5 ms·

The Economist is pro-market but, from my interpretation, advocates for systems of governance that yield a reasonable compromise between capital and society (whi

The Economist is pro-market but, from my interpretation, advocates for systems of governance that yield a reasonable compromise between capital and society (which is the mechanism that allows for private wealth to exist in the first place). Fiscal policy is a tool in a larger toolbox. I agree that it’s not currently being used well, particularly in the Eurozone where a zero-sum game is played out between the “export based economies” and the “economies screwed over by the export based economies but are stuck with a currency they don’t control”. My hope is that more effort is put into society building, and a versatile toolbox is needed.

elevenoh 5y ago
>The Economist is pro-market I'd say the Economist is pro incumbent-centric market
- simonh 5y ago
  Are you reading the same paper? They rail against the power of incumbents all the time, what they really advocate for is competition. Take these last few sentences in an article from last November on the impact of the pandemic: https://www.economist.com/leaders/2020/11/26/will-big-firms-benefit-from-the-covid-crunch https://www.economist.com/leaders/2020/11/26/will-big-firms-... "Yet the rapid changes that have been forced on many industries are leading to innovation that will outlive the pandemic—and in some cases are leaving incumbents less mighty than before. Consumers and trustbusters alike must hope that these newly competitive parts of the economy remain hotly contested long after the pandemic abates."
andrepd 5y ago
State control isn't in itself oppressive or liberating. It all has to do with what kind of state controls that power. A well-functioning democracy, with a high level of participation and engagement, of subsidiarity, a free and diverse press? Or an oligopoly? Look no further than state control of resources (in this case oil) in the two countries Norway and Venezuela. Same idea (state controls oil revenues) and two vastly different results. Because one is a democracy and the other bought public support by social programs spending to prop up his cronies' assault on government wealth. So yes, ideal thing would be democratic control over capital and means of production. That's better than the current effectively oligarchic control where a small elite disproportionally holds unaccountable and opaque power. However, that's probably still better than an authoritarian government control.
- lottin 5y ago
  Not to mention that whenever there is a power vacuum, for instance due to a failed state, what emerges isn't usually a scenario where individuals enjoy more freedoms but the opposite of that.
  - andrepd 5y ago
    One of the things that I don't understand about libertarianism. You abolish the government. Then what? x) Do they think nobody is going to step up and grab that power vaccum?
    - Retric 5y ago
      It’s Anarchists that don’t want government. Libertarians want a very strong government, they simply don’t want it to do much.
      - lottin 5y ago
        No, anarcho-capitalist libertarians are against government (not just against bad government, but against any government). For example, Rothbard writes "The idea of a strictly limited government has proved to be utopian; some other, more radical means must be found to prevent the growth of the aggressive State. The libertarian system would meet this problem by scrapping the entire notion of creating a government." (The Libertarian Manifesto)
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        Retric 5y ago
        Anarchism is one flavor of libertarianism, but it’s not the only option or even the original one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism “Libertarianism originated as a form of left-wing politics such as anti-authoritarian and anti-state socialists like anarchists,[6] especially social anarchists,[7] but more generally libertarian communists/Marxists and libertarian socialists.[8][9] These libertarians seek to abolish capitalism and private ownership of the means of production, or else to restrict their purview or effects to usufruct property norms, in favor of common or cooperative ownership and management, viewing private property as a barrier to freedom and liberty.” That said, anarcho-capitalist still wants the rule of law they just don’t want to call it government. Rothbard's anarcho-capitalist society would operate under a mutually agreed-upon "legal code which would be generally accepted, and which the courts would pledge themselves to follow".[11] This legal code would recognize contracts, private property, self-ownership and tort law in keeping with the non-aggression principle.[11][12]

elevenoh 5y ago

>The Economist is pro-market I'd say the Economist is pro incumbent-centric market

simonh 5y ago
Are you reading the same paper? They rail against the power of incumbents all the time, what they really advocate for is competition. Take these last few sentences in an article from last November on the impact of the pandemic: https://www.economist.com/leaders/2020/11/26/will-big-firms-benefit-from-the-covid-crunch https://www.economist.com/leaders/2020/11/26/will-big-firms-... "Yet the rapid changes that have been forced on many industries are leading to innovation that will outlive the pandemic—and in some cases are leaving incumbents less mighty than before. Consumers and trustbusters alike must hope that these newly competitive parts of the economy remain hotly contested long after the pandemic abates."

andrepd 5y ago

State control isn't in itself oppressive or liberating. It all has to do with what kind of state controls that power. A well-functioning democracy, with a high level of participation and engagement, of subsidiarity, a free and diverse press? Or an oligopoly? Look no further than state control of resources (in this case oil) in the two countries Norway and Venezuela. Same idea (state controls oil revenues) and two vastly different results. Because one is a democracy and the other bought public support by social programs spending to prop up his cronies' assault on government wealth. So yes, ideal thing would be democratic control over capital and means of production. That's better than the current effectively oligarchic control where a small elite disproportionally holds unaccountable and opaque power. However, that's probably still better than an authoritarian government control.

lottin 5y ago
Not to mention that whenever there is a power vacuum, for instance due to a failed state, what emerges isn't usually a scenario where individuals enjoy more freedoms but the opposite of that.
- andrepd 5y ago
  One of the things that I don't understand about libertarianism. You abolish the government. Then what? x) Do they think nobody is going to step up and grab that power vaccum?
  - Retric 5y ago
    It’s Anarchists that don’t want government. Libertarians want a very strong government, they simply don’t want it to do much.
    - lottin 5y ago
      No, anarcho-capitalist libertarians are against government (not just against bad government, but against any government). For example, Rothbard writes "The idea of a strictly limited government has proved to be utopian; some other, more radical means must be found to prevent the growth of the aggressive State. The libertarian system would meet this problem by scrapping the entire notion of creating a government." (The Libertarian Manifesto)
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - Retric 5y ago
        Anarchism is one flavor of libertarianism, but it’s not the only option or even the original one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism “Libertarianism originated as a form of left-wing politics such as anti-authoritarian and anti-state socialists like anarchists,[6] especially social anarchists,[7] but more generally libertarian communists/Marxists and libertarian socialists.[8][9] These libertarians seek to abolish capitalism and private ownership of the means of production, or else to restrict their purview or effects to usufruct property norms, in favor of common or cooperative ownership and management, viewing private property as a barrier to freedom and liberty.” That said, anarcho-capitalist still wants the rule of law they just don’t want to call it government. Rothbard's anarcho-capitalist society would operate under a mutually agreed-upon "legal code which would be generally accepted, and which the courts would pledge themselves to follow".[11] This legal code would recognize contracts, private property, self-ownership and tort law in keeping with the non-aggression principle.[11][12]