3 ms·

I never said it was perfect, or even that I was optimistic about it. I just said the forces are there. Government doesn't have any external force keeping it i

by MCRed 11y ago

I never said it was perfect, or even that I was optimistic about it. I just said the forces are there. Government doesn't have any external force keeping it in check. All of the "checks and balances" are other parts of the government or controlled by government (Eg: who counts the votes? Government. Who decides which two candidates get on the ballot? Those currently in charge.) Companies can be naughty, for sure. It's just when they do there are consequences. Government never seems to suffer from the consequences of their own actions-- in fact, when government screws things up they always have a scapegoat and use it as an excuse to take even more money and power. Look at what happened after 9/11-- more money, more power, more wars. Look what happened after snowden? No reforms, more expansion of spying. Hell, spying grew under Obama and the Patriot Act was made permanent. Which means the travesty enacted under Bush wasn't even weakened by giving the democrats control over two branches of government!

Frondo 11y ago
When companies are large enough, there are no consequences for their actions. Governments often suffer from the consequences of their actions. But I suspect you're taking such an ahistorical and afactual view not out of a rational weighing of the evidence, but because the far right has steeped the U.S. in anti-government propaganda for decades, and many people have simple fallen for it, hook, line, and sinker.
jmcmichael 11y ago
> Government doesn't have any external force keeping it in check. Voting. If that doesn't work, revolution.
- jschwartzi 11y ago
  Voting is a form of consensual, nonviolent, revolution.
  - jmcmichael 11y ago
    Then what do you call it then when voting becomes merely a method of manufacturing consent instead of reliably reflecting the will of voters?
kristopolous 11y ago
So long as you want a system of property you need to have an arbitrator and enforcer of ownership. Private property (read "capital") must have the threat of violence behind it. So you either have a system where people have their own force (feudalism), ~ or ~ you have a designated body which enforces communal rules - a governing body if you will. Functional capitalism requires a functional government. Otherwise it's feudalism[1] What the anti-government proposal usually boils down to is: "I'd like my property protected, no requirement to treat my workers or the environment well, and have my workers pay for this by contracting everything out to for-profit companies owned by people like me." It's a sweetheart deal where everything is privatized and capitalized on by some tiny elite group (let's call them royalty) who don't have to pay any taxes and keep all the profits and are protected by large armies --- hey this sounds like feudalism again, but worse! This leads to over-concentration of capital manifesting itself as speculative bubbles, mass indebtedness (a carryover from feudalism), currency devaluation wars, quantitative easing, labor and tax inversions...etc. For instance, now there's a negative yield on the 1-month T-note. The Fed lowered interest rates to try to spur domestic investment, but that money has already been invested overseas or gone to speculative gambles like real-estate - just like it did 10 years ago after the last recession. This means housing goes up, interest rates stay low, but monetary velocity remains dormant, economic liquidity doesn't move, and overall GDP growth happens but only as a function of rising investment valuation, not increased production. Furthermore, capital is spent on debt-obligated interest instead of a goods & service marketplace so demand remains stagnant ... the entire system just doesn't work. If you take away the money to be spent, then there's no money to be made, and capital investment goes elsewhere. Look at European austerity program -- reducing government spending was supposed to spur job creation and rebound economies. But as Greece did more Reaganomics, unemployment spiked upwards of 60% (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/greece/youth-unemployment-rate http://www.tradingeconomics.com/greece/youth-unemployment-ra...). The creditors who got the money invested it outside of Greece where the returns were better. The movement of capital went from the taxpayer to exiting the Greek economy. Check NYSE:NBG to see it affected one of the in-country banks. So small-government capitalism just doesn't work. It leads to a de-industrialization, a de-population of the marketplace, a rise of speculative finance, and an exit of investment. In this case to BRICS (next is Africa, then Zomia). Just like in the US it went from NAFTA -> CAFTA. It's so fun listening to EconTalk or Steve Forbes because they have a correct description of the economy and the current instruments behind it, but then scratch their heads thinking "hrmm this shouldn't have happened according to our classical models! This is a mystery! All of our predictions were wrong. Hrmm! Maybe we forgot to carry the one somewhere!" Even though they openly admit neoliberalism is wrong, they've convinced themselves so much of their bogus models that it doesn't matter. It's like watching Dora the Explorer fail to find the huge mountain drawn right next to her. An this will continue to be a problem as long as it is treated with such unquestioning religious fervor. ---- 1. Which is where proto-capitalism began and was finally able to take over in the 1840s through reforms of governance throughout Europe. It's worth noting that there are no functioning capitalist economies in places without functioning governments.

by MCRed 11y ago

Frondo 11y ago

When companies are large enough, there are no consequences for their actions. Governments often suffer from the consequences of their actions. But I suspect you're taking such an ahistorical and afactual view not out of a rational weighing of the evidence, but because the far right has steeped the U.S. in anti-government propaganda for decades, and many people have simple fallen for it, hook, line, and sinker.

jmcmichael 11y ago

> Government doesn't have any external force keeping it in check. Voting. If that doesn't work, revolution.

jschwartzi 11y ago
Voting is a form of consensual, nonviolent, revolution.
- jmcmichael 11y ago
  Then what do you call it then when voting becomes merely a method of manufacturing consent instead of reliably reflecting the will of voters?

kristopolous 11y ago

So long as you want a system of property you need to have an arbitrator and enforcer of ownership. Private property (read "capital") must have the threat of violence behind it. So you either have a system where people have their own force (feudalism), ~ or ~ you have a designated body which enforces communal rules - a governing body if you will. Functional capitalism requires a functional government. Otherwise it's feudalism[1] What the anti-government proposal usually boils down to is: "I'd like my property protected, no requirement to treat my workers or the environment well, and have my workers pay for this by contracting everything out to for-profit companies owned by people like me." It's a sweetheart deal where everything is privatized and capitalized on by some tiny elite group (let's call them royalty) who don't have to pay any taxes and keep all the profits and are protected by large armies --- hey this sounds like feudalism again, but worse! This leads to over-concentration of capital manifesting itself as speculative bubbles, mass indebtedness (a carryover from feudalism), currency devaluation wars, quantitative easing, labor and tax inversions...etc. For instance, now there's a negative yield on the 1-month T-note. The Fed lowered interest rates to try to spur domestic investment, but that money has already been invested overseas or gone to speculative gambles like real-estate - just like it did 10 years ago after the last recession. This means housing goes up, interest rates stay low, but monetary velocity remains dormant, economic liquidity doesn't move, and overall GDP growth happens but only as a function of rising investment valuation, not increased production. Furthermore, capital is spent on debt-obligated interest instead of a goods & service marketplace so demand remains stagnant ... the entire system just doesn't work. If you take away the money to be spent, then there's no money to be made, and capital investment goes elsewhere. Look at European austerity program -- reducing government spending was supposed to spur job creation and rebound economies. But as Greece did more Reaganomics, unemployment spiked upwards of 60% (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/greece/youth-unemployment-rate http://www.tradingeconomics.com/greece/youth-unemployment-ra...). The creditors who got the money invested it outside of Greece where the returns were better. The movement of capital went from the taxpayer to exiting the Greek economy. Check NYSE:NBG to see it affected one of the in-country banks. So small-government capitalism just doesn't work. It leads to a de-industrialization, a de-population of the marketplace, a rise of speculative finance, and an exit of investment. In this case to BRICS (next is Africa, then Zomia). Just like in the US it went from NAFTA -> CAFTA. It's so fun listening to EconTalk or Steve Forbes because they have a correct description of the economy and the current instruments behind it, but then scratch their heads thinking "hrmm this shouldn't have happened according to our classical models! This is a mystery! All of our predictions were wrong. Hrmm! Maybe we forgot to carry the one somewhere!" Even though they openly admit neoliberalism is wrong, they've convinced themselves so much of their bogus models that it doesn't matter. It's like watching Dora the Explorer fail to find the huge mountain drawn right next to her. An this will continue to be a problem as long as it is treated with such unquestioning religious fervor. ---- 1. Which is where proto-capitalism began and was finally able to take over in the 1840s through reforms of governance throughout Europe. It's worth noting that there are no functioning capitalist economies in places without functioning governments.