and collapse. People will say this won't happen again lets try again, but then some people will get wealthy and gain power they will then seek to keep the advantage to them at all costs.

To be honest political systems will evolve to try and counteract the accumulation of power via wealth. Just like now this will be subverted by big corporations / rich people and of course the political elite will see how they can prosper.

Nothing can ever stop this from happening no matter what you do I think it's part of how humans act its in our nature.

I agree on the whole. I would like to make a few points though.

To a very large degree I think you are correct when you say that power elites will attack the system from the inside to maintain their situation once attained. Indeed, I think the massive amounts or regulation we have presently are in one form or another protecting certain firms and industries from further comprtition.

But this darwinistic thread of human nature should not make us believe that capitalism is the wrong answer. I few years ago I read an economist called Hayek and he puts it something along the line of: At least with capitalism we get to choose. Many will be poor, a few rich, but the biggest player in the room is chance, the Dice. A few will make the leap from poor to rich, a few from rich to poor, but the system decides, not man. This is not so in socialism. In socialism, you may want to be a nurse, but if the nurse quota is full you will be a teacher. End of conversation. The politically connected will reap the rewards of the system. Government has ousted the dice, neccesity ousted individual ambition.

He makes a very good argument for capitalism i believe. The book is called road to serfdom by Hayek. I recommend it

To get back to your point though, even with these evils, I think capitalism is something to strive for. I very much doubt we will ever get all the way, but as Rothbard puts it, all of history may be viewed as a struggle between government statism and individual freedom.

Edited September 6, 2010 by sj032

[campervanman]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/sep/06/employment-core-economic-recovery

What the article fails to pick up on is the effect of globalisation on the job market with a lot of jobs simply moving to countries with lower wages. For countries like the US/UK once these jobs go then the more likely replacement for these jobs will be low paid jobs which are at high risk of being cut under economic stress.

Germany which is cited as an example of strong union bargaining has a manufacturing base which it's economy is built around, both the US and UK have service / consumer led economies. The structural differences appear to be ignored in article to reinforce the narrative being stated. I suggest it's more complex than the analysis here.

For the past 20 years jobs have been exported and now it appears that we are reaping the rewards of our own demise.

Any pholosophy that is based upon the premise that only by paid employment can the means of supporting oneself be achieved is doomed, unless there are strong controls that ensure that hours and wages are paid at a level that is compatable with providing the means (food,shelter and clothing) for a reasonable existence. Failure to achieve this on a global scale will inevitably lead to lower living standards for the masses whilst a small minority continue to stash away the wealth and buy up the worlds resources. The UK has gone down the deregulated labour market for 30 years and the result has hardly been a success for the majority.

[sj032]

In recent history the most capitalist country was the UK during the early part of the 19th century. Dickens has some quite good commentary on how well it was working.

The great stink is an excellent example of how capitalism worked or rather didn't same with the Cholera epidemics of the time, the poor died the rich didn't care until of course the rich started dying then something had to be done.

Early 19th Century England saw one of the greatest economic boom times that England has ever seen, displaying growth rates that present governments would give their right arm for; It saw the first reform acts go through parliament giving, not all, but certainly more people the right to representation. You quote Dickens sir and, being a huge fan of his myself, I can only say this. For all his great writings, Dickens was no economist. If you wish to get a feel for the economic reality of the era and understand the radical improvements which were occuring in England at the time, I would direct to the work of John Stuat Mill that can be found at the liberty library web site. It's 33 volumes long so do bring a snack

No one ever said capitalism is utopia, im just saying that it's the best we've got.

Edited September 6, 2010 by sj032

[sj032]

Any pholosophy that is based upon the premise that only by paid employment can the means of supporting oneself be achieved is doomed, unless there are strong controls that ensure that hours and wages are paid at a level that is compatable with providing the means (food,shelter and clothing) for a reasonable existence. Failure to achieve this on a global scale will inevitably lead to lower living standards for the masses whilst a small minority continue to stash away the wealth and buy up the worlds resources. The UK has gone down the deregulated labour market for 30 years and the result has hardly been a success for the majority.

I'll have some of what he's smoking please

[dissident junk]

Communist dictatorship are the result of taking socialism to it's logical conclusion, just as Somalia is the result of taking anarchism to its logical conclusion.

Shouldn't that be "tribalism" in Somalia's case? I don't think you can argue anarchism for Somalia, what you have there is competing tribal groupings where one or more desire complete authoritarianism with them at the helm.

]In contrast, in Germany and Norway – two countries that have strong trade unions and long traditions of collective bargaining – the unemployment rate barely budged.

This is hilarious. Honestly, who writes this rubbish in the G? I know, lets compare the rest of the developed world with an industrial powerhouse with legacy that's rogered a load of countries through a dodgy currency pact and an oil-rich state with sovereign wealth funds, just to get away with making a point about "neoliberalism" and hope no one will as no one will notice.

For heaven's sake. Why do they do this? There are so many fascinating articles to be written about this crisis, many that could include onslaughts against the economic doctrine of the last thirty years, but, instead, they insist on writing this garbage.

[LiveAndLetBuy]

I simply cannot agree and see nothing 'funny' in the comparison.

Looking through history, I can clearly draw your attention to a number of periods or societies where capitalism was allowed more leeway than it is today. Generally capitalist economies usually also bring a heavy dose of personal freedom too. During these periods prosperity has increased to the benefit of peoples and governments alike.

I ask you sir to consider if such examples exist regarding socialism. Socialism is the road to serfdom sir, and if you belive that you can reasonably agrue a case for such evils I wish you the greatest luck

Here is what I wrote:

Funny that many socialists (reasonably) argue that socialisim never failed because it was never implemented properly, while capitalists (reasonably) argue that capitalism never failed because it was never implemented properly either.

I really cannot see how you jumped to the conclusion that I was supporting socialism.

The point I was trying to make is that those who defend socialism or capitalism by saying that it hasn't properly been implemented must ask themselves which form of socialism or capitalism are they proposing, and why hasn't anyone been able to implement it.

These days most capitalists accept that capitalism must be regulated to an extent while most socialists (apart from the French maybe) accept that nationalising everything in sight ultimately removes people's liberties. So they accept elements of each other's theory, but at the same time they assume that the other one hasn't: socialists like to see capitalists as people who want to run privately owned sweat shops while capitalists like to see socialists as people who want to run state owned sweat shops.

[mightytharg]

Where has socialism been adopted with horrific consequences?

United Kingdom under Blair and Brown?

Ha ha ha. Have fun paying back that debt.

[Sourman]

The winners will abuse there position because they will have wealth, with wealth they will discover they have power. This they will abuse for their own benefit and start creating distorts in the market mechanism. Some will risk all and lose but some will get even more powerful and wealthy, the system will start to become unstable and collapse. People will say this won't happen again lets try again, but then some people will get wealthy and gain power they will then seek to keep the advantage to them at all costs.

That's as good a summary of what has happened over the past 20 years as I've seen.

[Authoritarian]

Shouldn't that be "tribalism" in Somalia's case? I don't think you can argue anarchism for Somalia, what you have there is competing tribal groupings where one or more desire complete authoritarianism with them at the helm.

Yes, I was going to say something along these lines but wanted to avoid the land issue (my favourite topic).

As you've pulled me up on it, tribalism is the logical outcome of anarchism imo because it fills the power vacuum that the state leaves behind. The most basic function of the state is to uphold private property, particularly real estate. Without this malevolent force arbitrarily dividing up plots of the earth for citizens all claims to land ownership suddenly become equal again, which is a highly unstable environment. The vulnerability of individuals incentivises warlords and gangster types to use their force to establish a new claim over territory and install themselves as rent collectors. In return they provide a form of stability, but this is only because they want to protect their investment.

Anarchism will never be a workable solution all the time the nation's rents are up for grabs, everyone will seek to privatise them because it's the easist way of making a living without engaging in the tedium of production. (which is why people go nuts over 'housing' every 18 years, it's little to do with the house and everything to do with ensuring your piece of the free pie)

Edited September 6, 2010 by Chef

[Britney's Piers]

I think free market capitalism has a problem it will immediately create winners and losers, the winners will do all they can to preserve there advantage.

The winners will abuse there position because they will have wealth, with wealth they will discover they have power. This they will abuse for their own benefit and start creating distorts in the market mechanism. Some will risk all and lose but some will get even more powerful and wealthy, the system will start to become unstable and collapse. People will say this won't happen again lets try again, but then some people will get wealthy and gain power they will then seek to keep the advantage to them at all costs.

To be honest political systems will evolve to try and counteract the accumulation of power via wealth. Just like now this will be subverted by big corporations / rich people and of course the political elite will see how they can prosper.

Nothing can ever stop this from happening no matter what you do I think it's part of how humans act its in our nature.

Yes, this is my thinking as well. In the end though the result is that they cannot hold back the tide forever, and we get a system collapse as is happening now, leading to a shrinking or failure of the state, and the game begins again. It only takes a minority of people to "betray" the rules of the game, for it to snowball.

Nature is made up of cycles, so cycles in economics will exist too. This is why I don't believe there is any "end to history" like Marx believed, or many others believe, where one system will be cemented in time forever.

The history of USA from its inception to the present time shows one complete cycle very clearly.

Edited September 6, 2010 by Britney's Piers

[dissident junk]

Yes, I was going to say something along these lines but wanted to avoid the land issue (my favourite topic).

As you've pulled me up on it, tribalism is the logical outcome of anarchism imo because it fills the power vacuum that the state leaves behind. The most basic function of the state is to uphold private property, particularly real estate. Without this malevolent force arbitrarily dividing up plots of the earth for citizens all claims to land ownership suddenly become equal again, which is a highly unstable environment. The vulnerability of individuals incentivises warlords and gangster types to use their force to establish a new claim over territory and install themselves as rent collectors. In return they provide of form of stability, but this is only because they want to protect their investment.

Anarchism will never be a workable solution all the time the nation's rents are up for grabs, everyone will seek to privatise them because it's the easist way of making a living without engaging in the tedium of production. (which is why people go nuts over 'housing' every 18 years, it's little to do with the house and everything to do with ensuring your piece of the free pie)

So ... in your view, anarchism only works if there is no-one else around?

'Tis a very good point. A very good point indeed.

[Britney's Piers]

As you've pulled me up on it, tribalism is the logical outcome of anarchism imo because it fills the power vacuum that the state leaves behind. The most basic function of the state is to uphold private property, particularly real estate. Without this malevolent force arbitrarily dividing up plots of the earth for citizens all claims to land ownership suddenly become equal again, which is a highly unstable environment. The vulnerability of individuals incentivises warlords and gangster types to use their force to establish a new claim over territory and install themselves as rent collectors. In return they provide a form of stability, but this is only because they want to protect their investment.

"If justice be disregarded, what are states but large bandit bands, and what are bandit bands but small states? ... Indeed, that was an apt and true reply which was given to Alexander the Great by a pirate who had been seized. For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, 'What you mean by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, while you who does it with a great fleet are styled emperor.'"

- St. Augustine

Apt, because there literally are pirates in Somalia now.

Edited September 6, 2010 by Britney's Piers

[MarkG]

The most basic function of the state is to uphold private property, particularly real estate.

Then the state in the real world is a dismal failure, because it spends most of its time stealing other people's property to feed its insatiable appetites.

The vulnerability of individuals incentivises warlords and gangster types to use their force to establish a new claim over territory and install themselves as rent collectors.

Exactly how 'vulnerable' to gangsters do you think I would be with a hydrogen bomb in my basement?

The power of modern weaponry has reached the point where gangsterism is only possible so long as the gangsters can keep their victims disarmed. Gangsters faced with a nuclear-armed population may be able to kill some, but they couldn't enslave them.

[Britney's Piers]

Then the state in the real world is a dismal failure, because it spends most of its time stealing other people's property to feed its insatiable appetites.

Exactly how 'vulnerable' to gangsters do you think I would be with a hydrogen bomb in my basement?

The power of modern weaponry has reached the point where gangsterism is only possible so long as the gangsters can keep their victims disarmed. Gangsters faced with a nuclear-armed population may be able to kill some, but they couldn't enslave them.

You couldn't be in your basement 24 hours a day though, you'd have to sleep, go out, etc. So you'd have to band together with your street or neighbourhood to take shifts looking after each others property. Some may be more skilled than others in defense and other would be willing to pay them full time for defending the street, giving themselves more free time to focus on other things. Maybe a few neighbourhoods get together etc. etc. until we have tribes.

Edited September 6, 2010 by Britney's Piers

[Authoritarian]

Then the state in the real world is a dismal failure, because it spends most of its time stealing other people's property to feed its insatiable appetites.

The state steals people's personal property because it refuses use the nation's surplus income (land rents) to fund itself.

Exactly how 'vulnerable' to gangsters do you think I would be with a hydrogen bomb in my basement?

The power of modern weaponry has reached the point where gangsterism is only possible so long as the gangsters can keep their victims disarmed. Gangsters faced with a nuclear-armed population may be able to kill some, but they couldn't enslave them.

This is the argument that's set out in the American constitution and it's failed dismally in practice. Yes citizens have the right to bear arms but they would easily be overwhelmed by the state's superior fire power if it came to the crunch. The same thing could happen anywhere else as those in charge clamped down upon the privilege of gun ownership.

Edited September 6, 2010 by Chef

[MarkG]

You couldn't be in your basement 24 hours a day though, you'd have to sleep, go out, etc. So you'd have to band together with your street or neighbourhood to take shifts looking after each others property. Some may be more skilled than others in defense and other would be willing to pay them full time for defending the street, giving themselves more free time to focus on other things. Maybe a few neighbourhoods get together etc. etc. until we have tribes.

Again, you're still thinking of gangs of monkeys attacking either other with pointy sticks. Even though we're living in the 21st century.

If I had a hydrogen bomb in my basement, why would I need any help to defend myself? If I'm captured or killed by gangsters, it explodes, and everything within a few miles is history... that's a very strong incentive for gangsters to stay the hell away; perhaps they can kill me, but they can't enslave me, and even if they survive the blast then everything I own will be vapor.

[wonderpup]

What all those arguing for free markets to run the world don't get is that nobody really wants a free market- we all want a market rigged in our favour- that's reality.

Free markets left to themselves will always self destruct for the simple reason that they do actually work- they do allow wealth to be created and accumulated- and that's the problem. Because this wealth can then be used to subvert the free market- so the market creates the agents of it's own corruption.

To believe that free markets and socialism are in opposition is simplistic- in reality each needs the other- the socialists need the wealth creation the markets deliver, while the capitalists need the 'referee' that only the state can provide.

The idea that a capitalist is someone who loves the free market is laughable- capitalists hate the free market- what they desire is a monopoly, not a level playing field from which competitors can emerge. The instinct of any sufficiently large enterprise is to subvert the market place in order to eliminate threats to it's position.

To say that the referees are often corrupt and ineffectual is true, but fails to point out the reason- it's because all those 'freedom loving' capitalists are doing their level best to rig the market in their favour by corrupting the system.

[Kootenai Brown]

I'm sure last time I looked there was a 2.5% climate change levy on my gas or electricity bills. +5% VAT

Haw Haw!

Are you sure this includes and in future will include the current cost of massive investment in super inefficient wind turbines, etc? The cost of carbon credits alone is going to roger us sensless.

[Kootenai Brown]

What all those arguing for free markets to run the world don't get is that nobody really wants a free market- we all want a market rigged in our favour- that's reality.

Free markets left to themselves will always self destruct for the simple reason that they do actually work- they do allow wealth to be created and accumulated- and that's the problem. Because this wealth can then be used to subvert the free market- so the market creates the agents of it's own corruption.

To believe that free markets and socialism are in opposition is simplistic- in reality each needs the other- the socialists need the wealth creation the markets deliver, while the capitalists need the 'referee' that only the state can provide.

The idea that a capitalist is someone who loves the free market is laughable- capitalists hate the free market- what they desire is a monopoly, not a level playing field from which competitors can emerge. The instinct of any sufficiently large enterprise is to subvert the market place in order to eliminate threats to it's position.

To say that the referees are often corrupt and ineffectual is true, but fails to point out the reason- it's because all those 'freedom loving' capitalists are doing their level best to rig the market in their favour by corrupting the system.

Wow! Best post I've read in awhile!

[interestrateripoff]

Early 19th Century England saw one of the greatest economic boom times that England has ever seen, displaying growth rates that present governments would give their right arm for; It saw the first reform acts go through parliament giving, not all, but certainly more people the right to representation. You quote Dickens sir and, being a huge fan of his myself, I can only say this. For all his great writings, Dickens was no economist. If you wish to get a feel for the economic reality of the era and understand the radical improvements which were occuring in England at the time, I would direct to the work of John Stuat Mill that can be found at the liberty library web site. It's 33 volumes long so do bring a snack

No one ever said capitalism is utopia, im just saying that it's the best we've got.

It saw growth because we had found new technology and expanded into it. It's hard to see how any modern western economy could have massive growth unless we find near perfect green technology ie solar panels that give us all the electric we need to run our homes or we have a huge expansion in space technology and start colonising the solar system to extract raw materials.

For me these are the only possible boom areas to bring huge growth and opportunity unless of course we get visited by aliens who wish to trade, although that possibility has a few issues one if they can travel the cosmos just what would we have that they would want to trade for and what stops them from just taking it from the lower life form.