Some insight into problems with market economy

[sumdumguy]

We all lived pretty high on the hog for a nation who only produces raw materials. I have not seen any consumer good lately that does not come from China, in whole or in part.

How can we sustain this nonproductive economy? See any new flour mills or pasta plants on the prairies yet? Because we have let ourselves be controlled by the profit takers, we have willingly given up our greatest asset- invention and productivity. Really, how much effort have we exerted in the fight for freedom to vertically integrate?

When our American farmer friends build an on-farm flour mill and bakery on their farm at Wheat Montana, do you think they have to fight off the vultures like we do? Me thinks we should be shouting on the roof tops.
Keyne's theories are being put to the ultimate test right now, but the pioneering spirit that formed wheat country is really being put to the test every day, every year in the designated area of Canada. I rest my case.

[Fransisco]

Dreamer, you're a typical socialist. Someone points out the contradiction in your own thinking and evidence and you somehow believe it proves your own point. It doesn't.

Here is the definition of Capitalism that I like to use.

"Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control."

And as such is the only truly moral and ethical system of government. There would be nothing stopping you or anyone else from tending or caring for those in society that you believe need it in a pure Capitalistic society. The only restriction is that you can not take something from someone else by force for ANY reason.

The abolition of slavery did not water down Capitalism as you claim. To the contrary recognition of individual rights is central to actual true Capitalism. That is were it's morality comes from, besides which free men are far more productive than slaves.

[cottonpicken]

Were all about to become slaves of the government.

[vagabonddreamer]

here i was under the impression we already ARE slaves to the government..lol

its definitely a switch being called socialist...and a "typical" socialist to boot...most people who know me consider Attila the Hun a moderate in comparison...

thats an interesting definition of capitalism you have Fransisco...its certainly a "softened" version in comparison to the stereotypical version as seen in socialist/capitalist debates...i cant argue with it for the most part...and as long as you feel that it is workable and attainable...then more power to you...i suppose i am jaded because i dont have faith that people as a generality will look out for each other...AND i certainly dont think corporate track record is unblemished over say the last couple hundred years...with respect to society or environment...

so in your capitalist state...a complete business case monopoly is concievable and would be considered ethical??vs

[TOM4CWB]

Fransisco,

This all come back to the Common Law base that our society is supposed to use as the rule of law. Common Law eminates from Jedo-Christian principals.

Peace order and good government are the reasons we deligate a portion of personal control to higher authority... for the general good of all Citizens of our community, Province, and Nation.

Here are the principals of Common Law... as I know how hard they are to find in published literature.

C.P.; This is what counting on Faith, Hope, and Love... instead of Greed and Force... to govern a society and economy is all about!

Here are the Common Law Principals:

1. The Common Law is based on the Golden Rule, which states;
Do unto others as you would have done unto you,
And the Negative Golden Rule, which states;
Do not do unto others as you would not have others do unto you;

2. The two fundamental principals of common law:
ć Do not infringe upon the Rights, Freedoms or Property of others, and
Keep all contracts willingly, knowingly and intentionally

Common law maxims include:
ć That for every wrong there is a remedy,

ć The end does not justify the means,

ć Fundamental principals cannot be set aside to meet the demands of convenience or to prevent apparent hardship in a particular case,

ć Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law,

ć Two wrongs do not make a right, and


ć One can enlarge the rights of the people, however they cannot be taken away without their informed consent.

Cottonpicken;

There is no room for greed of selfishness to rule our society... and as Fransisco well states... the job of Government is to protect the citizen... this is the basis of prosperity.

Now... Have a great day!

TJ

[Fransisco]

Dreamer, maybe I was a bit hasty to label you a "typical" socialist but you were using typical socialist arguments, thinking and definitions when it comes to Capitalism.

You call my definition a softened version I would call it a more accurate one. One of the problems is that we continually let the Socialists frame the debate using their language and their definitions which are filled with all sorts of falsehoods and smears. They can't win an honest debate so they create straw dog arguments like the slavery one to hoodwink folks with.

Another one that you've bought into is the corporate one. That under capitalism the corporations would run everything and as you say over the last couple of hundred years they're track record hasn't always been the greatest. What we have to remember is that these corporations have not been running under a Capitalist system, they have been running under a Fascist/Statist system, some call it Corporatism.

In a a truly Capitalist system there would be a strict separation of State and the economy in the same way as we now have a strict separation of Church and State and for exactly the same reason. The problem today is that too many companies are too close to government and vice versa and they are all doing favours for each other. I mean just look back at how many Secretaries of the US Treasury were ex-Goldman Sachs chairmen. 'nuff said.

By the way I would include Unions in this as well, I don't think they should get any special privileges from Government either.

As to your question of whether monopolies would naturally form without the help of government, I really don't think that would be possible. Every one that I know of was created by government intervention.
The necessary precondition is -closed entry— the barring of all competing producers from a given field. This can be accomplished only by an act of government intervention.

Then there's your concern that without government intervention people wouldn't look out for one another. There is a good book on the subject called 'From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State'. Before Government took over the role private citizens did a pretty darn good job of looking after each other and I think would do so again. But if they don't have to now, why would they?

http://www.amazon.ca/Mutual-Aid-Welfare-State-Fraternal/dp/0807848417

[liberty]

When reading some of these comments, I'm reminded of what is called the stages of grief.

Most people seem to be in denial right now. A few are angry.

The reason why people seem so eager to blame the free market and alleged "deregulation" for collapsing the economy is that they can't bear to think of the alternative: that the same people who force you to accept their medical care, unemployment benefits, a good part of your pension and so on screwed up royally when it came to overseeing and regulating financial markets. And if these folks can screw up the financial markets this badly, it's only a matter of time until they screw up all the rest, and you have no pension, no unemployment insurance, no decent medical care at all, and if you are lucky enough to have a job you'll be paid in a currency that's worthless.

How's socialism working for you so far?

[cottonpicken]

Core conservatives often go against themselves when it comes to economics.

Reason being they simply dont understand the subject.

We also almost always beleive we are smarter than the previous generation.

Keynsian theory is New and it is flawed..

Tom your chatter is confusing important things.

[classicalliberal]

Here is a question to the social liberals: why do you think that the government has the moral right over anyone else to regulate or control the economy to help save people from themselves and the bad things that can happen? No one in history has done worse things to human beings than governments and you only need to look at history to show that. I have a great example. Recently, natural gas prices have gotten cheaper than they were six months, year, two years ago. In our wonderful NDP province of Manitoba where everything from liquor sales, wheat and barley sales to auto insurance is run by crown corporations like centra gas/manitoba hydro who is, to my knowledge the only place you can buy your natural gas from. I have noticed that the prices I have paid for natural gas is higher now than it was last winter but the prices of natural gas are lower now than they were last winter. Obviously, like the CWB it takes out the volatility but I think their pooled pricing are heavily geared towards themselves. I can't buy my natural gas to heat my house in the winter from anyone else to my knowledge other than crown corporation centra gas. Now socialists and social liberals, why is it better that a government owned agency is screwing me rather than a corporate monopoly? I have noticed that people seem to think that the government taking control of things is morally better than private enterprise only thinking of themselves. It is people like liberals and socialists who get the government to take control and regulate everything, especially when there are disasters, like the great depresion and this economic slump that leave us with never ending government control, regulation and bureacracy. And they believe that it is morally right for the government to take advantage of us rather than greedy selfish profit motivated corporations.

This recent reversal to the Roosevelt fiscal policy days that Obama and that socialist Prime Minister from England are promoting will not work well because of the crowding out effect that goverment spending has on the private sector. Government spending puts upward pressure on interest rates and upward pressure on interest rates decreases private investment. The vast majority of the deficit creating money that will be spend will be wasted in the crowding out effect.

[classicalliberal]

Vaggabonddreamer what would you rather have, pure capitalism (which doesn't, never has and never will exist) rather a mixed-capitalist society where everyone has an equal opportunity and some get rich using this "cheap" imported labour rather than high priced, low productivity unionized labour (which is why north american vehicles are pieces of shit relative to the same priced German or Japanese vehicles) or a mixed-socialist society were very few people are rich and equality of an impoverished outcome is the focus?

Sumdumb guy, it sounds good to have your own flour mill but the wheat board would make you buy back your own wheat at a lot higher price than the market is. Also, there would be no economies of scale that bigger mills would have and each farmer would have to spend a huge amount on advertising so that people would buy your products over the next farmer who has the same commodity (flour) and is also trying to not let anyone make money off him.

[classicalliberal]

dreamer, free markets and capitalism don't inherently create monopolies, things like government regulation, nationalization, unions and protectionism create monopolies. In a free market society, people are free to enter and exit businesses and if someone is making too much money, someone else will enter that business creating competition.

Cottonpicken will know Ludwig von Mises of Austrian Economic's quote "Manufacturing and commercial monopolies owe their origin not to a tendency imminent in a capitalist economy but to governmental interventionist policy directed against free trade and laissez faire."

[cottonpicken]

Cant wait till everyone heres about the 16th amendment and taxation on labour.

[vagabonddreamer]

actually i only got into the conversation to prevent Cotton from pistol whipping Keyenes and Shiller..lol...didnt want him to get blood on his Colt...it messes up the action...

i agree with most things said in this thread...from both sides...because most of it is laid out in an intellectual framework that makes sense...just as i think Keynes has a right to espouse his own political rhetoric...

liberty...i will never defend socialism...OR capitalism...as classylib pointed out...neither can really exist in pure form...and i think that was Keynes' point...

i absolutely HATE the fact that i can be smarter or be willing to work harder than someone else... and not only is there the possibility that i may not be rewarded for it...there is a good chance i may be penalized for it to "even" out the playing field...

classylib..i DO sincerely believe that society needs SOME sort of check and balance...but i DO not believe that the meek should inherit the earth...

i dont believe that capitalism "breeds" monopoly..i just asked Francisco if a monopoly would be acceptible in HIS version of capitalism...i do understand the machinations of a free market society...but the behaviour of the oil companies with respect to the price of fuel...does not compel me to have 100% faith in the free market system either...they arent EXACTLY a monopoly...but they are colluding to practice monopolistic policies...the "government" is supposed to regulate this type of corporate behaviour...but they either dont have the cajones...or they are listening to you guys...(wink)... and moving to more a laissez faire type of governance...

there are gajillions of dollars to be made in fuel...but there doesnt seem to be a lineup of companies moving into the industry and lowering prices...

anyway...truth be told...my personal political stripes tend to be more inline with Francisco's and possibly classylib's...but i am LEFT of Austrian economists...and Cotton and his pistol...lol...its a good discussion though....(Cotton...i use a Marlin guide rifle to beat the socialist into submission..the stainless steel cleans up better)..lol...vs

[vagabonddreamer]

now...classylib and francisco and liberty and cotton...i KNOW you guys dont care about us cowboys...but maybe while you are driving around in your Lamborghini's (rom a previous post)...have a thought about these random comments from the beef side of things..

Willowcreek posted Mar 12, 2009 20:14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kato {Anybody seen any "ABP/CCA/AMI cult followers" around here? If they're here, they are laying low. LOL }

Kato-- well all I've seen on here and many sites are the Canadian Packer backers- that support the Packers with their control of the captive supply and ownership of the feedlots, monopoly slaughter houses, generic worldwide meat and refusing to want to identify their product while riding on the shirttails of the industry the US producer has built thru the years...
IP: Logged
Edit?

smcgrath76 posted Mar 12, 2009 20:44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I get pretty frustrated when I see the struggle that some of these plants have had. Competition has to be a good thing. Cull cows were 10 cents higher in SK when the pressure was put on NVF.
I worry about producer owned packing initiatives from the perspective that we are probably overbuilt and operating at 70% of current capacity. The only way to make producer owned plants work is to have one of the big two pull out. I doubt with their Canadian presence and new debt load that NB is going anywhere, so that leaves Cargill. Is that a possibility? I don't know, or do NB try to scoop that up as well.
Is there a structure we are missing where capacity can be taken over, rather than built? 10B would help with plants that already exist and with marketing and establishing the cattle supply to really make things work, but I am pretty sure we are not on the radar.

unsolicited comments...and this is with a (veiled) government control...a government that just like with the oil industry doesnt have the cajones to deal with a problem they were complicit in allowing...

maybe a true free market economy would be better...but i wonder...vs

[jensend]

i think you have to differentiate between free enterprise and capitalism. the former generally evolves into the latter over time. i also think it's fair to say most economic systems evolve until they collapse.