Why does free market capitalism get such a bad rap? Why don't more people recognize that our standards of living are a result of the free enterprise system? Why are governments around the world trying to stifle economic freedom in favor of economic equality?
It upsets me that so many problems in countries' economies are caused by a failure to acknowledge the merits of free market capitalism.
You know, I liquidate stuff, I do business with some Chinese that work 16 hours at their day job at the bank, then do business exporting stuff with me when they get home.
These people have plenty of money. They are buying up homes in Beverly hills and everywhere else as vacation houses.
Because not everyone in our countries have a good standard of living, and in countries like the USA not everyone has the same opportunities - education = expensive.
Here in Australia we can study with no cash upfront and no interest and it costs a 3rd of what it does in the states. But we still have homeless, we still have poor, we still have people who struggle because they grew up in shitcreek and never knew how to be an adult.
Capitalism works but it has its flaws. If 1/3rd of the super rich people's money was put into the state and used to help those who are genuinly struggling they'd still be super rich and the people who have nothing could be housed, skilled and given jobs.
A socialist economy could take care of everyone, creating a standard and decent class of living as the minimum while still allowing a free market for those who wish to pursue more.
>Capitalism works but it has its flaws.
Of course. When picking economic systems it's a case of pick your negatives.
>If 1/3rd of the super rich people's money was put into the state and used to help those who are genuinly struggling they'd still be super rich and the people who have nothing could be housed, skilled and given jobs.
And then 5 years later the rich would have their money back and the poor would be back where they are, just with more depreciating "assets" that the rich sold to them.
I'm in Adelaide btw. Every time I'm in the city I see the same people begging for money instead of getting out of the stupid hot summer heat and spending their time in the library reading books or taking free courses to help get them out of homelessness. Poverty in Australia is largely ones own fault, and I'm not giving beggars money when I already make money available for them through tax aka Centrelink.
Because free market is inherently unstable, allows for a lot of irresponsible speculation and allows inefficient monopolies to stiffle more efficient competition with no consequences.
>m-muh speshul variety of free market capitalism wasn't tried yet!
But why do that when state could pool all our money according to our ability and give to each according to his need :^)
The poor in the US are much richer than the poor in countries like Bangladesh, India, Belize, Indonesia, and many countries in Africa where economic freedom is not guaranteed.
Also, I notice you subscribe to the belief that a mix of welfare statism and capitalism are optimal. Unfortunately, this is not the case. It was very difficult for me to get my head around the seemingly backwards idea that government needs-based assistance is inherently flawed and ends up hurting most those it sets out to help. Surprisingly, the most effective and best by test system for improving the lives of those impoverished is the free enterprise system. Lamentably, government efforts to try to supplement this have been resoundingly unsuccessful.
Can you give me an example of a system that is more "stable" using whichever definition of the word stable you like?
Speculation is a natural part of life. Every entrepreneur who has ever opened a business has speculated what consumer demand for his product or service will be.
They are surprisingly rare. I bet you can't even name a single monopoly out of the millions of registered businesses in the US.
The free market has been tried and it's been proven to work but than other systems.
>Can you give me an example of a system that is more "stable" using whichever definition of the word stable you like?
Sure, a free market system that has over time evolved with well thought out rules that prevent abuse. Something like the US today, actually. You can argue that current rules aren't perfect and that's perfectly fine, but you should look into their history in order to understand what unregulated market problems they were created to prevent. They weren't pulled out of somebody's ass for no reason. Sure, problems still happen, but they'd happen in free market as well and some problems are prevented.
>Speculation is a natural part of life. Every entrepreneur who has ever opened a business has speculated what consumer demand for his product or service will be.
I'm not talking about taking calculated risks, I'm talking about large forces impacting market in negative ways (insider trading, pump and dumps, some forms of colluding for example).
>They are surprisingly rare. I bet you can't even name a single monopoly out of the millions of registered businesses in the US.
Depends on what you define as a monopoly. While I realise that monopoly already has definition(s), take Intel for example. In order for it not to be a monopoly they licence their architecture to AMD, which for years (or ever, but let's not trigger /g/) isn't able to compete properly. As a result Intel is restructuring product lines so that, effectively, you pay more because lel fuck you, who will you buy from and they have less pressure to innovate in order to keep up. Is that impacting the market negatively? It's a complicated issue, we shouldn't force them to licence everyone and breaking them up might have unforseen circumstances.
Can we agree that this is a problem? If so, how would the free market fix this? Should we wait for a disruptive new technology to come and after a period of growth and competition for some new company to take Intel's place? Should the government break Intel up and have two daughter companies compete?
>The free market has been tried and it's been proven to work but than other systems.
Man, I love free market, I just realise it has downsides. Market players aren't benevolent entities and all abuses won't somehow cancel out.
All systems become unstable at some point for different reasons. Capitalism though has the problem that when the economy downturns the rich pull there money back into there pockets and out of the economy. This creates a downward spiral where the "trickle down effect" stops working because the rich are afraid to spend > businesses don't open/close > less jobs > no money for the masses > can't afford food, housing etc..
This is what led to WWII and with our current system could happen again
Don't even need to know chinese- these guys speak fluent english.
The ones that don't have secretaries you can haggle with.
I have say, $100,000 in chips, I want it gone for $90,000 tommrow, Chinese banker is best person to make it happen because he will source the labour for $100
> Bangladesh, India, Belize, Indonesia, and many countries in Africa
those countries don't have any social safety net. The social safety net is pretty much what separates third world countries from first word countries.
Where do you get off saying that economic freedom is less in poor countries than it is in rich countries, or that welfare hurts people more than helps? do you have proofs?
Reminder that people don't actually understand what capitalism/socialism is and just rally behind buzzwords they think are good.
its not an injustice that AMD can't keep up.Are these companies assassinating each others employees? Are they being violent? When a sports team gets too good does the government force players to go play on the losing teams side? So if i want to create my own police force and the government says no how is that not a monopoly? What if i want to create a competing government? Is that not a monopoly?
>Why does free market capitalism get such a bad rap?
Because capitalism has no form of morality whatsoever, nor can ever have one. You can't derive a single ought from supply and demand, despite what Ayn Rand said or wrote
>Why don't more people recognize that our standards of living are a result of the free enterprise system?
Not entirely, the free enterprise system would break down without schools, roads, a police force, an army, etc.
>Why are governments around the world trying to stifle economic freedom in favor of economic equality?
Neither stifling nor propping up economic freedom is very good. The idea that the free market will fix everything is highly flawed, oddly enough in the same way as statism is flawed.
I think that far too few people realize that the economy is a dynamic system that should neither be banned nor should be put on a pedestal as some kind of infallible and flawless system that will produce a utopia if we just took away all governmental roles. The free market has pros and cons, and the government has pros and cons. A good mixture of the two is usually what works the best
>its not an injustice that AMD can't keep up.
You could argue that about any monopoly.
It doesn't change that Intel is bypassing anti trust laws by giving a licence to a shitty company that can't compete. It's not technically a monopoly, but the results are the same.
>>Why does free market capitalism get such a bad rap?
>Because capitalism has no form of morality whatsoever, nor can ever have one. You can't derive a single ought from supply and demand, despite what Ayn Rand said or wrote
As much as I like Ayn, that's really well said.
China and Brazil have high inequality but the US rivals those countries. The US doesn't have a free market system. It has an oligopoly economy. Its similar to the USSR economy. Instead of state run its corporate run. The same concepts but different owners. The board and investors own the means of production. Instead of the workers. The workers own the rights in nordic countries but the state doesn't own anything, except a few industries. It allows market economy to flourish under regulation from government and union. Communism was never attempt because no one ever abolished the monetary system and gave power to the people not the government. Letting the workers own the means of production is not total power. The Spanish communes in the Spanish civil war were the closest to communism attempt in real life.
>Capitalism is a theory
What are you even talking about? It's a reality for a lot of countries. As opposed to most lefties pipe dreams of their infallible version of socialism/communism which has never been achieved.
What type of economic system do you propose that doesn't require labor?
>I don't know shit
Just by your reply I can tell you've never read any economics text. It's amazing how people can know so little about capitalism but claim to have a deeper understanding of it than others. Hayek was dead right when he gave his famous pretense of knowledge speech.
Just the way you talk shows me you know little about the history and the actual state of the US economy, or of capitalism in general. You should pick up a basic economics book before you make some of those statements. I recommend capitalism and freedom by milton friedman or economics in one lesson by henry hazlitt. free to choose by friedman again is a good miniseries to watch as a primer, too. Maybe you'll rethink your ideas a little. I know I did . . .
Social safety nets aren't the path to prosperity. Welfare programs can't be funded if there aren't rich people to pay for them. There's no other way for poor countries to become rich other than through free market capitalism.
I think you meant the great depression. While that is true to an extent, you should read the failure of the new economics by henry hazlitt for a deeper understanding of that "downward spiral." Market corrections prior the institution of the federal reserve were never as severe as the ones after its formation. In fact, you could say that the federal reserve has had the opposite effect of its intended purpose, which is to create stability.
All arguments against the free market basically boil down to "but some people suck at life! Think of the children!"
The truth is, these people need to adapt or die. It is inefficient to keep feeding them with tax money, and it exasperates the issue when we don't attach reproductive restrictions or work requirements.
So I put it to you, socialists:
>help the poor
>let them breed
Choose only one.
The idea that producers exploit workers has been disproven by reality and by theory. If you ask any McDonald's worker if he'd rather by employed and "exploited" or jobless, they'll tell you they'd rather be exploited.
Well I'm not against helping the poor through private means. I'm not an objectivist. I am against government help of the poor, which often times keeps people in poverty. Private charity is much more effective than any government handout.
>not realizing that you live in the propaganda bubble of the Soviet Union's arch nemesis
>not realizing that cheap shots can be made both ways
Why do socialized economics get such a bad rap? Why don't more people recognize that our good working conditions, high pay, and scientific achievement are a result of the central planning system? Why are governments around the world trying to stifle human progress in favor of capitalist greed?
It upsets me that so many problems in countries' economies are caused by a failure to acknowledge the merits of communism.
None of those merits are a result of communism or central planning. You should read socialism by ludwig von mises if you want to learn about why central planning is so flawed. In fact, under communism, wages wouldn't even exist, so the notion of high pay is meaningless.
I agree. Private charity will also do better to:
1. Help people kick bad habits
2. Help people pick up good habits
3. Help people learn skills that make them valuable in the modern economy
This thing where we send checks to single moms at taxpayers' expense must come to an end.
You're missing the point. You're literally mindlessly parroting propaganda right now just like someone in the USSR would have mindlessly disavowed capitalism.
Both are equally disgusting.
Great. How much money are they going to be given at the library? Or in the free courses? Can they eat the books? No? There's your fucking answer then. Begging for money -> food.
You've never been hungry or homeless.
That's right. You built and chose all your circumstances yourself.
Private charity has never been sufficient. Look up how private charities were doing during the GD before the welfare state got started in the US.
Hint: They ran out of fucking money because nobody gave them enough out of the goodness of their hearts.
It doesn't matter that they're not sufficient.
That only tells me that there's too many fuckin po' boys.
Let them die for all I care.
It has no bearing on the economic efficiency of free market capitalism.
I'm finishing up my masters in econ this may so I at least know a little something
Some problems I think the system has are
1) The ability for a very small group of individuals to own most of the worlds resources. Some people may not agree but i think it's strange that in theory you could have one person own 99% of the worlds resources if they "worked" for it. Of course this example is extreme but it's useful as a thought experiment to get us to see the flaws in having a small group of individuals control the world.
2) fuck it I'll add more in another post later i'm too high for this shit
My view is that if you care so much about them, then donate.
There are millions of people that say exactly what you say. If you care so much then put your money where your mouth is, instead of voting to forcibly redistribute wealth from productive people to unproductive people.
Have you considered that productivity might be a function of capital ownership?
If I had more money, I would be investing all over the place and starting oodles of businesses. Instead I have debt from my mechanical engineering degree.
Well I'm sure your mechanical engineering degree was a great investment, and you'll be able to pay off your debt.
If not, then you deserve to stay poor.
That's what a free market economy is. You make good choices, you win. You make bad choices, you lose.
As for capital ownership: people either gain capital over their lifetime by being productive, or they inherit it from their parents (who were productive). It's never gotten freely.
>I think you meant the great depression. While that is true to an extent, you should read the failure of the new economics by henry hazlitt for a deeper understanding of that "downward spiral." Market corrections prior the institution of the federal reserve were never as severe as the ones after its formation. In fact, you could say that the federal reserve has had the opposite effect of its intended purpose, which is to create stability.
Dude stop reading that Austrian economics and that henry hazlit shit lol. I understand you have your idealistic views on the economy and the governments role in it but there's no way that you think that the best way to deal with crisis like back in 2008-2009 is to do nothing and let the market correct itself. If we wouldn't have done anything numerous banks would have failed sending a shockwave through the economy that would have lead to the closing of major fortune 500 companies, runs on the banks, tens of millions of people unemployed, even bigger losses in real estate, possible civil unrest and a bunch of other shit globally. This country and the world would have possibly been rekt beyond repair simply because you believe in some free market bullshit. C'mon man are you serious? You'd destroy the world in the name of the free market lol
who cares about standard of living? Free-marketers don't if they did they would not advocate austerity.
free-marketers need to choose a side, either say they are for private property at all costs or say they care about people.
There has never been a case in which an introduction of the welfare state to a capitalist system has reduced the standards of living. Free-marketers nonetheless want to eliminate it though because it is not pure capitalism, instead of being pragmatist they are being ideological extremists which renders any claim about being pragmatic about people's standard of living, a lie.
>As for capital ownership: people either gain capital over their lifetime by being productive, or they inherit it from their parents (who were productive). It's never gotten freely.
That's just it: you're advocating killing people off based on something they have no control over. Can you imagine your own fate under such a system if you were one of the unlucky people born without capital? Unable to afford means of being productive (technical training, a university degree, starting a business), you would be left to die.
This whole "people earn based on how productive they are" argument completely ignores the fact that productivity is based on how much money you have in the first place.
Many people aren't industrious or entrepreneurial, so they envy and demonize those who are and make it rich. They think it's "unfair" even while those people have generated wealth and jobs beyond just themselves.
We will see increasing dislike for free market capitalism in the near future.
The increasing automation and ability of capital to produce value will see much greater technological unemployment. And Education takes too long for most people to actively retrain for new forms of labour.
Even then free market capitalism is definitely not what we have. Free trade doesn't come in the form of free trade agreements, nor does it mean that nothing matters but the free movement of labour, capital and ideas.
We also have an incredible skills mismatch due to forcing too many people into university for highly educated work. And although it is true that we need more highly skilled labour for employment and work, the training takes a long time and demands quite a bit from the people themselves. It keeps them out of the labour force for a long time, which is partially the goal and partially the problem. Essentially there is a need for great demand to match the capacity for human beings to produce value.
Mindlessly would imply that I would have no opinion otherwise. First of all, there is no anti-Red propaganda pushed today to influence my beliefs. That's your first fallacy. The second fallacy is that people in the USSR actually believed capitalism is bad. This is factually incorrect.
>Waaaahhhhh people disagree with me
Maybe you have dumb opinions, retard.
They do have a choice and McDonald's workers are not mistreated. I worked at McDonald's part-time and there's nothing I can really complain about during my time there. The hours were flexible and the work wasn't really difficult either.
In countries like Bangladesh where subsistence farming is very common, most people would rather work in a Nike sweat shop making $1.50 a day than selling turnips making barely $0.50 a day.
t. I'm Bangladeshi
>Why does free market capitalism get such a bad rap?
because people are very very ignorant and need something to blame for their own perceived failure (often in comparison to a largely unreasonable standard)
its a crabs in a bucket scenario with these people.
really I blame misuse of/too great of trust put in technology for more problems
Many people relied on their families and savings prior to the great depression, although charities were very prominent. In fact, prior the great depression, the US had the highest living standard in the world. The only reason so many people entered poverty was because government mismanaged the economy.
Now nobody has any fucking savings and SS isn't even enough to help those who were sold the idea that they "paid into it." SS a ponzi scheme in all regards.
Are you in bangladesh? If not why not go back to Bangladesh and enjoy your economic freedom? What is holding you back? Bangladesh has less regulations than the U.S and less of a welfare state.
I choose to vote for people to tax everybody so we all "donate." Don't like it? Vote against me.
You didn't hop out of your mom's twat and hand the doctor cash for delivering you. You arrived in an already existing world, and you get to pay for it.
The 2008 crisis was caused by government mishandling the economy. It didn't just occur out of nowhere. The only people actually warning about it were Austrians so you're point is invalid.
That's a false dichotomy. Who says advocates of the free market need to pick between private property or the care of people? Only you. The only reason welfare states arise is because capitalism creates the wealth needed to sustain it. Try implementing a welfare state in countries like some of those in Africa and see how well they do.
Partly because of envy, party because of real grievances. Free market capitalism follows the power law curve - the top few get vast majority of assets. Some rightly earned them from innovation, others from holding down their patch as monopolies. As we go forward, there is going to be less and less need for people (due to decreasing cost of renewable energy and automation). Eventually vast majority of population will become useless as they cannot provide any service worth money, and do not own any capital themselves. There'll be huge ghettoes of poors and a few pristine environments for the rich and the knowledgeable.
Wow I didn't know the government was in the private banking industry.
Oh that's right, the government forced the banks to make poor decisions because the free market is perfect.
Immigrants to this country often came with very little money. The children of these immigrants almost always became much richer than their parents. Look at the Chinese, Indians, Irish, German, even latin Americans who are coming to this country today. The whole notion that there is no income mobility within the free market is a total myth, disproven by history and theory.
No, that makes no sense.
There's an alternative to voluntary charity and everybody the charities can't support starves. It's high taxation rates and a welfare state. It's the option I prefer and I vote accordingly. If you'd like to oppose that, you get to vote and campaign for others to vote the same way.
I would certainly ask for help. If I didn't seem like a piece of shit, I likely WOULD get help. And no, I don't strictly mean charities. Family, friends.
The point is that I ASK for help.
It is not the government's role to take care of everybody. That only makes self-reliant people sour, and it makes everyone except the leeches poorer.
>Bangladesh’s economic freedom score is 53.9, making its economy the 131st freest in the 2015 Index.
Over the past five years, Bangladesh’s economic freedom has fluctuated at the lower end of the “mostly unfree” category.
>A general disregard for the rule of law, rampant corruption, and a judicial system that suffers from political interference provide a weak foundation for economic modernization. Lack of a national consensus on the direction of future policy changes has diminished the momentum for economic reforms, and deteriorating prospects for near-term improvements in economic freedom make it unlikely that the relatively high growth rates of recent years can be maintained.
>Institutional accountability is not well established, and the judiciary is not clearly separated from the executive. Government effectiveness is undermined by pervasive graft. Contract enforcement and dispute settlement procedures are inefficient. Antiquated real property laws and poor record-keeping systems complicate land and property transactions. Poor governance is one of the main barriers to foreign direct investment.
>Bangladesh’s top individual income tax rate is 25 percent, and its top corporate tax rate is 45 percent. Other taxes include a value-added tax. Despite relatively high rates, tax revenue remains low at around 10 percent of gross domestic product. Public expenditures account for about 16.3 percent of the domestic economy, and public debt has grown to a level equal to about 40 percent of GDP.
>Reform measures in recent years have streamlined the procedures for establishing a business, but other institutional deficiencies such as pervasive corruption and poor access to credit discourage start-ups. The labor market remains underdeveloped, and the enforcement of labor rules is ineffective. The government maintains an extensive system of price controls and subsidies for basic food staples, fuels, fertilizers, and electricity.
>Bangladesh has a relatively high 13.0 percent average tariff rate, and tariffs are a significant source of government revenue. Efforts are underway to improve customs processes. Foreign investors face bureaucratic hurdles. The financial sector remains underdeveloped despite modernization efforts. State-owned commercial banks account for over 30 percent of total banking system assets. Stock market capitalization is low.
Right, I get to pay into SS which existed long before I was born and likely won't exist by the time I retire. If it does, it will be very much diminished. Or perhaps they'll get the next generation of suckers to pay even more than I did.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying NO TAXES EVER.
I actually favor the land-value single-tax. It has economically beneficial effects, and it generates enough revenue to run a nightwatchman state.
What I'm opposed to, is wealth redistribution. And I CERTAINLY don't "owe" anything to fucking anybody that's on welfare. They're leeches, their parents were leeches, their grandparents were lazy, and if any of their ancestors weren't pieces of shit they'd disown them anyhow.
It really was the government though.
>banks don't want to make bad loans
>government forces them not to discriminate against minorities and poor fags
>bank knows it made bad loans so it simply sells off the note to shmucks on Wall Street.
Denmark has a higher personal income tax rate. Denmark also has more workers and environmental protections. Does that mean Denmark is even less economically free?
Bangladesh's problems is caused by corruption and other shitty traits of its people.
>That's a false dichotomy. Who says advocates of the free market need to pick between private property or the care of people?
so do you support cutting the welfare state in modern western countries?
Banks were never forced to make loans. Point to the law that would fine or shutdown banks that did not make these loans.
No one forced banks to make derivatives.
Why didn't wallstreet refuse to buy the notes?
I'm glad you picked Denmark because it's actually the 11th most economically free country in the world. None of the things you mention would be possible if it weren't for the fact that capitalism created so much wealth. Even now Denmark is facing some problems thanks to its welfare state.
Also, capitalism is compassion. It's the most compassionate system there is.
You owe it because it was there for you if you needed it. You didn't because of circumstances that were mostly out of your control, just like everybody else's.
I repeat once again: Why aren't you a "leech?" What virtue, entirely of your own making, makes you worthy of life while the children of the poor can die for all you care?
Social Security isn't a savings account, by the way. You'll always be able to vote for your grandchildren to food and shelter you, just like your grandparents did. Social Security going broke is a meme.
>social security going broke is a meme
That's all I need to know to determine that your delusional. Have you even seen any chart related to how much SS and Medicaid and Medicare spending has increased in relation to % of government spending? I mean you're out of your mind if you don't think it's going broke. What the hell are you even doing on this board? Do you even have money invested in stocks? Jesus Christ.
I am poor, believe it or not.
And I deserve to be poor, because my father and mother were both dipshit substance abusers that made terrible life choices.
I learned from their stupidity, and I'm getting the skills I need to have a successful career. At the same time, I'm declining to make terrible life choices like having children at a young age or becoming an alcoholic or being a scumbag criminal and going to prison.
I've lived around poor people my whole life. Let me tell you dude, poor people fucking suck and they deserve everything they get. My first job was in retail, and I had coworkers that were in their 30s, 40s, and 50s. Not managers. Shelf stockers like me. A couple of them were clearly drug addicts or were at some point. Many of them talked openly about getting hammered every weekend. One of the cooler guys there was in his 30s, living with his mom, spends his days smoking weed and playing video games. I've got nothing against all that, but don't fucking complain that your life sucks because of capitalism. Your life sucks because YOU fuckin suck.
So Denmark is more economically free but has more regulations and higher taxes.
Double standard as fuck. Your economic freedom metric is shit.
Answer the question do you support cutting the welfare state in developed western countries?
Is moral hazard a law? if not, then the banks should act in their rational self interest and not make bad loans.
Yes, there are excuses. If you graduate and there's no job? If you're not smart enough to be a full time student? If you need to eat TODAY and school starts in four months? What then?
Benefits can be reduced. Withholdings can be increased. It can't "go broke" because it isn't just a big bucket of money we're taking from.
He doesn't need to. The great thing about this country is that you CAN rise above your circumstances provided you have the drive.
People are walking around with devices that contain all of the worlds knowledge at the palm of their hand. There is NO EXCUSE for anyone to be poor in this day and age.
Uh-huh. You have your manservant post that for you?
Don't worry millionaire. I'm sure your temporary embarrassment will be over soon. There's room for EVERYBODY at the top. All of us. At the same time.
Please, this meme needs to end.
Knowledge doesn't have value in of itself, frankly there are too many people - this is something everyone knows.
There is definitely an upper limit on peoples capabilities, labor is the baseline for human standard of living and its value will continue to drop.
There is no reason why I should support an economic system which doesn't benefit me, capitalism benefits the few that are successful which protip: most people aren't and don't have the capability to be.
>People are walking around with devices that contain all of the worlds knowledge at the palm of their hand.
How the fuck will this make anyone rich? Everyone has these there is no comparative advantage.
>He doesn't need to. The great thing about this country is that you CAN rise above your circumstances provided you have the drive.
kek, barring any unforeseen circumstances, in which case you are screwed. Especially if you need medical care and if your country doesn't provide healthcare. Having to declare bankruptcy because of high medical bills is extremely common.
Free market capitalism gets a bad rap because economists say everything should be fine but sometimes shit gets really bad, and the economics which are taught as the mainstream really doesn't satisfactorily explain why shit gets really bad. And the explanations they use are offensive as fuck, and rings hollow from observed history (rightfully so.)
Here's the skinny: Periodic instability is a core attribute of any advanced capitalist society. This primarily has to do with the internal structure of companies and the means by which capital assets are financed in a capitalist society.
Companies enter into contractual obligations to finance their business model, which means they must receive certain levels of cash flows to make good on their financial obligations AND to cover their non-finance expenditures (labor, rent, etc) AND create a surplus. These requirements set prices for a given company's products or services.
So what happens? Financial markets are essentially run by termed contractual obligations (commercial paper, debt maturation and repayment, shares of stock, the list is numerous.) This means that as markets rise and fall, the trail of paper payments follows with a drag time. So when markets go up, contractual obligations expand to a point where debt is not exceeded by profit, which causes a financial collapse, generally manifesting as a recession.
To add to my previous post and respond to this:
I'm not a leech because I don't quite meet the criteria to receive benefits. Now, I'm not totally clean. My mother received welfare when I lived with her. Food stamps, Medicaid, all that good shit. She was a piece of shit, by the way. Addicted to pills, didn't work, tried gold-digging a bunch of guys, and was generally a bitch 95% of the time.
When I say leech, I mean it more as a mindset of entitlement as compared to self-reliance. But if you want to call me a leech for benefiting from welfare at some point in my life, go for it bro. I don't care. I don't live like that. I'm not one of these scumshits living in a trailer park collecting government paychecks and voting for Bernie.
As usual, David Wong gets it right:
"It's like setting a jar of moonshine on the floor of a boxcar full of 10 hobos and saying, "Now fight for it!" Sure, in the bloody aftermath you can say to each of the losers, "Hey, you could have had it if you'd fought harder!" and that's true on an individual level. But not collectively -- you knew goddamned well that nine hobos weren't getting any hooch that night. So why are you acting like it's their fault that only one of them is drunk?"
I'm not calling you shit. I'm telling you to get off your high horse.
You yourself have already said that you deserved to starve to death or die from lack of medical care as a child. Either kill yourself and correct the oversight or change your mind and develop some empathy and join the human fucking race.
>these countries don't have any social safety net
This is false. India was established as a socialist state, complete with 5 year plans and and large-scale systems of wealth redistribution. But it didn't work, because there was no wealth to redistribute.
A country with high levels of wealth redistribution incentivizes not working — why would I work if I can rely on the work of others? There was a joke in the Soviet Union: "So long as the bosses pretend to pay us, we will pretend to work."
Capitalism fails for the same reason communism fails. People are inherently greedy and only give a fuck about themselves. They both work great when everyone plays by the rules.
Need a communist back end to a capitalist society with a strict "Murder every fucker who breaks the rules" rule.
Hayek was wrong, but so are all the gommies in this thread.
Economics is the study of how entities distribute scarce resources, so 80% of "real" economics is about constructing models and doing constrained optimizations.
As a free market advocate, I love recessions.
Those are the periods when we trim the fat. Lousy workers get fired. Lousy businesses go bust. Dumb gamblers go bankrupt. It's great. The existence of recessions is not something that goes on the "con" list for capitalism. On the contrary, it goes to show that losers don't get tenure in this system.
I didn't say recessions were on the "con" list, I said financial instability is a core attribute of capitalism, which is not at all accepted by free marketers. Recessions, under the free market view, are always some exogenous act or effect, like trade unions or Big Government or a war.
>brb printing my electrical engineering degree from the internet, engineering job here I come.
You can also know the real estate business like the back of your hand, but if you are dirt poor and can't get a loan because your only collateral is your phone and your only income is 3 part-time fast-food jobs, and no bank in their right mind is going to give a loan to someone with those assets and income. Then you can't practice your knowledge.
It's a great thing a majority of the population aren't seeking this knowledge. And it's that very knowledge that separates the successful from the unsuccessful.
You don't have to blame the economic system, blame yourself.
Not at all, friend. I was actually a cute, smart, well-behaved child. My teachers all loved me. I've no doubt that in a free market, a charitable individuals would have taken care of me.
If not, oh well! Sometimes life just isn't fair! In the grand scheme of things, my death would be nothing to pout over!
And please! I'm not anti-empathy. I'm anti-welfare-state. Be as empathetic as you please. In fact, I encourage it. I absolutely encourage people to donate to the causes they believe in. There's more to life than work and drudgery. People should spend their money on whatever they want! I'm only saying, don't put a gun to my head and tell me it's helping! Do you want to shoot me, bro??? Do you want to SHOOT ME?
That's not what a double standard is and you still don't understand that economic freedom is what makes countries successful.
As for your question, what do you think?
Also, if you can't get your head around something as basic as a moral hazard then you're retarded. Do you even know what the federal funds rate is? What a derivative is?
>Do you want to SHOOT ME?
I'm starting to.
Pay your fucking taxes. Having told your story you've now admitted to us all that you owe your life to the welfare state. You get to pay for life.
Why didn't wallstreet refuse to buy the notes?
Because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac didn't look at all the loans in an MBS properly and just slapped a AAA rating on it. The guys making the loans knew this and made $800,000 loans to Mexican fruit pickers.
I would argue that they often are, but not always! "Free-marketers" that claim that people are perfect rational actors haven't delved deep enough. I know well enough that people are quite prone to misjudgement. Stocks and real estate get overvalued/undervalued all the time! Economic bubbles are merely a larger reflection of that phenomenon. It happens! The thing is, the people that suffer from those bubbles are the people that bought in on the hype of it, rather than a rational evaluation of the investment.
>repeating the same "it's your fault!" meme.
No, it's the fault of an economic system which doesn't represent my interests, which is why I will vote against it and which is why many other people are starting to vote against it to.
The rise of trump and sanders demonstrate mass discontent with the current economic model, frankly nobody likes it but the few which profit it from and they are in the minority.
>The thing is, the people that suffer from those bubbles are the people that bought in on the hype of it, rather than a rational evaluation of the investment.
That's very true. Euphoria is also a core component of finance, at least until we develop good enough machines to make those decisions.
>misses the point
If social security benefits get reduced to the point that they're worthless, then it will have failed it's objective. They're already very low anyway. Most elderly can't live off social security benefits alone already. Can you understand that?
No. It's simply true. You pay in because you owe it and so others will have the same opportunities you had.
How old are you anyway? 17? 20? You have a child's simplistic view of the world. Derpity doo dah, paying your taxes is slavery, theft, and serfdom!
Man, that Ayn Rand was really something, wasn't she?
Protip: Don't ever look up how she paid the rent when she was older.
>If you graduate and there's no job?
"I deserve a job because my language degree is just as valid as an engineering degree"
"I've just got my language degree and the job market is rough for me. However, I notice that Google Translate is unreliable for anything more than very basic sentences. What if I go to Google and sell them on my language skills to help them improve Google Translate?"
Guess which mindset ends up in homelessness? And as an aside which one is unfortunately more pervasive than it should be
>If you need to eat TODAY
Go to Centrelink and get a Basics Card (food stamp). Go to a food kitchen.
I've said it before, I'll say it again. The only reason welfare states are funded is because of capitalism. You can't tax the rich to pay for your welfare programs if there's no rich in your country. It's just common sense.
It's almost as if you're admitting you're just a good-for-nothing slacker. Bringing up Trump vs Sanders won't do you any good, either. Everyone with a basic understanding of economics knows Sanders is full of shit.
Unless you can prove me wrong, anyhow. I wonder how Sanders is going to provide all of this welfare without contributing the national debt.
>The question then is do YOU want to be rich or stay poor?
when you ask this question to a nation of poor people, you get a nation of poorcucks. Wherever I am in life I will never be a poorly paid wageslave.
So if regulation and worker protections don't matter in determining economic freedom (as proven in the Denmark-Bangladesh case) why does the right-wing so insists on taking them down in the name of economic freedom and even cite that ranked list determined by that metric?
Moral hazards are no excuse for a company to behave irrationally. It is not a law so there was no need to give out the loans and create derivatives.
>Because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac didn't look at all the loans in an MBS properly and just slapped a AAA rating on it. The guys making the loans knew this and made $800,000 loans to Mexican fruit pickers.
Shouldn't the market have spotted this, instead of letting it grow into a bubble?
You didn't even answer the fucking question. Why didn't wallstreet refuse to buy the notes?
Yep, sonny, you should go work for them googles! I hear they pay real good and take all sorts! Just put on a nice suit and go over there and knock on some doors! Show them your gumption and sticktoitiveness!
five-year plans are not the welfare state, Denmark doesn't have five year plans but still has a welfare state, corporations have five year plans and no welfare state.
India tried top-down economic planning not the welfare state.
Are you in favor of cutting the welfare state in modern western countries?
It's an example of the mass discontent, the façade of happy-capitalism is wearing away as most people are starting to experience the ugly truth of a system based upon the value of labor, when labor has little value now.
Times are changing, economic systems will be reformulated to represent the circumstances of the time.
> You pay in because you owe it and so others will have the same opportunities you had.
I pay in if I have to, just like people did for me. I don't owe it to anybody. This isn't a 'pay it forward' situation. Millions of people that contributed to the welfare I received didn't want to do it. In perpetuating an immoral system, I'm not paying forward any generosity. That's precisely because I was not the beneficiary of generosity. I was the beneficiary of violent, forcible redistribution of wealth. That's not something I feel obligated to perpetuate.
>How old are you anyway? 17? 20? You have a child's simplistic view of the world. Derpity doo dah, paying your taxes is slavery, theft, and serfdom!
I am 22. Young, yes. But you shouldn't misjudge me. In fact, if you'd read my other posts in this thread you'd know I'm not a 'taxation is slavery' kind of guy. I'm a minarchist. I believe the government has a very limited role in the form of guaranteeing property rights and forming a common defense against other nations. I'm against forced wealth redistribution.
Yeah, Ayn Rand is really cool. She breaks the female stereotype pretty hard. Best woman that ever lived. God I fucking love Ayn Rand. I'm not even being ironic. She's great.
And get out of here with the nonsense about her accepting SS. I take what's available, and so should everyone else. I don't fault corporations for exploiting politicians for their own personal gain in the form of subsidies and the like. I fault the politicians and our dumb voters.
>regulation doesn't matter
I never said that.
>if x doesn't matter why does the right wing insist on taking x down in the name of economic freedom?
Government regulation, as opposed to market regulation does influence the economy in many ways. The reason the right wing insists on removing it is because it impacts the economy in a negative way.
Moral hazards are what is called a perverse incentive. You don't need legislation to make people do things.
As for your questions regarding the 2008 crisis, the market was distorted by the government corporations, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Kind of sad that you know so little about the cause of the crisis yet you're on this board.
Maybe you should educate yourself before you spout bullshit.
the list of countries by economic freedom says regulation doesn't matter.
>Moral hazards are what is called a perverse incentive
shouldn't the banks and everyone else see through these "moral hazards?"
>the market was distorted by the government corporations
prove it? the truth is that the banks were acting irrationally and short sighted. Acting economically rationally doesn't lead to massive losses, therefore the banks acted irrationally.
>Because capitalism has no form of morality whatsoever
Capitalism is a function of morality. It is a corollary of individual rights, a moral system wherein people are free to live for themselves.
Stealing from Peter to give it Paul is not moral.
>Wall Street didn't know that they were subprime garbage.
sounds like wallstreet is to blame. they are supposed to be rational.
>economic planning is socialism
>Oh my god I wrote a budget, I have been tainted by Marx, Rand give me strength.
You can plan all you want but if you are not giving to the people then that is not socialism.
In capitalist-"ethics" you can literally shoot people for trespassing.
Same goes for a starving person stealing bread from a rich person.
Don't claim to be have found objective morality or ethics. Ethics/morality are subjective as fuck.
First of all there is always regulation. The difference is that government regulation is less effective than market regulation. Countries with less government regulation and more market regulation, as well as other factors, tend to be more successful.
Regarding moral hazard, why don't you fucking Google what the word is before you make yourself sound like an idiot and a lazy faggot.
You don't even know what a moral hazard how the fuck are you going to tell me what the "truth" is?
>Its your right to be poor! Be proud citizen, under our great system you keep what is yours!(even though you don't happen to own anything).
Fact is, capitalism is a system which some benefit from and others lose, it's no more moral then wealth redistribution as it prescribes that winners are deserving and losers are not, neither is true.
Redistribution of wealth is simply changing the rules.
>In capitalist-"ethics" you can literally shoot people for trespassing
So what am I supposed to do if a burglar breaks into my house? Am I not allowed to defend myself?
>Same goes for a starving person stealing bread from a rich person.
Not unless you could prove your life was in danger or threatened.
>capitalism is a system which some benefit from and others lose
And a system where many benefit in mutual exchange.
>it's no more moral then wealth redistribution as it prescribes that winners are deserving and losers are not, neither is true
Capitalism doesn't prescribe winners and losers. Governments do that (see: wealth redistribution). A capitalism system rests on the premise of individual rights. You get to choose from whatever opportunities other individuals will participate with you in. Some ventures will win, and others will fail - but the outcome is not prescribed.
>It upsets me that so many problems in countries' economies are caused by a failure to acknowledge the merits of free market capitalism.
If upsets me that you have no understanding of economic history and have instead decided to embrace neoliberal propaganda without bothering to check if what you say is even true.
The huge achievements of capitalism were not due to free enterprise/free markets. They were down to giant government intervention into markets to create particularly outcomes that were being strived for. Three particular protectionist strategies were always used by successful capitalist nations, whether it was the original Western European countries (UK, Holland, France etc.), the USA, the Asian Tigers or whoever:
1) Giant tariffs against foreign imports
2) Huge subsidies to domestic producers
3) Massive investment in infrastructure where the private sector is unwilling to outlay high capital for low returns
That is why Capitalism succeeded. Because it was STATE capitalism not "free entreprise" junk.
The most advanced capitalist nation on the planet -the USA- was built this way.
>I don't have a response so I'll call him names
No capitalist country in the world was built on free trade/free markets/free enterprise. It says so much that you are ignorant of this.
like i said ethics/morality is subjective as fuck, so they should not be used as a basis for debate or argument.
>The difference is that government regulation is less effective than market regulation
literally no one else practices this distinction.
>You don't even know what a moral hazard how the fuck are you going to tell me what the "truth" is?
you got btfo'd the banks and those who bought derivative acted irrationally and short sighted. Moral hazards are no excuse for their behavior considered from a rational self-interest perspective. Manias, panics and bubbles are a natural part of thew markets why can't you accept this. instead of blaming the government like /pol/ blames jews.
>like i said ethics/morality is subjective as fuck, so they should not be used as a basis for debate or argument.
As I soon as I show you why you're assumptions about individualism are wrong, you immediately jump aboard morality is subjective ship.
But to answer your question, take it from Rand herself.
>Man has been called a rational being, but rationality is a matter of choice—and the alternative his nature offers him is: rational being or suicidal animal. Man has to be man—by choice; he has to hold his life as a value—by choice; he has to learn to sustain it—by choice; he has to discover the values it requires and practice his virtues—by choice. A code of values accepted by choice is a code of morality.”
>The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics—the standard by which one judges what is good or evil—is man’s life, or: that which is required for man’s survival qua man.
>Since reason is man’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil. Since everything man needs has to be discovered by his own mind and produced by his own effort, the two essentials of the method of survival proper to a rational being are: thinking and productive work
In other words, if morality is a system of values to achieve one's goals (regardless of what is meant by right and wrong), then there must be an objective value set for us to follow. Actions which help achieve this are morally good, and actions which set us back from this are morally bad. If your goal in life then is to live, then there is a set of values for you to follow to best live. That is Rand's philosophy for living on Earth, objectivism.
>if morality is a system of values to achieve one's goals (regardless of what is meant by right and wrong), then there must be an objective value set for us to follow
That means people who have two different goals are practicing to different objective values. which means the values are subject. If objective values are built upon individual goals and individual goals are different then so are the objective values. which means they are subjective.
>The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics—the standard by which one judges what is good or evil—is man’s life, or: that which is required for man’s survival qua man.
>that which is required for man’s survival qua man.
this is a very subjective question, some will answer: welfare state, fascism, communism, freemarket capitalism
>Since reason is man’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil.
there is no singular "reason" that exists
>that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil
who died and made Rand the queen of what is good and evil?
Do you even understand absolute advantage? Are you against empirical evidence that demonstrates the superiority of selective protectionism over free trade? Even the World Bank and IMF are admitting this. You sound like you're stuck in the 80s.
I don't have a revisionist view of history. It's you who has the revisionist view of history. All beginning in the 70s with the rise of Neoliberalism and the cult of free markets. Your gullibility has let you down.
>If objective values are built upon individual goals and individual goals are different then so are the objective values. which means they are subjective.
You're forgetting that morality is the system of values to achieve a goal, not the goal itself. You can pick your goals, but you cannot define the values within them. Your picking of the goals does not make the values subjective, it makes your choice subjective, and your choice is not morality.
The point is not that you don't have a choice, it's that there is a choice which is based on the facts of reality.
None of your other questions are intelligible.
And if you choose to live, then
Wow there are a ton of children on /biz/ did you guys think you would get in on some rothschild global ponzi scheme and make millions by coming here.
No wonder there are so many idiots who think bit coin is a great investment here.
>The poor in the US are much richer than the poor in countries like Bangladesh, India, Belize, Indonesia
it's all relative dipshit. just because a family of four in the US makes $20,000 a year doesn't mean they're doing fine because 20 grand is a lot in fucking Indonesia. they're still dirt shit poor and have to choose between eating multiple times a day or keeping the utilities on. Your argument is the dumbest, oldest fallacy in the book.
That's a pretty dumb fucking post. You're disillusioned if you think that American poor don't have it vastly better than the average Indonesian.
I actually know a few Indonesians and they aren't well to do by any means and they'd have a good laugh at your post.
You know what fucking cracks me up?
As an adviser the information provided to us in webinars by the largest companies (for example MLC in Australia) have beliefs that align more with Peter Schiff than these Marxist Central Planners on the main stream news or the idiots at the Federal Reserve.
For all the flack you guys give Austrians they're more in line with the behind the the scenes mentality of fund managers than you lot....
we don't live in a free market capitalism, never have
>what are wage laws
>who were the trust busters
>what are worker rights?
The system has been a mixed system at least sense the 1880s, it not before. We have always needed government intervention.
We are only trying to find the right mix
>MLC in Australia
>guys give Austrians they're
you know those are different places right?
Australians entire country is wage scaled, you know that right? and 38% of adults are unemyployed. To pretend they are free market is silly.
> Info gained by major funds in Australia aligns with the beliefs of Austrian Economists
> You know Austria and Australia are different places right?
Holy shit dude.....I get the mistake but holy shit haha