Some insight into problems with market economy

[cottonpicken]

5 simple words could have answered my question.

BECAUSE THERE ARE MORE DOLLARS

But you couldnt answer the simplest of questions.

But you feel the need to give your opinion.

And come election day you'll vote for who ever promises you the most.

And the downward cycle will continue.

And when we hit bottom you'll be looking for a scape goat,even though the real criminal stares back at you in every mirror you look into.

Maybe your younger,smarter,better looking.

But i doubt it.

[vagabonddreamer]

cotton...i didnt realize you would have to google the answer to the question you posed...i figured you would have it right off the top...

a bigger question is WHAT does gold have to do with the original post or this thread?? it was a theoretical discussion on freemarket/captitalism/government intervention into market forces...the ONLY parallel that can be drawn is that the respective FEDERAL reserves at the time of the last great depression decided to go off the gold standard to stimulate the economy...dont think ANYBODY could guess as to what the world would look like today if that had not been done...

and then...free market forces were allowed to run rampant and look where we are...the fed in iceland was at 900% of GDP...the US is at 400% of GDP...these "repsonsible" financial institutions were allowed to run amok with little or no government regulation or intervention...and here you are...YOU cotton...you and your consumerist friends purchasing lamborghinis on credit were the cause of all this...and your banker friends had no one to answer to...so they just kept demanding the government keep printing money...and the government in laissez-faire fashion decreed that the free market would dictate the direction of fiscal policy...

the more important part of this though...is that indeed i AM better looking and younger...but...if you adopt me and take me in as your long lost son...i will teach you how to dress and relate to your fellow human beings...and you can fill the void space in my head with all your worldly knowledge and teachings...vs

[vagabonddreamer]

cotton...tell me you look exactly like Yosemite Sam from bugs bunny...i just have this picture of you with six guns blazing...taking the gold rocks from the rabbit...

but seriously...i voted conservative with my fingers pinching my nose (Stockwell Day who believes that fossils were put on earth by the devil to play tricks with creationism and that dinosaurs and man co-existed)...because they promised fiscal responsibility and to repeal the biggest boondogle ever..the gun registry...apparently...

i think...YOU should form a political party...i can tell you that i would vote for you in a second!!! vs

[cottonpicken]

What does gold have to do with this?

Thats the point!

The Gold standard would prevent all this!!!!!!!!!!


Argueing about a subject with somebody that doesnt have the first clue about the subject is a waste of time.

[cottonpicken]

http://www.mises.org/

Educate yourself.This is what capitalism is.Not our distorted sick system.

[dmlfarmer]

There is one country in the world which is the perfect case study for this discussion: Chile. It went from as close to pure socialism under Allende as possible to textbook Milton Friedman free market economics.

I wish everyone contributing to this discussion could have the opportunity to talk to Chilean farmers who lost all their land under Allende, built back up thier opperations under Pinocet, only to lose their farms again because large mining companies have bought the all the rights to the water in the rivers that these farmers depend upon for irrigation. Not happening you say? This is from this morning's New York Times: Chilean Town Withers in Free Market for Water
By ALEXEI BARRIONUEVO
In Quillagua, water rights are private property and can
be traded with little government oversight.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/world/americas/15chile.html?th&emc=th

Pure free market economics is no more sustainable than pure socialism.

[tower]

I had a look at that cotton, and was glad to see that it also pointed out that communism was not the sick perverted thing that it became. It could have gone on to say that Christianity could have held up better as well.

That is the point though, you just know that the fewer the restraints on any lifestyle system the more corruption there will be. Smith and other well known advocates of the various religions suggested that personal restraints could be adequate. The trouble is that those who exhibit such personal restraint turn into victims for those who don't.

[vagabonddreamer]

i very much have learned from this discussion...most of the people who have contributed have a genuine interest and have laid out their arguments in a defined manner...i dont disagree nor do i have a lack of knowledge with respect to the gold standard and the possible benefits and disadvantages...

i just get my back up at how the message is being delivered...and it seems as though if there is a perception that an "opinion" (which apparently we are not allowed to put forth cotton unless it falls inline with your own doctrines)...extremism, closed mindedness, and punishment through name calling and bullying are archaic table scraps of a bygone era...

as i have said before in other threads...for all your personality flaws...you are a pretty smart guy...just like francisco and classylib...and i dont necessarily disagree with most of the ideas you have put forth...but as soon as i get a scent of extremism or closed minded chest thumping...that old devils advocate thing comes out in me...lol

you gotta know...most intellectual breakthroughs in the history of mankind have come because of opposing viewpoints and the desire through debate to prove ones thesis...you should WELCOME opposing viewpoints as they will either make your own arguments stronger...or they might even change the way you think (???????????????????????NAH)

though you KNOW more than anyone here...you are still learning from the mistakes that the REST of us make in our discussions...

my apologies to the forum for poking cotton and francisco with a metaphorical stick to get them going...but it was not without provocation...

keyenesian economics has nothing DIRECTLY to do with whether a country is on a gold standard (or salt for that matter)...that is a fiscal policy that is mutually exclusive of the operation of government and economic modeling...it is merely a benchmark...good or bad depending on your particular philosophy...however...i wonder how a global economy would function if say just ONE country was on a gold standard and the rest werent???

dmlfarmer...unfortunately my knowledge on chilean politics is limited...i remember when Pinnocet took power...i guess the problem i would have using chile as a measurement is that on an economies of scale..they are very small...small enough that they may be able to operate as an island unto themselves...and i suppose there is a question as to whether they have a true democracy in the sense that we THINK we have a true democracy in North America/europe...how do you reckon their political model would work expanded to a country the size of the US??? vs

[cottonpicken]

I reserve the right to debate as forcefully as i see fit.Same with everyone.

You didn't jab anybody vaga,you were the one that got jabbed.

Instead of bringing up a minor south american economy,with more variables than i can think of,look at the first two years of the US.

[dmlfarmer]

While you may consider Chile to be a "minor" SA country it has the highest GDP per capita of any South American Country. It has more bilateral and free trade agreements(57) than any other country in the world. It has over 16 million people living in small country, a good portion of which is ranked the driest place on earth and less than 3% of the country is arable, yet it is an net exporter of agricultural products, and ranked 5 in the world in wine exports. It has more than double the irrigation acres that all of Canada has. It has a positive balance of trade based on commodities exported. (Chile's copper is Alberta's oil!)

It has been and is ranked number one in South America by UN and media rankings in just about every indice regarding democracy, freedoms, and economy. The exceptions being enviornmental sustainability and quality of life, both which reflects the bottom line, profit at any cost culture of big business.

It is considered the most stable and democratic country in South America.

So instead of claiming this country is too small to consider, I challenge you to take a look at a country that has actually experienced Socialism, Marxism and Capitalism over the last 40 years. It may show you what may happen in many other countries in the world if the global economy continues to worsen.

This is why I suggested on this list of looking at this real present day country. Based on what I know, seen and expericed in Chile, I again state both pure socialism and capilalism are unsustainable. Under man evolves to the point where he understands with every right there comes responsibility there has been and always will be a need of regulation

[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