4 ms·
If you read the rest of his comment, you will see his explanation for the opening (and inflammatory) sentence. A basic grounding in recent world history would
by sfphotoarts 16y ago
If you read the rest of his comment, you will see his explanation for the opening (and inflammatory) sentence.
A basic grounding in recent world history would also likely be useful. The point, if I may be allowed to interpret his intention, was to point out that having spent a couple hundred years marauding around the world toppling governments that didn't suit its ideology the USA has lost sight of other cultures, their values and just assumes their way is the way. Democracy, capitalism etc are not the only political and economic models that have any value. In fact, an argument could be made against both of these, but currently it seems that they work well enough - especially when you back them with sufficient number of nuclear warheads.
I am not making any kind of political point, I live here in the US and love it, but having traveled the world, I have seen first hand that there is actually a disconnect between how this country, in aggregate, thinks and how much of it actually works.
- dantheman 16y agoI'd like to hear one coherent argument against capitalism -- I've never seen one.
- prodigal_erik 16y agoPure capitalism is a rent-seeking company-town dystopian nightmare. It encourages exclusive ownership of strategic resources, even when they're openly used to destroy the competitive free market by preventing rivals from existing. Similarly, lack of access to capital is a self-perpetuating social stratification problem which has led to violent revolution. IMHO these are reasons to regulate it carefully, not to eliminate it.
- anamax 16y ago> IMHO these are reasons to regulate it carefully, not to eliminate it. You don't get to assume regulation that does "the right thing". Instead, you have to accept regulation as it works in practice. When buying and selling are regulated, regulators are bought and sold.
- gloob 16y agoWhen buying and selling are regulated, regulators are bought and sold. Surely, in that case, the market will make certain these valuable resources (regulators) are distributed in such a way as to maximize value, yes?
- dantheman 16y agoNo, because some people have principles and will not hire goons to shake down people for them.
- anamax 16y ago> Surely, in that case, the market will make certain these valuable resources (regulators) are distributed in such a way as to maximize value, yes? Value to whom? How many bank regulators lost their jobs when the banks almost went down? Were the relevant agencies punished in any way? Of course not - they were rewarded. Govt insists on control without liability. What could possibly go wrong. Also, regulation is systemic risk. And if you believe in "too big to fail", what does that imply about the US govt....
- ebaysucks 16y agoRead "The Machinery Of Freedom" by David Friedman. Every "regulation" is a product. It will be provided if people want to pay for it voluntarily.
- dantheman 16y agoI don't think so, I think that most incarnations of capitalism haven't existed in a non-corrupt environment... In fact, I'd say that capitalism helps weed out corruption since the more corrupt states are less effective. Also, it depends on the timeframe perspective - pure capitalism may allow someone to corner a market for a short time, but over a long period is more stable. Whereas a lot of solutions may in the short term prevent bad situations in the long term the system becomes corrupt and injustice will increase.
- geonomist 16y agoNeither of the above. Replace capitalism with geoism. Capitalism could not survive in a freed market, a market free of counterproductive taxes, addictive subsidies, and nigh unlimited license (the corporate charter) to wreak havoc. People need to feel enough self-esteem to demand a share of the commonwealth, of all the money we all spend on all the nature we use. Then we could lock the hood on the economy.
- prodigal_erik 16y agoCapitalism is an entire scheme for running an economy, because it answers questions like: * How do we decide how many factories to operate? (A capitalist might bet that we need one more.) * How do we motivate the people who are needed to build and run them? (The capitalist hires them.) * Where do the raw materials come from? (The capitalist buys them.) * Who is entitled to have the end products? (The capitalist, and whoever he sells them to.) Geoism is merely a way to fund government; it doesn't make any of these other things happen. It also seems to make the burden fall disproportionately on organizations that use a lot of land, rather than using a lot of energy or people or any other asset. If we're going to ration something (which is all a property tax is) as a tactic, it should be energy, because we're more likely to run low on that than square feet of dirt.