F
freeRadical
Guest
So, you are against government intervention in the case of extranalities?
- Status
F
freeRadical
Guest
If you think that in a “true” Capitalist economic system there would be no lay offs and full employment, you are sadly mistaken.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
I’m sorry Sally.
I was not clear.
I was hinting that Slavery (being an economic evil) was stopped by the Capitalist Free Market of the North more so than anything else. Slavery cannot exist in a Free Market. Had the U.S. been a true Capitalist society there would have been no need for government intervention in the form of the Civil War.
The Telecommunications Industry would have expanded very well on its own without government subsidies. The Pacific Telegraph Act was only a way for the government to establish a military communications system for the Civil War. It created a monopoly --Western Union. With government subsidies no other company could compete. That is “Crony Capitalism”.
The British approach to railroads was better than ours because it relied on private enterprise…at first. The deterioration began with government price controls (affordable fares) By the 1970’s every railroad in the U.S. was on the brink of bankruptcy due to over regulation. In 1980 the railroads were deregulated and became profitable overnight.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
Externalities can be positive or negative. Either way there is no need for government intervention in a true Capitalist Society.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
Well, gee whiz…lets TRY a pure, true Capitalist Economic System and find out for sure…
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
Time changes people and society. What worked in the past in no way assures that it will succeed in the future. When then Pope John Paul II condemned socialism, it was a history specific statement, valid for just a short span of time. With LOVE will come a new economic system based on cooperation and a genuine concern for the welfare of others. Capitalism, I believe, has seen better days.
LOVE!
LOVE!
S
sallybutler
Guest
And therein lies the problem, we’ve never seen a pure capitalist market system, we’ve never seen a true free market system. We think they might work. But everyone has a different definition of what they mean, what the rules would be, how the rules would be enforced, who would enforce them, etc.
Even early barter societies were not pure. People would cheat, which would lead to fights and feuds. As long as greed exists, the perfect economic system will not.
M
Mickey_Finn
Guest
For it. it’s Capitalism I’m unsure of.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
Good points Sally.
While we have never seen a true pure Free Market, we have seen other economic systems fail, dissolve and degenerate into tyrannical dictatorships.
What we have seen is a (sort of) Free Market, encumbered by everything that tends to destroy it raising the standard of living for ALL, promoting peace and breaking down international barriers to free trade that benefit the poorest nations…
I don’t think it would take a highly educated intellectual to ask…"Duh, why don’t we unbridle this economic force, sit bask and let it run, and take us all to a better world???.
S
sallybutler
Guest
What we’ve got is better than most other systems. That being said, it is not agreed to by everyone. How would you prevent governments from providing subsidies (I’m including city and state governments)? How would you support religious requirements (prohibitions against usury as an example)? How would you deal with things that are considered necessities(access to water)? What would you consider a necessity (water, electricity, internet, education, sewage, the ability to travel, etc) Would you force everyone to follow your idea of a free market? What if someone else had a different idea of what a free market was?
A system involving millions and millions of people is complicated. Unfortunately, it requires complicated solutions.
Make that BIllions.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Your analysis of what is “wrong” with our current approximation to a free market, i.e. calling it “encumbered”, is by no means universally agreed. To someone who disagrees with your analysis, it is not at all obvious that the free market should be more “unencumbered”. Some believe it should be more “encumbered”, but they would use a less derogatory term to describe it. Once you remove the automatic assumption that what you call a fault really is a fault, the choice to go in the direction of a less-regulated economy is on a par with the choice to go in the direction of a more-regulated economy.
When the suggestion is made to “try” something in our economic system, remember this is not like painting the living room yellow to see how we like it. In that case, the only cost if it doesn’t work out is a can of paint and an afternoon’s work. In the case of trying out a variation on our economic system, the cost could be a generation or more of widespread suffering. Such an experiment cannot be easily recalled or terminated. That is why changes to our economic system must be carefully considered to the best of our ability before they are tried.
F
freeRadical
Guest
Capitalism is a fairly new economic system actually. I see you still haven’t given up on Socialism, even though the Church has specifically condemned it. How do you know that that condemnation was only for a short period of time? Did you ever read Rerum Novarum?Time changes people and society. What worked in the past in no way assures that it will succeed in the future. When then Pope John Paul II condemned socialism, it was a history specific statement, valid for just a short span of time. With LOVE will come a new economic system based on cooperation and a genuine concern for the welfare of others. Capitalism, I believe, has seen better days.
LOVE!
F
freeRadical
Guest
What system would you replace it with?For it. it’s Capitalism I’m unsure of.
F
freeRadical
Guest
If the market cannot correct the extranality on its own then of course there is a case for government intervention. Are you implying that there would be no extranalities in a “true” Capitalist society?
F
freeRadical
Guest
Of course there will be lay offs in a “true” Capitalist society as supply and demand change. Have you ever heard of structural unemployment? How about the “natural” rate of unemployment?
What do you mean by “pure” and “true”?
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
Eventually, we have got to have a social system that promotes love, cooperation and good moral character; it has to happen. Whatever that system is in economic terms, fine. Regardless of what we personally desire, God already knows. Regardless of what we may do, we will not change God’s plans. We all need to listen.
LOVE!
F
freeRadical
Guest
What makes you think that an economic system is capable of promoting love, cooperation, and good moral character? Do you think Socialism promotes those things?Eventually, we have got to have a social system that promotes love, cooperation and good moral character; it has to happen. Whatever that system is in economic terms, fine. Regardless of what we personally desire, God already knows. Regardless of what we may do, we will not change God’s plans. We all need to listen.
LOVE!
Have you read Rerum Novarem yet?
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
Please re-read my post and note that I specifically said ‘social system.’
I have read bits and pieces, but not interested in reading it any further.
LOVE!
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
The Catholic Church has been trying to get people to behave for 2,000 years. The U.S. government has been trying to get people to behave for 200 years and more.Eventually, we have got to have a social system that promotes love, cooperation and good moral character; it has to happen. Whatever that system is in economic terms, fine. Regardless of what we personally desire, God already knows. Regardless of what we may do, we will not change God’s plans. We all need to listen.
LOVE!
But people don’t do very well at behaving themselves. No economic system will ensure it.
But one thing is for sure. People can be generous and decent, but people also resent and resist coercion. As the Russians used to say (and perhaps still do) “As long as they pretend to pay us, we’ll pretend to work.”
It therefore seems to me that proper moral teaching and a fairly minimal level of constraint is most likely to come close to (but never achieve) a just society. One difficulty with the former is, of course, that one rarely hears the Church’s actual teachings about economic matters, proper charity, etc. And, nowadays when one does, one often hears “Liberation Theology Lite” from some person whose formative years were in the 1970s.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I don’t mean to be a nag, but until a person does read Rerum Novarum (and perhaps other) Social Encyclical, one is unlikely to have much understanding of what the Church actually teaches when it comes to economic matters.Please re-read my post and note that I specifically said ‘social system.’
I have read bits and pieces, but not interested in reading it any further.
LOVE!
- Status