4 ms·

Ahhh What we have now is not the best we can do, but what we have isn't capitalism. So to claim that capitalism is the "beneath us as a society" means nothing

by tkahn6 16y ago

Ahhh What we have now is not the best we can do, but what we have isn't capitalism. So to claim that capitalism is the "beneath us as a society" means nothing because it's never been tried here. EDIT: And, if you've read the comments above, it's clear that, by his own admission, tomlin has never studied any economic system.

loewenskind 16y ago
I'd be interested to know what would need to happen for us to have a system that meets your definition of "capitalism". As far as I know the purest for that was ever attempted was in Chile under Pinochet. The "Chicago Boys" were given pretty much free reign, they tried to make the system just as Milton Friedman taught them and it was failing pretty spectacularly until they "slid the scale a little more toward socialism", if you will. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Chile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Chile
- tkahn6 16y ago
  Well first of all, it's not my definition of capitalism. It's Adam Smith's. When people think of 'capitalism' they usually think of anarchy and large mega-corporations that destroy the environment and do whatever the hell they want. There is regulation under capitalism. The government exists to protect private property, life, and to prosecute those who commit fraud. The recent financial crisis was primarily caused by millions of homeowners defaulting on their loans. I guess a first step we could take would be to 1) stop teaching kids that home ownership is necessary to be 'American', 2) stop giving out government-financed loans to first-time homeowners (through Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac) and 3) to shift regulation from capping what banks and mutual funds can do to making sure they aren't committing fraud. I'm not an economist but I think it's clear that the fact that the government (under Reagan ironically), made it its mission to put American's in homes. Great. But of course what happened was that many of these people that were initially given loans through this program defaulted on them.
  - loewenskind 16y ago
    >The recent financial crisis was primarily caused by millions of homeowners defaulting on their loans. Uh, that's a pretty simplistic view. The government-financed loans were an enabler, but people were using over-the-counter CDS' to short those loans (i.e. more than one "insurance policy" could exist per loan and it would be hard to even know who all had them unless the loan defaulted), rating agencies get paid by those they rate so they gave artificially good ratings, etc., etc. It was a perfect storm but to put the blame on those "darn irresponsible poor people" is so simplistic as to be absurd. >shift regulation from capping what banks and mutual funds can do to making sure they aren't committing fraud. There are many reason for the regulation on banks and mutual funds. It's not to make the country more socialist, it's to prevent short term focused bankers/fund managers from accidentally destroying the whole economy or pissing away thousands of people's retirement. >The government exists to protect private property, life, and to prosecute those who commit fraud. What about dealing with monopolies? If you believe in free market capitalism then you must know about elasticity of markets. Monopolies artificially destroy elasticity in whatever space they're in. In my opinion what the US government needs to do before anything else is start breaking down monopolies. "Too big to fail" is a big red flag that someone didn't do their job.
    - tkahn6 16y ago
      Uh, that's a pretty simplistic view. Yeah I know. But it seems like we're on the same page about what happened. Where do you see monopolies?

by tkahn6 16y ago

loewenskind 16y ago

I'd be interested to know what would need to happen for us to have a system that meets your definition of "capitalism". As far as I know the purest for that was ever attempted was in Chile under Pinochet. The "Chicago Boys" were given pretty much free reign, they tried to make the system just as Milton Friedman taught them and it was failing pretty spectacularly until they "slid the scale a little more toward socialism", if you will. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Chile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Chile

tkahn6 16y ago
Well first of all, it's not my definition of capitalism. It's Adam Smith's. When people think of 'capitalism' they usually think of anarchy and large mega-corporations that destroy the environment and do whatever the hell they want. There is regulation under capitalism. The government exists to protect private property, life, and to prosecute those who commit fraud. The recent financial crisis was primarily caused by millions of homeowners defaulting on their loans. I guess a first step we could take would be to 1) stop teaching kids that home ownership is necessary to be 'American', 2) stop giving out government-financed loans to first-time homeowners (through Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac) and 3) to shift regulation from capping what banks and mutual funds can do to making sure they aren't committing fraud. I'm not an economist but I think it's clear that the fact that the government (under Reagan ironically), made it its mission to put American's in homes. Great. But of course what happened was that many of these people that were initially given loans through this program defaulted on them.
- loewenskind 16y ago
  >The recent financial crisis was primarily caused by millions of homeowners defaulting on their loans. Uh, that's a pretty simplistic view. The government-financed loans were an enabler, but people were using over-the-counter CDS' to short those loans (i.e. more than one "insurance policy" could exist per loan and it would be hard to even know who all had them unless the loan defaulted), rating agencies get paid by those they rate so they gave artificially good ratings, etc., etc. It was a perfect storm but to put the blame on those "darn irresponsible poor people" is so simplistic as to be absurd. >shift regulation from capping what banks and mutual funds can do to making sure they aren't committing fraud. There are many reason for the regulation on banks and mutual funds. It's not to make the country more socialist, it's to prevent short term focused bankers/fund managers from accidentally destroying the whole economy or pissing away thousands of people's retirement. >The government exists to protect private property, life, and to prosecute those who commit fraud. What about dealing with monopolies? If you believe in free market capitalism then you must know about elasticity of markets. Monopolies artificially destroy elasticity in whatever space they're in. In my opinion what the US government needs to do before anything else is start breaking down monopolies. "Too big to fail" is a big red flag that someone didn't do their job.
  - tkahn6 16y ago
    Uh, that's a pretty simplistic view. Yeah I know. But it seems like we're on the same page about what happened. Where do you see monopolies?