World Economic Forum

So do non-capitalistic societies. How does capitalism prevent things like drug dealing?

 

It seems you are equating capitalism with economic anarchy. Capitalism does not exist in a vacuum. It has always existed in societies with government regulation.

But the general principle in capitalistic societies is freedom of commerce.

I think the key difference here has to do with degrees. There is a degree of regulation in every society. Do societies with more regulation or less regulation have a greater tendency to prosper? That is the question.

One might learn that Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant, and Roger Federer ate donuts. That however does not mean you should consume 5 dozen of donuts everyday just because there is one instance where all of them ate donuts.

Donuts can be good things but are terribly destructive when consumed in excess. Government regulation and interference is similar. There are certainly instances where government is helpful, but the person who can name off a few instances where it is good and necessary only to then go hog wild like a glutton in a donut shop will do great damage with government regulation.

 

I have never suggested Capitalism exists in a vacuum. It was you that said, "Capitalism shuts down immoral and exploitative ways of making money (drug dealing, monopolies, etc)." This suggests that you think Capitalism has self regulating abilities in an anarchistic scenario.

I like Capitalism. But mostly in a Churchill-about-democracy kind of way: "It's the worst system, except for all the others". I don't think I need to highlight its benefits to you, but to suggest it has the capability to always choose morality on its own goes against a lot of historical precedent to the contrary. It's always been a "regulate yourself, or get regulated" deal with free markets. And when the self regulation doesn't occor / when immoral and exploitative ways of making money does occur, the regulator is more often than not centralized government, not Capitalism itself.

 

Fair enough. It sounds like I am in agreement with you. I just needed to get on the same page as to the precise definition of words. For capitalism to exist a certain governmental structure is prerequisite to that. For example, capitalism cannot exist in a communistic country. So, I was thinking of the government that enables capitalism as part of capitalism. Nonetheless, I agree with what you are saying now that I see how you are using the word "capitalism."

I will add one caveat. Many people don't want government legislating morality. They would openly include that as part of their political creed if they had one. It is generally an idea that I agree with. For a moral issue to raise to the level of something the government should regulate it would have to do harm or damage to another person. That is my belief. And this is why I would disagree with wgb on capping income. Many regulations in capitalistic societies are of that nature. They are put in place to protect people, but not every single moral issue in the market place is of that nature. What wgb is proposing for example does not fall in that category.

 

Seems like capitalism exists in Communist China, and the USSR certainly had to contend with and operate in a global capitalist system. China, Cuba and Venezuela have privatized elements of their economy that operate just like businesses in the US or Europe. Every country has to deal with the world market and global capitalism on some level, its impossible to opt out and function, and socialism/communism are perfectly compatible with market systems for various goods and services.

 

How are the economies in China, Cuba, and Venezuela doing? Would you want to swap economies with them?

 

Not really the point being made, and I would take their economies over your fantasy one of bare bones government attempting to run this country and be a first rate economic power.

 

Lol, OK. So, you wouldn't trade their economies for ours. Thanks for sharing.

 

On a practical level, no matter what economy I was picking, I'd rather have our resources than those of a tiny island country or one that basically has oil and nothing else. And we essentially have the same economy as China as it is, a sort of authoritarian capitalism, minus the ability of the state to centrally manage capital efficiently.

 

Where can I get these? They got pitchers of nekkid ladies on them?

 

Cool. I think that's why people were taking exception to your post as it seemed to suggest that you thought Capitalism was self-regulating / didn't require guardrails.

Yes, of course no economic system (save anarchy) exists outside of a governmental structure. Communism is both an economic and a political ideology meant to be paired together as one. In reality a communist economy often has some mix to it. Just like the economies of liberal-western democratic states - they too have some mix to them. To what degree regulation/central control is required is a valid question that should be openly and honestly discussed.

To me, economic growth / government regulation is a cat and mouse game. If a new economy emerges, new regulations will almost invariably emerge and so there's a perception of never ending increased regulation - which on its face is true... Today, as economic activity is becoming increasingly and rapidly more complex, it's becoming a bigger challenge for the mouse to keep up and our favorite newsfotainment talking heads and politicians love to gin this up as end times.

 

Still living in 19th century America.

Each to their own.

 

• "I've been in China for 27 years, and this is probably the lowest confidence I've ever seen," Shaun Rein, founder of the China Market Research Group, told CNBC Monday.
• He forecasts that China will experience "another 3-6 months minimum of a very painful economy."
• The world's second-largest economy has faced a slower-than-expected recovery in 2023 after exiting Covid-19 restrictions.

'It's really bad': China strategist warns of deflation and rock-bottom consumer confidence

 

Wow, good point. We do have quite a good economy. Thanks for the admission. I wonder if it will be true across contexts of the discussion.

 

If your gold standard of a good economy is better than China, Venezuela, and Cuba, then yes we come out favorably in any one of those comparisons.

 

Who would you hold out as the gold standard of a good economy? Europe? Canada? Japan?

 

Good, because it wasn't a math lesson, it was an economics lesson. Yes any inflation sucks and is always worse on those who are most vulnerable, but what scares economists and destroys economies is prolonged inflation, not a one time blip.

So rather than applaud that we have managed to get inflation back under control, and recognize that we have done as well or better than all other major economies, you want to cry because we aren't "perfect" yet and want to ignore all the head wind that we have had to battle and still have to battle to get here.

Typical.

Reminds me how all the pubs complained that Obama didn't get us out of the recession they created fast enough.

 

the perception of the economy is directly related to assets held. the wealth gap continues to grow

 

I don't think that's true, there are a lot of surveys where people report their financial situation has improved or say they expect to do well, yet think the economy is in bad shape.

 

I've even heard NPR (which is the only news I listen to or watch and I average about :30 a week while driving) mention how bad the economy is multiple times recently.

To wgb's point, perception is reality.

It's definitely a struggle for lower end wage earners as rent is just stupid in any desirable location.