The U.S. Economy: Stand by for more worse news

[Michael]

Most consider the Scandinavian countries to be "socialist" so you are over generalizing.

Their economies appear to be in the process of imploding as we speak. Particularly Sweden, the poster-child of Progressive Democratic Socialism.

UN Report: (PDF) Sweden Will Become a Third World Country by 2030

 

[iceaura]

The two go hand in glove. It's no surprize that highly socialistic societies, like the USSR, E. Germany, N. Korea, Cuba, Venezuela end up either imploding economically, electing a dictator or both.

Cuba as socialist did neither, Venezuela is just now imploding after their elected socialist reforms were altered by new government, the N Korean economy did not "implode" but rather remained mired in war-created misery without the expected improvements of "peace", the others of course elected nobody - and E Germany/USSR was one economy rather than two.

Note that both Cuba and Venezuela had histories of imploding and falling into dictatorship as more capitalistic countries, followed by economic improvement (and in Venezuela's case at least, and possibly Cuba's also, less dictatorial government) as more socialistic ones - so the "end up" part of your logic there is the opposite of the historical chain of event.

Note that E. Germany had a history of falling into elected dictatorship under capitalism, followed by economic disaster, and as with Cuba and Venezuela saw its economy improved under socialism - even really miserable and imposed socialism.

So your choice of "examples" there is - how to put it - odd.

It's reasonable to assume that if the majority of people would support a dictator, that this same majority may also support using non-violent means to pressure a large landholder (for example, social ostracization).

The weirdness of the wingnut fantasy world has no better illustration. Gandhis against their own government, or what is the fantasy here?

I'm trying to imagine a world in which the peasants of, say, 1920 Haiti, 1950 Cuba, 1980 Honduras, or 2010 Colombia, pressured the death squad commanders hired by their absentee capitalist landlords via "social ostracization". And I'm drawing a blank.

 

[Billy T]

Their economies appear to be in the process of imploding as we speak. Particularly Sweden, the poster-child of Progressive Democratic Socialism. UN Report: (PDF) Sweden Will Become a Third World Country by 2030

That is your re-titling of the link, as a click on it will show, which if your read it has all the Scandinavian countries with better and IMPROVING Human Development Indexes, HDI, than both the US and the UK which is increasing its HDI faster than the US is so if HDIs were projected for 2035, the US would be at the bottom of the list below!

Interestingly, no HDI for Sweden is forecast. Probably because it is already so high, perfection, would be covered by the noise in the data. Sweden is an amazing country, with no natural resources (except forests) yet its well educated people export dozens of products (Volvos, Sabs, fighter jets*, are some of the larger ones, down in size to world's largest supplier of wooden matches) so with rare exceptions of a month or two, they have a positive balance of payments (not the chronic deficit the US has). Their debt to GDP ratio is (2013 latest available) is 40.6% and in a steady downward trend, not more than 100% as the US's is.

Brazil is in process of buying 36 Gripens, after rejecting the US and French models. See image at end.

Here is table 10 projecting the change in HDI for five different years, 2010, being the first and 2030 being the last forcasted"

Table 10: User Projections
COUNTRY, HDI2010 HDI2015 HDI2020 HDI2025 HDI2030
JAPAN 0.959 0.971 0.980 0.990 0.998
AUSTRALIA 0.975 0.984 0.988 0.991 0.995
FRANCE 0.961 0.971 0.980 0.988 0.993
SPAIN 0.953 0.962 0.971 0.980 0.991
CANADA 0.969 0.977 0.983 0.986 0.989
NORWAY 0.975 0.979 0.982 0.986 0.989
NEW ZEALAND 0.946 0.955 0.968 0.979 0.988
IRELAND 0.968 0.974 0.978 0.981 0.984
ISRAEL 0.940 0.951 0.961 0.973 0.984
ITALY 0.956 0.963 0.970 0.976 0.984
KOREA, REP. OF 0.946 0.959 0.972 0.978 0.981
NETHERLANDS 0.964 0.971 0.975 0.978 0.980
GREECE 0.944 0.955 0.964 0.973 0.980
SWITZERLAND 0.960 0.967 0.972 0.976 0.979
SLOVENIA 0.933 0.950 0.963 0.974 0.977
DENMARK 0.951 0.959 0.969 0.974 0.977
AUSTRIA 0.953 0.962 0.969 0.973 0.976
FINLAND 0.956 0.963 0.971 0.975 0.976
UNITED STATES 0.958 0.962 0.966 0.969 0.973
UNITED KINGDOM 0.946 0.951 0.957 0.964 0.972

Not sure it is a feature of the gripen, but one of the Swedish fighter's has most modern scaning radar in the world - nothing moves - that is only found on large US Aegis warships!

See 11 more photos in the Gripen /Saab calendar here: http://saab.com/air/gripen-fighter-system/gripen/gripen/gripen-x-tra/gripen-calendar-2016/

 

[Michael]

I agree, forecasts are just that. Until it's 2030, no one can know.

So, we'll see. I have no doubt that as the economies of Sweden, Germany, Norway, Denmark and Finland slow, they'd just privatize more, generate more wealth, and return towards socialism. As that's what they've been doing for at least a century. An oscillation back and forth.

However, this time, things are different. This time, they're not going to have the homogeneous population of hardworking Scandinavians and Germans. Assuming they don't deport millions of migrants. Those societies will be replaced by multicultural societies. Like ours. It is my opinion, they'll do everything we did and then some. For the same reasons.

Only probably not as well as we have.

Japan saves a ton of money not having to pay for a police State. Their schools can run more efficiently, because parents spend a lot of time and money educating their kids at home. That means more money for social services. Even so, I personally know of a grandfather who was living on 15000 Yen per week retirement. That's living tough. When his medical bills expanded, he asked to be allowed to die. So as not to be a financial burden on his family. What I mean is, Japan is extremely socialistic, and at the same time extremely privatized and capitalistic. When Americans talk about wanting all the socialistic aspects of, say, Japanese society (like the "free" medical care - full coverage for 10 runs 80000 Yen a month [8000 USD a year]), they neglect the fact that most Japanese are extremely honest, there's hardly any crime to speak of, very hard working, they have a term for working to such a state of exhaustion that you die - and it happens. I've never even heard of someone taking drugs (I'm sure it happens, but it's not common) let alone drug ghettos - they don't exist. Japanese mothers generally stay home to raise children (teaching them to read and write). And the old who didn't save, are provided with only the bare minimum to get by in retirement, or they keep working, until they die.

IMO it's not a Germany, Japan or Sweden that a socialistic USA would look like. Try Greece. Or Portugal. Or Spain.


The only game changer I can see really making a difference is technological advances. Unparalleled in history. Massive gains in robotics. Genetic engineering. Huge advances in medicine - possibly even curing aging itself.


IMO none of these socialistic societies would be economically sustainable given their slow population growths - itself an effect of socialism. The only one dealing with it is Japan. They're dealing with it by cutting back on expected benefits. Most young Japanese just accept the fact that they will work until the day they die (or expect to at least). Many of the elderly are still working, and will continue to do so until they die (or expect to at least). The Europeans appear to have an insane idea of importing 10s of millions of workers. Yeah, that sh*t might work for Canada and Australia or other resource dependent economies, not for high tech producers where engineers, computer programmers, geneticists, mathematicians and physicist are needed. At least that's how I see it.

So, we'll see how that works out for them.

Which is why I said, we'll see how their economies are looking when 2030 rolls around. Magic Thinking is all well and fine for a time, particularly at first; but at some point you have to eat.

 

[Michael]

the N Korean economy did not "implode" but rather remained mired in war-created misery without the expected improvements of "peace"

The North Korean military had to reduce it's minimum height requirement because North Korea people have starved to the point of no longer reaching their full physical (and mental) stature. "Special" meat in North Korea is in reference to 'meat soup' made out of the bodies of abducted children. At one time we were actually feeding their army, if you can imagine that. The S. Korean economy on the other hand, seems relatively fine by comparison - all the while being threatened by the N. Koreans.

So, no, the N. Korean economy has in fact 'imploded'. Eating children is a sign of economic implosion. And it has nothing to do with "peace" and everything to do with your inability to tell me how much my coffee cup is worth.

 

[iceaura]

IMO it's not a Germany, Japan or Sweden that a socialistic USA would look like. Try Greece. Or Portugal. Or Spain.

Greece, Portugal, and Spain are all of them capitalistic countries. To the extent they have socialism, such as in health care, they outperform the the US, and the US would be better off adopting one of their ways of doing things.

What I mean is, Japan is extremely socialistic, and at the same time extremely privatized and capitalistic.

Japan has an almost entirely capitalistic economy, including a largely unregulated banking system that created a real estate bubble via collusion in bad loans that drove their economy into a liquidity trap, whereupon they rejected Keynesian stimulus and have been moribund since.

Sound familiar?

Their minor but significant ventures into more socialist arrangements than the US features, also mark their areas of superior performance vis-a-vis the US - health care, job security, schooling and education, etc.

So, no, the N. Korean economy has in fact 'imploded'

Not really. For starters, it would be hard to "implode" from the status of the North Korean economy when the current government took over. North Korea has been a miserable place for a very long time now. Second, much of the continuing hardship should be credited to the various sanctions etc imposed on it from outside - that's not "implosion". And Third: nothing that happened to North Korea matches your event sequence, the claimed pattern you were attempting to support with examples.

The only one of your several examples that even partially matched your supposed pattern was the USSR, and not even that one featured an elected socialist dictator.

 

[Michael]

Greece, Portugal, and Spain are all of them capitalistic countries. To the extent they have socialism, such as in health care, they outperform the the US, and the US would be better off adopting one of their ways of doing things.

This is like saying Cuba has a better healthcare system. At the expense of other areas of the economy. Most North Koreans are starving to death. Pointing out their relatively decent ballistic missile program is red herring.

All children have access to healthcare in the USA.
All Americans will be treated if admitted into the ER in the USA.
Eligible Americans can also access Medicare.
Eligible Americans can also access Medicaid.
Eligible Americans can also access Children's Health Insurance Program.

Many Americans also have private insurance.

Before ObamaCare, Americans could purchase catastrophic insurance for less than 20 dollars a week.

Also, the USA is the world’s leader for pharmaceuticals and biopharmaceutical research. Countries like Spain, they buy a lot of their medicine from the US, Germany or Japan. This means they have to pay, this means they have to cut from other areas of their economy. Not to mention, this industry employs around a million people in the US.

And, get this: There IS NO FREE. Simple enough? There is no free. You don't get 'free' medicine.
That is Magic Thinking.
You have to pay for your medicine.
The most efficient means to allocate medicine is a capitalistic free market. We don't have one of those. We use fiat currency, manipulated by a central bank, and a very very VERY hyper-regulated market. Want cheap affordable healthcare? Then you want to deregulate the healthcare market and support the use of sound currencies. If you give the State control over healthcare, then our public hospitals will look like our public welfare housing projects. They will be as useful as our public high school degrees in the hands of a functional illiterate.

If not, you can have 'free' healthcare, and kids in K-12 can go with less. But that's okay, so what if functional illiteracy rates move up to 40%. Right?

 

[Michael]

Japan has an almost entirely capitalistic economy, including a largely unregulated banking system that created a real estate bubble via collusion in bad loans that drove their economy into a liquidity trap, whereupon they rejected Keynesian stimulus and have been moribund since.

Chinese used to visit Japan in the 1980s and return to China saying: If you want to learn about Communism, go to Japan.

Seriously, that was a common saying back then.

The Japanese have a mixed economy just like all countries. Some areas are free-ish (like being able to bicycle without a helmet and not get shot by the Police State) and other areas are extremely centralized (like their messed up Keynesian Central Banking system).

This is the problem with Central Planning - you can't tell me the price of my coffee cup. See? So, central planners working hand-in-glove with government distort the price signal, people have more children than they otherwise would have, then 30 years later, there's not enough children to pay for all the free, and old people go without. Had they used sound money, relied on capitalism and free-markets, there would have been some ups and downs - but not this total wreck of the world economy. THAT is only possible through central planning. As history has shown time and time again (see: The Great Depression caused by our Central Bank).

The only good thing that came out of Central Banking, is our existence. Without a Central Bank, people would have lived within their means. Societies would have been smaller and grown at a more sustainable pace. So, I suppose that's one good thing. We exist. Now the World's economy can collapse, and we'll be here to deal with it. At least there's that much

 

[iceaura]

This is like saying Cuba has a better healthcare system. At the expense of other areas of the economy.

Better health care, much less money spent. They must be doing something right, no? The bottom line doesn't tell you everything, but it is a strong hint.

All children have access to healthcare in the USA.
All Americans will be treated if admitted into the ER in the USA.
Eligible Americans can also access Medicare.
Eligible Americans can also access Medicaid.
Eligible Americans can also access Children's Health Insurance Program.

Many Americans also have private insurance.

Before ObamaCare, Americans could purchase catastrophic insurance for less than 20 dollars a week.

The socialized stuff does at least actually deliver medical care, true, although the free market fruitcakes have mandated - by law - no cost savings thereby. And that means what? Americans pay twice as much, and get worse health care for it. Bottom line. The worst health care system in the First World, and the most expensive by a mile - a major crippling force on the entire economy. Whatever America is doing, nobody else in the modern world would accept. Whatever any of those other countries are doing, America would be better off if it imitated.

Chinese used to visit Japan in the 1980s and return to China saying: If you want to learn about Communism, go to Japan.
Seriously, that was a common saying back then.

And so you lost the ability to recognize capitalism when you see it? You seem to think that private capitalist central banks are socialist, so may be so.

So, central planners working hand-in-glove with government distort the price signal, people have more children than they otherwise would have, then 30 years later, there's not enough children to pay for all the free, and old people go without. Had they used sound money, relied on capitalism and free-markets, there would have been some ups and downs - but not this total wreck of the world economy.

The Japanese relied on capitalism and free-markets to regulate their banking industry. That's how they got into this mess. It turns out that even in Japan unregulated bankers are actually capable of - get this - making central plans and colluding for their mutual advantage, even without a government official to help them . Who knew?

 

[Schmelzer]

The Japanese relied on capitalism and free-markets to regulate their banking industry. That's how they got into this mess.

LOL. If you rely on capitalism and free-markets, you do not regulate at all.

This is obviously the main problem with the whole discussion - different variants of socialism and corporatism are compared. To name the US health care system free market or capitalistic is simply nonsense, because it is heavily overregulated.

The question is if it makes sense to compare these two variants - a socialist health care system and an overregulated corporatist one. I think this is highly problematic, because the effect of regulation is almost unpredictable. A large amount of regulation may appear quite harmless, leading only to more paperwork. Instead, a single regulation may appear fatal for a lot of people, say, if a life-saving medicine is not allowed. How much harm a particular regulation causes is also hard to estimate. An additional requirement for some paper may be harmless, leading only to one day additional paperwork for a physician, but it may as well appear the unclimbable barrier which prevents him from working in this job.

Similarly, it is hard to expect how serious are the consequences of socialist elements.

Is it possible to make some general predictions? I think so. Socialist healthcare will tend to be cheap and bad, corporatist better but expensive.

The anarchistic free market would be better in above questions - there would be high quality, given that it can be sold for a better price than low quality. There would be low quality but cheap offers too. The competition, which does not exist in the socialist model, and is heavily restricted in the corporatist model, would improve quality and decrease prices.

 

[joepistole]

The anarchistic free market would be better in above questions - there would be high quality, given that it can be sold for a better price than low quality. There would be low quality but cheap offers too. The competition, which does not exist in the socialist model, and is heavily restricted in the corporatist model, would improve quality and decrease prices.

It's really very funny to see someone like you, who represents himself as a scientist, to make the kinds of claims you make all the time. In essesence, what you are saying here is if we don't regulate anything, perfection will follow. It's like putting Scrabble tiles into a bag, shacking them up, and pouring them out and expecting the result to be the prefect word which yields the player maximum value. If you have ever played Scrabble, that isn't how it works. You see there is this little thing called the Second Law of Thermodynamics. You expect unregulated systems to produce perfection. It just doesn't happen.

What you and those like you do is repeatedly advocate solutions and ideology which violate the laws of physics. And then you wonder why people don't take you seriously.

 

[Schmelzer]

In essesence, what you are saying here is if we don't regulate anything, perfection will follow.

First, no, free markets are not perfection. Free markets are simply better than state-controlled markets. Then, some sort of regulation exists in markets: There are property rights and there is a non-aggression principle. These are in fact very powerful and useful "regulations", much better than what is proposed by the state (and written by the lobbies of the 1%).

It's like putting Scrabble tiles into a bag, shacking them up, and pouring them out and expecting the result to be the prefect word which yields the player maximum value. If you have ever played Scrabble, that isn't how it works. You see there is this little thing called the Second Law of Thermodynamics. You expect unregulated systems to produce perfection. It just doesn't happen.

A quite nonsensical comparison.

Let's start with the notion of perfection. For a libertarian, there simply is no perfect society. It is the totalitarian (like you) who dreams about The Perfect Society. The libertarian recognizes that what is perfect for me may be horrible for you. So, I try to create a society perfect for me, you try to create one for you, and the result can be, at best, a compromise. And libertarians think about how such a compromise can look like. Once even the aim, the ideal society, is different for different people, how can the government create it?

This continues if we consider the means of creating the best possible compromise. As such an ideal compromise, one would think about a lot of small communities consisting of people with similar ideals and ideas, which try to create their own ideal society in their own commune. On a lower level, each in the house where he lives. What would be the means to make this house, or the territory of the community, perfect? To decide this, you need information about the aims of the community, as well as about the local circumstances. Who has this information? The people living in this community. Certainly not the government.

In above considerations you can also see another point: Libertarians do not compare with some perfect, ideal society. They compare the free market with possible realistic alternatives. And these alternatives appear to be far worse: States, with politicians having a lot of power, which makes being a politician attractive for psychopaths, elections where it is much easier to win for populist liars than for honest people. These psychopathic liars then grab a lot and do not care about the state at all. Economic theory (public choice theory) tells that nothing good will be done by such a state.

 

[joepistole]

First, no, free markets are not perfection. Free markets are simply better than state-controlled markets.

OK, that's a revision. But OK. But you need to define what you mean by state controlled markets. Here is one of your problems, you thrive in ambiguity. Just what is and what isn't a free market? Free markets led to the great depressions, bank runs, and a number of economic disasters. The unfortunate fact for you is that since the inception of Keynesian economics (i.e. government interventions in the market place), the economy has been better. Periods of economic growth have been longer and stronger and periods of recession have been fewer and less severe. So more centuries of data clearly and demonstrably show you are wrong.

Then, some sort of regulation exists in markets: There are property rights and there is a non-aggression principle. These are in fact very powerful and useful "regulations", much better than what is proposed by the state (and written by the lobbies of the 1%).

Property rights are a government intervention. Property ownership is a state enforced construct. And what the heck is "a non aggression principal"? Here is the thing, you thrive in ambiguity and misdirection. There is nothing wrong inherently wrong with private industry. Government regulation specifies and ensures product quality. Government regulation keeps our food safe. It defines and enforced road rules. It enforces commerce rules (e.g. fraud protection rules). It defines the market and makes the market better. In some cases government helps create the market (e.g. cell phone technologies, GPS, and the computers and internet we have used to create these posts). The US government created the internet, computers, cell phone technology, GPS, and many more technologies which have led to new private sector industries.

So your statement is not only counterfactual, it just doesn't make sense and it certainly isn't consistent with history.

A quite nonsensical comparison.

Actually, it isn't. You and those like you expect keep expecting and preaching something from nothing. You keep preaching and expecting the economy to automatically and magically fix all ills. One of the many facts you keep ignoring is that our economy has evolved with our technology and knowledge. What you are advocating is going back to a time in which bank runs, depressions, and recessions were commonplace; where slave labor, abusive employers; and pollution; and abuses of power were the norms.

Let's start with the notion of perfection. For a libertarian, there simply is no perfect society. It is the totalitarian (like you) who dreams about The Perfect Society.

And what would lead you to the conclusion I am a totalitarian? I'm not the one who supports dictatorships (e.g. Putin, Assad, etc.) as you do. I'm not the one who has and continues to support dictatorships. Being against chaos doesn't make one a totalitarian. LOL.... Advocating for a more prosperous society doesn't make one a totalitarian. Learning from the past and experience, science, doesn't make one a totalitarian.

Additionally, you are being very disingenuous. Do you not remember writing, " The anarchistic free market would be better in above questions - there would be high quality, given that it can be sold for a better price than low quality. " Quibbling over the word perfection doesn't change the facts. You feel, you advocate that if government did nothing, everything would just fall into place. That has never been the case. That violates the laws of physics. It takes energy (i.e. intervention to create order from disorder). In you so called "Libertarian" world the laws of science must be disregarded in favor of blind adherence to ideology - almost like a religion.

The libertarian recognizes that what is perfect for me may be horrible for you. So, I try to create a society perfect for me, you try to create one for you, and the result can be, at best, a compromise. And libertarians think about how such a compromise can look like. Once even the aim, the ideal society, is different for different people, how can the government create it?

Libertarians have been trying to create their own version of utopia for a long time and they have never succeeded. One would think, if the ideology was workable they could point to one successful example of their ideology. They can't. http://theweek.com/articles/482427/libertarian-island-billionaires-utopia

In above considerations you can also see another point: Libertarians do not compare with some perfect, ideal society. They compare the free market with possible realistic alternatives. And these alternatives appear to be far worse: States, with politicians having a lot of power, which makes being a politician attractive for psychopaths, elections where it is much easier to win for populist liars than for honest people. These psychopathic liars then grab a lot and do not care about the state at all. Economic theory (public choice theory) tells that nothing good will be done by such a state.

Quibble all you want about the word perfection, it makes no difference. It doesn't change the the facts. What you and your so called Libertarian ideologues are preaching violates the laws of physics. You expect something from nothing. You expect those Scrabble tiles to automatically assemble themselves. That has never happened, and it will never happen. In order to create order, in this case, in order to create more stable and efficient markets, energy (i.e. regulation) must be put into the system. You cannot create order from disorder with magic as you and your so called Libertarians preach.

This continues if we consider the means of creating the best possible compromise. As such an ideal compromise, one would think about a lot of small communities consisting of people with similar ideals and ideas, which try to create their own ideal society in their own commune. On a lower level, each in the house where he lives. What would be the means to make this house, or the territory of the community, perfect? To decide this, you need information about the aims of the community, as well as about the local circumstances. Who has this information? The people living in this community. Certainly not the government.

Well, here is the thing, the experiences of many people is better than the experiences of a single person or a few people. So in this case the government may know better how to build a building. The government may have and probably does know better how to build a house because government has access to more resources and more information. So in your example, the government probably knows better and can build better homes.

I think your opinions are clouded by your experiences under the Soviet Union. You grew up in and are accustomed to a central government which governs top down rather than bottom up as in the West. Ironically, you have jumped from the frying pan and into the fire. Communism and your new ideology, Libertarian ism, suffer from the same deficiencies of logic and reason. They are grounded in a profound misunderstanding of human behavior. And that is why, all attempts to create a Libertarian utopia has failed.

 

[Michael]

Meanwhile in Socialist Utopia Venezuela: Man arrested smuggling powdered milk

LOL

 

[Michael]

Strawman..........strawman...........strawman............ Strawman..........strawman...........strawman............ Strawman..........strawman...........strawman............ Strawman..........strawman...........strawman............ and that's why a Libertarian utopia (one more strawman for good measure ........has failed.

The USA late 1800s was not a utopia, but it was pretty good for the right type of European. Which is why many came and settled in the USA. About a third left and returned back to Europe. So, it really depended on if you were the type of person who wanted to live with limited government, self organization, work hard or not.

As for socialism, lets see: USSR, Communist China, North Korea, E. Germany, Cuba, modern day Venezuela. Yeah, you can see the flood of South Koreans rushing to get into the North.

Mixed economies (like currently imploding Swedenstan et.al.) are kept from going completely under by those that few free entrepreneurs who continue treading water holding the entire society afloat. This is the thing, as for the Progressive Socialists standing on their shoulders, for them everything is A-OK.
I mean, why wouldn't it be? It's not like they're swimming. They're standing on the shoulders of people swimming.
So, what's it matter if they invite a more obligations or add some weight or regulate what kind of flippers the swimmer can wear? They've never swam in their entire life - and they don't care. And anyway, to get elected you need to bullshit something about the evil swimmers treading water making the ride rough, maybe getting rid of the flippers would smooth things for us hard working bludgers.
Then, everyone is shocked when the swimmer drowns and the whole idiocracy goes belly up. And who do they blame? The swimmers of course!

LOL

 

[iceaura]

LOL. If you rely on capitalism and free-markets, you do not regulate at all.

They didn't. Hence the disaster.

To name the US health care system free market or capitalistic is simply nonsense, because it is heavily overregulated.

You don't actually know what capitalism is, do you.

Then, some sort of regulation exists in markets: There are property rights and there is a non-aggression principle. These are in fact very powerful and useful "regulations",

No kidding. That's one major reason people establish governments - they want property rights, and the principle of non-aggression enforced, and the other stuff necessary, so that they can engage in free-market exchange.

The question is if it makes sense to compare these two variants - a socialist health care system and an overregulated corporatist one.

So joint stock corporations are not capitalist entities. I did not see that coming.

I've got to get hold of the dictionary you guys are using - I've got an old one (A "Webster's" of some kind) rescued from a defunct parochial school, and it's been a source of joy to me for years (especially the illustrations - the word "Buddhism" is illustrated by a line drawing of an old, pudgy, vaguely Vietnamese looking man riding in an ox cart; the word "ascension" is illustrated by a drawing of some puffy clouds above a hill; various tree names are illustrated by smudged squares of ink patterns apparently meant to be close views of their bark patterns, random arrows on drawings point to things like moose butts when illustrating "antlers", and so forth). I'm thinking yours might be a worthy bookend.

Is it possible to make some general predictions? I think so. Socialist healthcare will tend to be cheap and bad, corporatist better but expensive.

And then it is possible to check one's predictions against reality. Try it.

 

[Schmelzer]

They didn't. Hence the disaster.

They didn't like you would have regulated them. This does not mean they didn't. And if they would regulate market like you want, the disaster would be even greater.

So joint stock corporations are not capitalist entities. I did not see that coming.

?????? If you don't know the difference between a free market society and corporatism, that's your problem.

OK, that's a revision.

It is not. I have never written about free markets being perfect. It is only a revision of your fantasies about what I have written.

Just what is and what isn't a free market?

A free market is one where everybody is allowed to participate, and to sell everything he owns, or to buy everything he wants, and all what is required is the agreement of all participants about the contract (freedom of contract).

Free markets led to the great depressions, bank runs, and a number of economic disasters.

No. They lead to bank runs only if the bank is cheating, and this becomes known. In this case, the harm is already done - by the cheating - and the run decides only about the question who is harmed, and is otherwise harmless. Recessions are usually related with government behavior, but it is possible that some herd instinct sometimes leads to many people following the same stupid idea, which, once it fails, leads to some recessions. Depressions need a strong involvement of the government.

The unfortunate fact for you is that since the inception of Keynesian economics (i.e. government interventions in the market place), the economy has been better.

In the propaganda fantasies of Keynesians may be, but who cares?

So more centuries of data clearly and demonstrably show you are wrong.

I have not made any claims about lengths of recessions and so on, thus, cannot be wrong about this.

Property rights are a government intervention.

Tell this your children. They have, if one follows government, no property rights at all (only their parents have), but strangely have a lot of property disputes with other children.

And what the heck is "a non aggression principal"?

I don't know. Your fantasy or spelling error, may be. I have never seen such a guy.

Government regulation specifies and ensures product quality.

It restricts product quality to what is actually made by leading big firms. This is a popular method to restrict competition, in particular low price competition (typical for newcomers, who have yet to reach established quality standards, but therefore sell much cheaper). It often forbids much better quality by completely new inventions, which do not fit into the old description.

It defines and enforced road rules.

There are road rules even without state police. I know from own experience.

It enforces commerce rules (e.g. fraud protection rules). It defines the market and makes the market better.

It restricts markets and makes them worse.

Police itself has, indeed, created a force able to enforce fraud protection when the society became big enough so that the classical methods (based on reputation) did no longer work. This enforcement by police is clearly inferior to reputation-based methods where they work, as one can clearly see if one looks how many markets work, reputation plays a big role whenever where exists one.

In some cases government helps create the market (e.g. cell phone technologies, GPS, and the computers and internet we have used to create these posts). The US government created the internet, computers, cell phone technology, GPS, and many more technologies which have led to new private sector industries.

And in the communist states it has even created bread and milk.

And what would lead you to the conclusion I am a totalitarian?

No conclusion necessary for this, you are known to be a supporter of Bandera Nazis as well as Jihadists who want Sharia law, thus, of the most openly totalitarian forces existing today. The most dangerous force toward a creation of a totalitarian society - the US - is what you love most.

Do you not remember writing, " The anarchistic free market would be better in above questions - there would be high quality, given that it can be sold for a better price than low quality. " Quibbling over the word perfection doesn't change the facts. You feel, you advocate that if government did nothing, everything would just fall into place.

No, I only claim it would be better. This is because the government does a lot of harm, even beyond robbing peaceful population via taxation.

The citizens in a libertarian society would have to work a lot to create a nice living too. But, given that they would be much less harmed by robberers which "tax" them, they would be much better in this in comparison what we can reach.

Well, here is the thing, the experiences of many people is better than the experiences of a single person or a few people. So in this case the government may know better how to build a building.

It may know, but I'm not about utopia. In real life it doesn't know who are the best specialists to build a building. And in real life I know myself that professionals will be much better building a building than I am, given that my specialization is quite different. I don't need a government to tell me about this.

I think your opinions are clouded by your experiences under the Soviet Union. You grew up in and are accustomed to a central government which governs top down rather than bottom up as in the West.

LOL There is no more "buttom up" in the West than communism in communist countries. Of course, the best propaganda is that which is believed by the propagandists themself.

Ironically, you have jumped from the frying pan and into the fire. Communism and your new ideology, Libertarian ism, suffer from the same deficiencies of logic and reason. They are grounded in a profound misunderstanding of human behavior. And that is why, all attempts to create a Libertarian utopia has failed.

No. Communism requires some new, newly educated, altruist human being. This failed.

Libertarianism can nicely live with an egoist far more egoistic than the real human being. It does not require much education, only the basic rules of peaceful trading and ownership, and non-aggression, which they are teached already at home before going to school.

Libertarianism has failed up to now on the large scale because reputational enforcement of contracts works only in small enough communities, and small communities, even if there exist many of them nicely, are unable to defend themself against the armies of states, thus, have to submit to states. But this will change, because global reputational systems are possible now with modern information technologies. It is a question of time.

 

[iceaura]

So joint stock corporations are not capitalist entities. I did not see that coming.
?????? If you don't know the difference between a free market society and corporatism, that's your problem.

And if you don't know the difference between capitalism and a free market society, it's yours. (Were you the guy trying to argue that the slave plantations in the Confederacy, 19th century America, were not capitalist? Or was that Michael?)

They didn't like you would have regulated them. This does not mean they didn't.

But the fact that they didn't means they didn't. As with the American banking disaster.

And if they would regulate market like you want, the disaster would be even greater.

Here and everywhere, your near-total reliance on hypothetical and alternative universes for examples supporting your claims is not mysterious when the lack of available examples from real life is recognized.

Again: it is possible to check that prediction you made - socialist vs corporate capitalist health care - against reality. Try it.

Libertarianism has failed up to now on the large scale because reputational enforcement of contracts works only in small enough communities, and small communities, even if there exist many of them nicely, are unable to defend themself against the armies of states, thus, have to submit to states.

Reputational enforcement of contracts works quite well on the State level, especially with capitalist economies given their tendency to concentrate wealth in a small number of hands. It produces tyranny, of course.

The speed of the technology employed to communicate the reputation makes no difference. Organized crime offers many, many examples of this, in the modern world as well as throughout history.

 

[Schmelzer]

And if you don't know the difference between capitalism and a free market society, it's yours.

Feel free to play your definition games with other people, I'm tired. The word "capitalism" is used by various people in different meanings, and the meaning used in the word "anarcho-capitalism" is indistinguishable from a free market society.

But the fact that they didn't means they didn't.

As well as the fact that they did means they did. What is the information given by this tautology? To support your belief that there was no state regulation of banking before the New Deal?

Again: it is possible to check that prediction you made - socialist vs corporate capitalist health care - against reality. Try it.

The American one is famous to be much more expansive than everywhere else, and the US can be considered as a classical example of corportatism. Checked. Quality is nothing which can be easily compared. Communists like to hail the health care in Cuba, corporatists that of the US, too much ideological influence. Moreover, in societies with some inequality there may be high quality for the rich and low quality for the poor, so that averaging over the whole society becomes nonsensical. So, not a good idea.

 

[joepistole]

They didn't like you would have regulated them. This does not mean they didn't. And if they would regulate market like you want, the disaster would be even greater.

And where is your proof of that assertion? You don't have proof, you don't have data. What you have is a belief.

?????? If you don't know the difference between a free market society and corporatism, that's your problem.

Even though you comment wasn't directed at me, it is you who has the problem. For starters, it's pretty obvious you don't understand what a free market is, so you shouldn't be accusing others of not knowing about free markets. Additionally, you are comparing two very different things. Unfortunately for folks of your ideological persuasions, words have meanings. Regulation doesn't mean markets are not free.

It is not. I have never written about free markets being perfect. It is only a revision of your fantasies about what I have written.

And I have written, you are obfuscating and being more than a little disingenuous. You, at the very least have said unregulated markets are better than regulated markets. You are and have been staunchly against government regulation - except when Putin makes them.

A free market is one where everybody is allowed to participate, and to sell everything he owns, or to buy everything he wants, and all what is required is the agreement of all participants about the contract (freedom of contract).

No, that isn't a free market. I suggest you look up the meaning of the term "free market). It has nothing to do with everyone being allowed to participate. The notion of a free market is in itself a very complicated notion with many variables. In many ways government regulation creates and sustains a market. It adds value to the market. As an example, food and drugs must meet government health standards. It ensures safe products are sold. Knowing that adds value to buyers of food and drugs.

What is a 'Free Market'
A free market is a market economy based on supply and demand with little or no government control. A completely free market is an idealized form of a market economy where buyers and sellers are allowed to transact freely (i.e. buy/sell/trade) based on a mutual agreement on price without state intervention in the form of taxes, subsidies or regulation.

In financial markets, free market stocks are securities that are widely traded and whose prices are not affected by availability.

In foreign-exchange markets, it is a market where exchange rates are not pegged (by government) and thus rise and fall freely though supply and demand for currency.

Read more: Free Market Definition | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/freemarket.asp#ixzz41fsVHWsp
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

No. They lead to bank runs only if the bank is cheating, and this becomes known. In this case, the harm is already done - by the cheating - and the run decides only about the question who is harmed, and is otherwise harmless. Recessions are usually related with government behavior, but it is possible that some herd instinct sometimes leads to many people following the same stupid idea, which, once it fails, leads to some recessions. Depressions need a strong involvement of the government.

In the propaganda fantasies of Keynesians may be, but who cares?

I have not made any claims about lengths of recessions and so on, thus, cannot be wrong about this.

Tell this your children. They have, if one follows government, no property rights at all (only their parents have), but strangely have a lot of property disputes with other children.

It restricts product quality to what is actually made by leading big firms. This is a popular method to restrict competition, in particular low price competition (typical for newcomers, who have yet to reach established quality standards, but therefore sell much cheaper). It often forbids much better quality by completely new inventions, which do not fit into the old description.

There are road rules even without state police. I know from own experience.

It restricts markets and makes them worse.

Well here is the thing, you cannot prove any of that, because you are very clearly and demonstrably wrong. The facts are, since Keynesian economics depressions and recessions have been fewer, less severe, and shorter. Bank runs which were common before regulation of the banking system were commonplace. Today, they have become virtually non-existent. Periods of economic growth have become longer, stronger, and more frequent. Those are facts comrade.

I don't know. Your fantasy or spelling error, may be. I have never seen such a guy.

Oh, so you don't remember writing, "There are property rights and there is a non-aggression principle."? I asked you what you meant? What is this non-aggression principal.

Police itself has, indeed, created a force able to enforce fraud protection when the society became big enough so that the classical methods (based on reputation) did no longer work. This enforcement by police is clearly inferior to reputation-based methods where they work, as one can clearly see if one looks how many markets work, reputation plays a big role whenever where exists one.

LOL....WOW....it didn't take you long to contradict yourself. You just admitted reputation didn't work but then you think reputation is superior. Well if it didn't work, it didn't work. Your problem here as elsewhere is centuries of data.


And in the communist states it has even created bread and milk.

No conclusion necessary for this, you are known to be a supporter of Bandera Nazis as well as Jihadists who want Sharia law, thus, of the most openly totalitarian forces existing today. The most dangerous force toward a creation of a totalitarian society - the US - is what you love most.

LOL....as has been repeatedly pointed out to you just pointing out that your boogieman Nazi Bandera didn't do anything your beloved Mother Russia didn't also do, doesn't make me a supporter of Bandera, or a supporter of Nazis, and pointing out to you that the Free Syrian Army aren't jihadists doesn't make me a terrorist supporter either. This is just you resorting to illogical argument out of desperation.

No, I only claim it would be better. This is because the government does a lot of harm, even beyond robbing peaceful population via taxation.

The citizens in a libertarian society would have to work a lot to create a nice living too. But, given that they would be much less harmed by robberers which "tax" them, they would be much better in this in comparison what we can reach.

It may know, but I'm not about utopia. In real life it doesn't know who are the best specialists to build a building. And in real life I know myself that professionals will be much better building a building than I am, given that my specialization is quite different. I don't need a government to tell me about this.

LOL There is no more "buttom up" in the West than communism in communist countries. Of course, the best propaganda is that which is believed by the propagandists themself.

No. Communism requires some new, newly educated, altruist human being. This failed.

Libertarianism can nicely live with an egoist far more egoistic than the real human being. It does not require much education, only the basic rules of peaceful trading and ownership, and non-aggression, which they are teached already at home before going to school.

Here is your problem once again, you cannot prove any of that....probably because the proof doesn't exist. So you summarily and without merit dismiss all relevant data.

Libertarianism has failed up to now on the large scale because reputational enforcement of contracts works only in small enough communities, and small communities, even if there exist many of them nicely, are unable to defend themself against the armies of states, thus, have to submit to states. But this will change, because global reputational systems are possible now with modern information technologies. It is a question of time.

That sounds like a rare admission. Libertarian societies have all failed. Now you can offer excuses as you have done. But the fact remains, attempts at creating a Libertarian society have all failed. And they have failed for all the reasons that have have been repeatedly brought to your attention.