Some insight into problems with market economy

[vagabonddreamer]

i agree that the problem with comparison is there really ARE no countries operating under a pure capitalist non-regulated system...the fall of the eastern block and the Soviet Union are examples of why far left socialist countries cant survive...

chile is a workable option but so is the system here in Canada and the US if things can be put back on track...

its the will of the PEOPLE that dictates over time the direction a country takes if there is limited opression...

i cant figure out Cuba...that is an odd situation...

china can claim communism...but its very plain that they have TOTALLY embraced the capitalist ideal and that the socialist dogma they espouse is very "veiled"

but even on paper...i wonder if a pure capitalist idealist...could map out a way to run a country with no visible regulation or authority except for the "business" sector and have the country survive over the LONG term...without revolution or anarchy...

i discount all middle eastern countries because for the most part they have not "come" into the 20th let ALONE the 21st century...

but i often wonder if you were to try and pigeonhole israel as to economic classification??? for certain they are very much leaning towards capitalism...but are they too affected by religious zealots to use as an example?? they certainly are a rich country...vs

[cottonpicken]

The thing you have to understand is they were never in the free market.

Was their currency ever backed?no

How many imf loans did they take?lots

Did they have a credit problem?yes

free and fair markets disappeared along time ago.

[dmlfarmer]

"There are none so blind as he who will not see!"

CP I agree in recent history Chile was not a free market economy but to claim it cannot be now because it wasn't 40 years ago only shows your close mindedness.

The Frazier Institute's 2008 Economic Freedom Report ranked Chile as the most economically free country in SA and 6th in the world, AND AHEAD of of Canada, US, and Australia! (1 Hong Kong, 2 Singapore, 3 New Zealand, 4 Switzerland, 5 United Kingdom, Chile)(Brazil was 96th and Argentina 114.)

The 2008 Wall Street Journal Index of Economic Freedom rated Chile as number one in SA and 8th in world.

Forbes magazine 2008 rankings of best countries in the world to do business ranked Chile 1st in SA and 19t in the world.

The Economist rated Chile 3rd in SA in Democracy and 32nd in the world in 2008

The 2008 World Economic Forum rated Chile number one in SA in Global Competitiveness and 28th in the world.

The World Bank ranks Chile 2 in SA for Ease of Doing Business and IMD International ranks Chile 1 in SA for Global Competitiveness.

When Canada's own Conservative think tank rates Chile above Canada in terms of economic freedom, and given my own first person experience in Chile, I will stand by my earlier statements until someone can give some real facts instead of just unsupported opinion!

[Fransisco]

For the record I am not an anarchist and I do not believe that a pure Capitalist society as described in my definition would lead to anarchy. And while I do believe in the idea of a separation of state and the economy there is a minimalist role for government. It is the governments role to protect the individual rights of its citizens, when it comes to business that means protecting peoples property rights, making sure contracts are upheld and protecting people from fraud. But beyond that I'd like to see it keep it's hands off.

As to the nervousness some folks have about'extremist'points of view that is one that has always puzzled me. Right and wrong are extremes in the opposite direction. When one clearly knows what is wrong or what doesn't work like 100% government control of an economy why would they strive to only get it 50% right? People tend to think there's nothing wrong with wanting to be extremely healthy. Or wanting the seeding depth of their air seeder to be extremely accurate. Or eating an extremely good meal. You wouldn't want to fill your plate half with a perfectly prepared steak and the other half with garbage from a land fill. But when it comes to political systems somehow it's supposed to be different. Well I don't think that it is.

The other thing about so-called balance is that it doesn't really exist when it comes to government control. We are either moving in one direction or another, either towards more freedom or more government intervention. And I would argue that right now it's the later, we are in a bull market for big government, it's been moving that way for a long time and now it appears to be going parabolic.

One of the biggest excuses for this trend is the fallacy that , " we can't have a pure free market" followed by smearing those who would like to move things even a little in the other direction as 'extremists'. The strategy has worked beautifully for the left who has no problem being extreme itself and is unwilling to give an inch on anything. A perfect example is the ongoing wheat board debate, how many times have we heard this response to those who simply want the thing to be voluntary.

[vagabonddreamer]

good points francisco...i'll bite on the food analogy..(lol pun)...how about we change it a little...your definition of capitalism is the rib-eye steak...but we cant LIVE on rib-eye steak alone...so instead of calling ALL other forms of economic theory stuff from the garbage dump...why cant you have your rib-eye..and we will call the veggies which some people find less appealing (SOME govt control over specifically intergallactic sized business)...and we have a complete meal...throw in some grain from the CWB (joke)...as bread and we can survive quite nicely...

i have to defer on the CWB and voluntary stuff...i know very little about it except that it (marketing boards) is contentious in all industries...i have been spending quite a bit of my research time looking at this issue as i understand there are good points from both sides...i wonder though...if the marketing board thing is cyclical in nature...just as unions had their time and place...(now outdated and pretty much ineffectual).. so did marketing boards...the cattle industry is an example of a group of people who are starting to rumble about INITIATING a producer driven marketing board...this is appealing to some...scary to others...having witnessed the CWB thing...i am tending to lean towards some other solution to our problem...

maybe you can clear something up for me...i know recently there was a move to disband the CWB or at least change its mandate...do you think it COULD work for all parties as a voluntary organization...and why would it NOT work as a voluntary organization...i have a feeling you know the answers on both sides...thx..vs

[Fransisco]

The answer is the same on both counts, a voluntary board would have to EARN its business by providing value to farmers. If it does this it can succeed if it doesn't it will fail.

Personally, I believe that it could succeed but that it will really have to pull up its socks to do so. The current level of service and the returns it brings to farmers are lousy. Having said that, there is nothing like having ones survival depend upon ones performance to turn things around.

[gustgd]

WOW
Charlie a new agri-ville.com record 74 posts before 'The Monopoly" was mentioned
I know you'll say parsleys not around but tom4 did comment a few times

[tower]

from the theoretical to the practical, or maybe from the sublime to the ridiculous?

The trouble that I have with the idea of a voluntary wheat board is that the grain companies are to the farming industry what the banks are to the financial. The multinational grain conglomerates have all the self preservation instincts, all the market control, and all the greed (wanting money for nothing and their chicks for free) exhibited by the banks and the car makers, and the oil companies.

Trust them to deal fairly with farmers? I don't think so.

[parsley]

Gusty, I'm here and following along. Pars

[vagabonddreamer]

tower...i am not following you...if there is a safety net in the CWB and you feel comfortable being part of it...then you are part of it...if you want to take on the multi-nationals on you own with six guns blazing...then you go that route...can you explain to me why the there is hesitation in allowing some to go on their own?? the last votes showed a clear majority of people want to keep the single desk...i am almost certain that the minority who DO want to go on their own...couldnt affect the outcome of the world grain market by ONE iota??

can you give me this insight??

fransisco...your economic model (note the lack of labelling..lol)...expanded slightly on the second draft to include a "meating" out of the government enforcing contract, preventing fraud etc...i assume you expanded on that to deal with the possibility that international contractual law (ie grain contracts) need to be enforced...you DO understand that those elements in themselves add exponentially to the size of government infrastructure...

how about health care, and social services???...yes i KNOW the present system doesnt work...but explain to me how it would work BETTER and in conjunction with your economic model with little or no government intervention??? i do have an open mind on this because the government IS botching most of this up very badly...

fransisco...(or anybody for that matter)....has there ever been a period of time in your recollection where the CWB functioned correctly and to the benefit of those it was formed with the intent to benefit?? i am trying to figure out if this is one of those "charty things" with blips of good and blops of bad...vs