Down with big governemnt beuracracy crippling the market.
Now you know my thoughts on the issue... please post yours.
Socialism vs Capitolism
-
Pendragon
Its depending on your definition of 'big government'. Monopolies and oligarchies are not untouchable in an open un-regulated market. A new technology can make them obsolete is one way they could be destroyed. I do enjoy government regulations preventing or atleast making it more difficult for monopolies to occur in the market in which I participate in as a consumer and investor. However I feel that less government regulations would increase the market value, and productivity. I know that some states flurish quite well with a great deal of government influence, and I marvel at it. Which is ideal, complete or near complete government involvment in the market or little to none involvement? I'm curious to know how/what others know about markets and the pros and cons. Is it better to have socialistic government involvment in the market, or to allow capitolism free reigns? Let the market take care of its self, or keep it safe with regulations? I would think less regulations in the market the better. Let the informed consumers be the influencers of the market.
-
Pendragon
The question is then not whether government should be involved in the market, but to what degree, and that is probably an unanswerable question when seen from various perspective, many of them correct from their own perspective.
Even if one takes a 'minimalistic' approch to government involvement in the market, it is hard to define what 'minimal' is. It should instead be more goal orientated defined. What are the government responsibilities? Theres the market responsibility, encouraging economic growth, enable economic laws and regulations to ensure free competition, making patent laws and so forth. Then there is public safety, therefore such departments as Food and Drug administration. Then there are also various public interests, such as a role the environmental protection agency. Then there are also government actors in the market such as the military and NASA which play a big consumerist role, in such areas, there is definitly a 'big government' which the major player in the field.
In the USA, the government spends alot of money in these areas, military and space, albeit a great deal also goes to welfare in the US. In europe, the governments spend almost all money on hospitals, welfare. So big governments exist both in socialist europe, and 'capitalistic' USA. There is also a great deal of almost identical regulation in both continents.
But the bottom line is laizzez faire economics and the 'invisible hand' a la Adam Smith are misguided, good in theory, bad in practice approaches as stupifying as communism. Every time it has been used, it has failed failed failed. Saying so is _not_ anti-capitalism, on the contrary, it is very pro-capitalism and anti-monopoly. The closest living example where it continues to exist (remarkably), is Hong Kong, even under communist chinas control. Its not totally free wheeling capitalism, but the social cliff between rich and poor is very visible.
Even if one takes a 'minimalistic' approch to government involvement in the market, it is hard to define what 'minimal' is. It should instead be more goal orientated defined. What are the government responsibilities? Theres the market responsibility, encouraging economic growth, enable economic laws and regulations to ensure free competition, making patent laws and so forth. Then there is public safety, therefore such departments as Food and Drug administration. Then there are also various public interests, such as a role the environmental protection agency. Then there are also government actors in the market such as the military and NASA which play a big consumerist role, in such areas, there is definitly a 'big government' which the major player in the field.
In the USA, the government spends alot of money in these areas, military and space, albeit a great deal also goes to welfare in the US. In europe, the governments spend almost all money on hospitals, welfare. So big governments exist both in socialist europe, and 'capitalistic' USA. There is also a great deal of almost identical regulation in both continents.
But the bottom line is laizzez faire economics and the 'invisible hand' a la Adam Smith are misguided, good in theory, bad in practice approaches as stupifying as communism. Every time it has been used, it has failed failed failed. Saying so is _not_ anti-capitalism, on the contrary, it is very pro-capitalism and anti-monopoly. The closest living example where it continues to exist (remarkably), is Hong Kong, even under communist chinas control. Its not totally free wheeling capitalism, but the social cliff between rich and poor is very visible.
-
Max Delorian
- Posts: 1321
- Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 2:20 am
I'm not gonna open my fat mouth to put my fatter feet inside this time, everyone is aware of my 'contentious' economic views and beats me for it 
It does seem to be true that those who lie on the circumference of the inhabited world produce the things we believe to be most rare and beautiful - Herodotus