Very true, and this is something I can actually agree with. I see Freidman economics as being the stepping stone toward global free markets, but again, there is a long way to go, there is a ton of resistance in Asia etc. for the moment. So until the day comes where we see worldwide trade liberalization, the "best" we can do is some type of mixed market, erring on the side of "free" and progressing moreso in that direction as time moves on.
The government has a role in austrian economics, to protect the players from force and fraud. There's no logical reason to extend it beyond that, unless you own a bank or something... Why does the rest of the world need to come around to free markets for us to practice it? If the US was the only country in the world with free markets we would benefit greatly from investment and growth.
Coming in hear reading your comments I'm going to assume none of y'all really know all that much about socialism. I'm and American, born and raised in Texas. in recent years I've been living in Europe. In the countries I live socialism is very much the law of the land. What does socialism mean? Well the way I've seen it work is like this, for over hear it means a high tax, but at the same time there are much higher wages. Working at McDonald's here you make 20 bucks an hour as minimum wage. The people who earn less get less tax, while the people who earn more get a high tax. The money taxed goes into free university for the citizens, as well as free healthcare. There is also a government program in which they pay students money for going to school. Up to $1000 a month. Anyone and everyone is qualified for this as long as they are a student. Now I think their system works out pretty well, there is no poverty whatsoever. The people who can't work whether it be for mental illnesses or other reasons get compensation, and it is more than enough for them to live comfortably. While the system can have many positives there are a few problems, the healthcare here is generally very adequate for many things ranging big to small, but there are somethings they are limited with specifically brain tumors, but again this is a problem they can fix. Now as for freedom I'd say that I enjoy a great deal more of freedoms here, including not being spied on. So take it for what it's worth. Don't come to conclusions on something before you know more about it.
Because of the globalization movement. Our economies are almost completely intertwined, regulations in other nations have an "overspill" effect on our markets, undermining the very nature of the "freemarket". Not to mention organizations like the WTO, who provide worldwide regulations. Assuming NAFTA remains intact this could also throw a wrench in the plan. The assertion that we'd have a massive increase in investment and growth is largely a matter of speculation, though addmitedly it is likely. The only downside I could see with that scenario is some kind of unsustainable "bubble" occuring that often happens in response to newly de-regulated sectors. The ramifications are quite varied, but don't bode well in my humble opinion.
What is incorrect? I didn't make an argument, I just defined the basic system under capitalism and socialism. Capitalism protects individual rights, socialism enforces collective rights. Economics of fascism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Proponents of fascism heralded keynesianism. “Fascism entirely agrees with Mr. Maynard Keynes, despite the latter’s prominent position as a [so called] Liberal. In fact, Mr. Keynes’ excellent little book, The End of Laissez-Faire (l926) might, so far as it goes, serve as a useful introduction to fascist economics. There is scarcely anything to object to in it and there is much to applaud.”and '"all that (Keynesian teaching) is pure Fascist premises" - The universal aspects of fascism - James Strachey Barnes - Google Boeken I hate how socialists think they can re-define words lol. I'd love to hear how you perceive socialism as providing absolute individual freedom, thanks. Socialism is collectivist and anti-freedom by all modern definitions of the word.
Sounds quite enjoyable, and I think most would agree that on the whole it is a nice system *for now*. The issue, if you head over to nationaldebtclock.org, is debt. The governments cannot continue to run defecits like they have been doing. It can continue for a while, but eventually the market will begin to force defaults, at which point the world will look at Europe and say "glad I'm not there".
How many countries do you live in right now? Every European country does things a little differently. Capitalist economies with welfare states isn't exactly "socialism"... Give me an example of what could go wrong for the US if we went rogue and became completely free. Everybody would want to trade with us... the only people to suffer would be those with protectionist trade policies.
I'm aware, currently I live in Denmark, before that I lived in Sweden which was more or less the same, and also The Netherlands. As for countries which have no social welfare system or anything compared to a socialist system I lived in Poland, this was by far the most contrasting country to the others.
The initiation of aggression is never ethical where aggression is defined as violence, fraud or threats thereof. This stems from the logical foundation of self-ownership.
We would become extremely vulnerable to shocks in important commodities like oil and food, especially the latter since food is somewhat "baselined" by the government. Addmitedly would probably not be too much of a problem there, but in extreme cases it could get ugly. The more insidious scenerio I can think of is Sovereign Wealth Funds coming in and "pump and dumping" sectors of the economy. Doesn't even need to be SWF's necessarily, any large hedge or bank could presumably do this to the smaller volume sectors. I could be wrong, at the core of the issue (IMO) is that we frankly don't know what could happen, the works of Rothbard and Mises can't particularly be cited as results since their theories imply zero-to-minimal intervention.
No kidding, a system that makes everyone dependent on the government provides ultimate freedom? Ok then, I guess I have to rethink everything I knew about economics, government and life in general.
Just FYI, I'm not trying to initiate a debate with you with this post, just explaining some things a bit more for the benefit of everyone. Also, for anyone reading, when I refer to capitalism I mean any system with the capitalist mode of production, not necessarily any bias towards either extreme of State Capitalism or Free-Market Capitalism. Thank you for clarifying. This is, in Marxian circles, is referred to as social democracy or simply a 'capitalist welfare state' to acknowledge it as a system that retains the capitalist mode of production with an attempt to bandage over its problems. You may also be referring to what is called utopian socialism. I implore you to read up on historical materialism, you'd likely find it an interesting concept based on what I've read from you in this thread. The basics can be found in Engels' Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. The work, along with Marx's The Poverty of Philosophy, essentially lambast what you've referred to as 'utopian socialism' ... the idealized notion of 'living together in harmony'. The latter work referring specifically to Pierre J. Proudhon's mutualist anarchism, specifically his similarly titled work The Philosophy of Poverty. Referring to The German Ideology for clarification on the issue: This is referring to an institution of proletarian dictatorship (in the Marxian sense) as a means of solving the contradictions contained within the capitalist mode of production that result in a series of crisis after crisis, wealth concentration and, eventually, barbarism. There are no moralist arguments in Marxism against "exploitation" as a sound attack against capitalism. These come from people, usually (social) anarchists (not that they aren't on the right track, just a bit idealistic) or those attempting to appeal to the 'average joe'. What you're referring to is social democracy. Europe has retained the capitalist mode of production. See the beginning of this post. It is incorrect to characterize something as complex as socialism as "democratic control over resources" or "a government that satisfies the wants of the majority". This is taking a moralist perspective, that the needs or wants of the majority or minority are more important than any minority or majority. The argument for socialism is that capitalism is unsustainable and self-contradictory; that it will collapse into barbarism. I'm sure you're familiar with the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, for example; something not even Mises denied. Keynesianism, like fascism, was seen as a way to fend of socialist revolution and preserve the capitalist mode of production. Socialists are not re-defining words, it's that their definitions have become muddled over the decades and we have to explain what we're referring to every single time a discussion takes place. Fascism itself is a very distinct political movement, you can't apply it to every step away from laissez-faire economics. It's similar to referring to European social democracy as "socialism". It's incorrect unless you take particular liberty with definitions of key terms. At the risk of delving into more moralist banter, define collectivism and explain how the socialist mode of production limits freedom of movement and freedom of association, when reassuring these are two of its main effects (as a result of the abolition of capitalism). If anything, capitalism impedes these freedoms through private land ownership and rent ... not that this particular discussion is important. You need to rethink what you know of socialism. What you're likely referring to is either social democracy or state capitalism.
Socialism, as I understand it, is the government taking money from citizens and spending it in ways to benefit them, instead of leaving their money in their own hands to spend for their individual benefit, correct? So I now have less money, but in exchange I have access to state services paid for with my and others' tax dollars that we had no say in spending. Explain to me how that doesn't make me more dependent on the government, and less dependent on myself (freedom). I hate this idea because it inhibits my ability to improve and grow as an individual
Well thanks for the clarification, all though the mode of production here is very much capitalist as is the market. I'd say one of the few things which killed socialism and Marx's theory was the sudden sprout of labor unions, your thoughts?
No problem! No, Marx's critique of capitalism has yet to be proven incorrect. If by "killed socialism" you mean placated the workers and reduced class consciousness and worker militancy, then yes unions have done that. In the last 100 years they've only served to direct workers' anger into a strive for that extra $5/hr and two more days of paid vacation, not for an elimination of the capitalist mode of production. There are very few radical unions in the world anymore. The IWW even has an odor of reformism in the present day.
Although, granted, something like the IWW can introduce people to anticapitalist views. It did introduce Hunter S. Thompson to it. He remarked towards the end of his life, "I'm coming to view the free enterprise system as the single greatest evil in the history of human savagery"
I'd like a response to this: The initiation of aggression is never ethical where aggression is defined as violence, fraud or threats thereof. This stems from the logical foundation of self-ownership.[/quote] -------------------------------------------------------- EDIT: found your definition of socialism: Socialism seems to require the initiation of aggression as most people won't distinguish between personal possessions and 'economic' ones. I'm willing to let you go off and try it though as long as you leave me alone.