Why not a mixture of Capitalism and Socialism?

[puckerman]

I'd rather not get into Ayn Rand, there is already a thread for that. But I will say that we have attempted to implement her philosophy in the form of Alan Greenspan and the results have been disastrous.

No, "we" didn't. Greenspan is a Keynesian and a crony capitalist. What he did for all the years had nothing to do with what Rand advocated. He was a worthless sell out who never believed in a free market.

 

[puckerman]

Libertarians get their panties in a twist about poor people getting assistance but no fucks given about the ~40 billion we just handed over to Israel...

Excuse me. Libertarians want to get rid of ALL foreign aid. So, they definitely "get their panties in a twist" about it.

 

[Leonard D Neubache]

If I recall correctly the first American anti-trust law was in regard to a growing monopoly on the beef market.

One producer in particular was producing beef at such a low cost to the consumer that other producers lobbied the government to mandate a minimum price well above the frontrunner's price.

This essentially doubled the profits of the frontrunner who in turn was able to steamroll his opposition harder and faster than ever. And who also lost out? Every damn person buying beef.

The closer the west was to free market capitalism the more successful it became. The more we have strayed from it the faster our decay.

 

[puckerman]

The closer the west was to free market capitalism the more successful it became. The more we have strayed from it the faster our decay.

That would most likely be the northern states before the Civil War. Andrew Jackson killed the Bank of the United States. This opened up the era of "wildcat banking." American absorbed boatloads of immigrants, especially during the Irish Potato Famine. It was easily the freest banking had ever been, and it was the best period of growth the country ever saw.

I stress that it was only in the north. The south had slavery, which isn't compatible with capitalism at all. But this was also the south didn't see nearly as much growth.

Read Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville. It will show you what the country used to be like. One thing, he observed was how quickly Americans were to help each other out. This was when there was little or no "safety net" by the government. People were the safety net, and it was the most effective net of all.

This was also before the expansion of socialist schooling. The USA might very well have been the most politically-informed society that ever existed. Those people would never tolerate someone like Clinton or Trump in political office.

 

[void]

Oligopols are the result of strong competition. Having 100 brands of fruit loops is the sign of an inefficient market enabling such an overhead. Oligopols are only bad, if the members secretly coordinate prices.

 

[bodacious]

Socialism must always be fought. Always. It´s like laziness or lack of disciplina. If you don´t fight it. It will get a hold on you.

 

[therealpoder]

The situation described in the OP is the situation we already have, at least in the United States.

The problem of government ownership of education, health care, etc. is that without competition, profit and loss, there's no reason for the government to provide good services. Poor education quality and long waits and inferior health care are the norm in socialized systems. They are also more expensive since it has the illusion of being free so more people use it.

When the government dictates who much you make why work harder?

If it is hard to fire you, why put forth your best effort?

If the collective is paying for your health care, why not go to the doctor for the most trivial of injuries?

When you spend other people's money you make sillier decisions.

You may have never majored in anthropology if you paid your own money. But since you college is "free" (i.e. paid for by the taxpayer) , why not?

It's inefficient too. When a private business has bad service it goes out of business. When government fails, they use their failure to ask for more money.

The result is paying high taxes for bad service.

I think government should protect life, liberty and property and provide public goods. but they need to avoid cradle to the grave policies and acting like a parent. Too much government makes people dependent and feel entitled to other people's labor.

 

[Parzival]

In this instance you might say "I think that Germany circa 1980 is a good model for a prosperous society". Well guess what. Germany of 1980 led to Germany of 2016.

This sound very logical but actually its not. Because it would mean that the now has a pattern and is predictable. Its a flaw in your brain. We are not logical beings but we are good to think we are.

What does this mean. We are got to spin a pattern and a logic after the actions to make them sound more reasonable. Think from a different angle, when everything from the past did lead to this point now, why can't we predict the future? Its more easy to see patterns after because we say X and Y lead to Z. Still we can't do this for the future.

This surely depends if you have determinism view on the world. This also means we have no free will at all. We can do predictions, some people even try that thinks work out in their favour. There are strong forces for this in the world and maybe in the universe. Still its not like A in the past leads automatic to B in the future or the now.


More to the topic, beside the flaw of Germany in theory and even in many practical part the social market system in Germany works quite well.

 

[Bluto]

You have to keep in mind that unrestrained capitalism automatically leads to socialism over time. Just look at how Google and Apple have become governments of their own and wield far more political power (and socialist influence used to enrich themselves even more) than most countries.

Interesting enough, Apple just got slapped with a 14.5 billion tax evasion penalty by the EU a few weeks back. Likewise Google now has to deal with an Anti-trust case as well. If Apple or Google has so much power, then why would a conglomerate of over-leveraged states with a dearth of social ills go up against them? Normally I would care less what happens to a bunch of two bit mini-states, that cant figure out if the guys who want to destroy their society are serious even after the shooting has started, but if that band of disorganized passive fascists can cause this kind of chaos think of what the damage that other governments can do.(I know that there are quite a few denizens of the EU on here, hopefully the Brexit will put the stake in the heart of the EU for you. The bright side is that you can fix your own house after that is dead.)

I tend to agree that once a business gets big enough they tend to figure out ways for self preservation. This can lead to socialistic tendencies on the companies part. However, every time that they try to do that, they end up dealing with the biggest monopoly of them all. Don't forget that this is 2016, not 1890. These day's, if a large business doesn't pay for an audience they will be targeted. They are more likely to contribute financially to politics is so that they don't get messed with. That is on top of the fact that at any given day, every company is doing something illegal, and only a matter of time until they are caught and actually prosecuted, or a "deal" is made.

Likewise big business have, are, and always will be slaves to popularity. A loss in popularity leads to a loss in revenue. Remember how many companies were so Gun-Ho just after 9-11 here in the states? How many of them are like that how? All big companies are very risk adverse and go with the popular flow at all times. They may talk a big game until it is time to start selling their wares. They may try to shape the prevailing culture, but only if we allow them to. In order for them to weild Government power, they need to be like the DeMedici's of Italy 500 years ago where they were both Government and Commercal titans.