What are the positive and negative qualities of a capitalistic model?

[bilby]

Point to one case where the government spends very little.

Television

You meant the television on which shows widely regarded as amongst the best in the world are produced by the BBC? That television has a huge amount of government spending worldwide.

Of course, if you are one of the approximately quarter of a billion people who think that the 5% of the world population who are US residents are the entire world, you might have a point; But the other 95% of the world population probably won't ever agree with you.

 

[Axulus]

What massive government investment in the economy do you think got the US off the ground?

What got the US started was slavery and other forms of servitude.

That is the crucial labor that enables the US to grow.

Why do you think that labor would've been unavailale without slavery, and what kind of growth do you think was accomplished with additional tobacco and cotton crops?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You have no evidence capitalism can work without massive government investment.

And of course the US is moving further and further towards third world status. People are working longer and longer for less and less. So even a successful capitalist economy does not mean most people benefit from that success.

But show me a successful capitalist economy that doesn't also have a lot of government spending.

Hop in your DeLorean and have a look. There was no massive government investment in the early days of America. Capitalism worked.

 

[untermensche]

What got the US started was slavery and other forms of servitude.

That is the crucial labor that enables the US to grow.

Why do you think that labor would've been unavailale without slavery, and what kind of growth do you think was accomplished with additional tobacco and cotton crops?

Did not wealth created by slavery, which was widespread and eventually involved millions of people, create customers for finished goods?

What was discovered however was that it was cheaper to have near slave factory workers, that could die for all the capitalists cared, since they were so easily replaced with no cost what-so-ever.

 

[untermensche]

You have no evidence capitalism can work without massive government investment.

And of course the US is moving further and further towards third world status. People are working longer and longer for less and less. So even a successful capitalist economy does not mean most people benefit from that success.

But show me a successful capitalist economy that doesn't also have a lot of government spending.

Hop in your DeLorean and have a look. There was no massive government investment in the early days of America. Capitalism worked.

Early America was based on Feudalism and Slavery. And the inequities created by both systems persisted long after capitalism existed.

But the question is about present day existing economies.

 

[bilby]

You have no evidence capitalism can work without massive government investment.

And of course the US is moving further and further towards third world status. People are working longer and longer for less and less. So even a successful capitalist economy does not mean most people benefit from that success.

But show me a successful capitalist economy that doesn't also have a lot of government spending.

Hop in your DeLorean and have a look. There was no massive government investment in the early days of America. Capitalism worked.

So the government giving away vast tracts of land, is not in any way similar to the government giving away vast sums of money, then?

 

[Nexus]

I thought the British, French and Spanish governments has lots to do with get the modern Americas nations started.

The music industry was mostly absent government spending.

 

[Axulus]

I thought the British, French and Spanish governments has lots to do with get the modern Americas nations started.

The music industry was mostly absent government spending.

The government subsidizes college and music classes in public schools, so they are responsible for that too if your definition is all encompasssing like that.

 

[Togo]

I thought the British, French and Spanish governments has lots to do with get the modern Americas nations started.

The music industry was mostly absent government spending.

The government subsidizes college and music classes in public schools, so they are responsible for that too if your definition is all encompasssing like that.

Not to mention the development of one of the most important music platforms - radio.

 

[untermensche]

I thought the British, French and Spanish governments has lots to do with get the modern Americas nations started.

The music industry was mostly absent government spending.

Government spending, not private enterprise, is the engine that keeps the show running.

But government spending is not the whole show. It just allows the show to exist.

Take away the government spending and the economy collapses.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I thought the British, French and Spanish governments has lots to do with get the modern Americas nations started.

The music industry was mostly absent government spending.

Government spending, not private enterprise, is the engine that keeps the show running.

But government spending is not the whole show. It just allows the show to exist.

Take away the government spending and the economy collapses.

That was the argument several economists made when WWII came to an end and the government reduced its spending by more than half, but the economy didn't collapse. The same thing would happen now and it would even get better without the government spending.

 

[SimpleDon]

Without getting into our usual fierce debate of whether or not capitalism is a good thing, here's a quick little brain work-out:

What are the positive qualities of a capitalistic model?

and

What are the negative qualities of a capitalistic model?

The capitalistic model is by far the best economic system that has been devised, at least for developed countries. It should come as no surprise since this is the system that has evolved along with thousands of years of civilization and most recently with industrialization.

The main positive characteristics of capitalism, that it rewards innovation and risk taking, are also the main negative characteristics of capitalism. It rewards socially undesirable innovation and risk taking even more than it does socially desirable innovation and risk taking. This is one of the main reasons that the idea of a self-regulating free market is a fantasy.

Capitalism isn't an end unto itself. We shouldn't be trying to perfect capitalism. Capitalism and the economy in general are the tools that we use to feed and clothe the members of our society. It is the way that we allocate resources among competitive uses. If the economy isn't producing the distribution of resources and of the resulting goods and services that is desirable then we should be willing to change our system to achieve the more desirable result.

Capitalism directed and property constrained from its naturally occurring excesses by a democratically elected government has though the years proven to be a flexible and very robust combination. As evidenced by the broad range of variations and different outcomes among capitalistic, developed countries around the world.

 

[SimpleDon]

Government spending, not private enterprise, is the engine that keeps the show running.

But government spending is not the whole show. It just allows the show to exist.

Take away the government spending and the economy collapses.

That was the argument several economists made when WWII came to an end and the government reduced its spending by more than half, but the economy didn't collapse. The same thing would happen now and it would even get better without the government spending.

War is the ultimate consumption driven economy. When the war is over the consumption stops, there is no reason to continue the high government spending. I have my doubts that you can provide any examples of economists who wanted to continue the wartime government spending levels. Virtually all of the economists that I know were concerned not with keeping government spending high, but with the opposite problem of inflation because of the pent up consumer demand from the war and the inability of producers to switch over from producing war goods to producing consumer goods. Fortunately the Institutionists and Keynesians that had run the wartime economy did pretty much the right things, they provided funds to convert the industrial base back to production of consumer goods, they kept taxes high to prevent inflation, they provided money to help rebuild the destruction of the war, think the Marshall Plan and they passed the GI bill to reduce the glut of labor from the returning servicemen and to encourage the housing market, which didn't require much time and investment to get up and running. .

Government spending is about 25% of the economy. It hasn't changed dramatically in years. What does change is the amount of money that government spending creates and puts into the economy.

If taxes cover the government spending then the government isn't creating and putting any money into the economy. If the government is running a deficit it is creating money and spending it into the economy. If the government is running a surplus it is taking money out of the economy.

It is maybe helpful if you think of taxes as destroying money and government spending as creating money. The only reason that the government has to keep the balance between money creation, spending, and money destruction, taxes, in some balance is to avoid inflation, too much money, and deflation, too little money.

What most people don't appreciate is that the balance of trade has to be included in the equilibrium between spending and taxation. If the country is running a trade deficit, as we are now, then the amount of the deficit is money that is leaving our economy, money that has to be replaced in our economy. There is only two places that it can come from, either reduced private savings or increased government deficit spending.

 

[ksen]

Government spending, not private enterprise, is the engine that keeps the show running.

But government spending is not the whole show. It just allows the show to exist.

Take away the government spending and the economy collapses.

That was the argument several economists made when WWII came to an end and the government reduced its spending by more than half, but the economy didn't collapse. The same thing would happen now and it would even get better without the government spending.

cite?

Or is that just a Pechtelism?

 

[SimpleDon]

That was the argument several economists made when WWII came to an end and the government reduced its spending by more than half, but the economy didn't collapse. The same thing would happen now and it would even get better without the government spending.

cite?

Or is that just a Pechtelism?

Blind faith?

 

[coloradoatheist]

That was the argument several economists made when WWII came to an end and the government reduced its spending by more than half, but the economy didn't collapse. The same thing would happen now and it would even get better without the government spending.

cite?

Or is that just a Pechtelism?

Here is an article talking about the economy after the war. It was Samuelson who predicted millions of unemployed after the war.

http://mercatus.org/publication/economic-recovery-lessons-post-world-war-ii-period

 

[Togo]

Here is an article talking about the economy after the war. It was Samuelson who predicted millions of unemployed after the war.

http://mercatus.org/publication/economic-recovery-lessons-post-world-war-ii-period

What a bizarre article. The effect of throwing 16 million highly trained people onto the job market, and the vast amounts of material and infrastructure sold cheaply on to private enterprise, and even the resumption of international trade, is all put down to a reduction in government spending. Using the same logic, the reason why your income goes up when you leave university is not because university has helped you in any way, but merely because you've stopped paying tuition fees.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Here is an article talking about the economy after the war. It was Samuelson who predicted millions of unemployed after the war.

http://mercatus.org/publication/economic-recovery-lessons-post-world-war-ii-period

What a bizarre article. The effect of throwing 16 million highly trained people onto the job market, and the vast amounts of material and infrastructure sold cheaply on to private enterprise, and even the resumption of international trade, is all put down to a reduction in government spending. Using the same logic, the reason why your income goes up when you leave university is not because university has helped you in any way, but merely because you've stopped paying tuition fees.

Huh? untermensche argument is that it's government spending and efforts in the economy is what keeps it afloat. However in WWII we have a time where the government ramped up it's spending and involvement in the economy but when the war was over it stopped the spending and the meddling in the economy and the economy didn't die. It's also the argument for Keynes that if consumers don't spend their money in the economy it goes into a recession and government needs to pick up spending. However in the case of WWII we have the opposite where the government was spending and then stopped most of it. By Keynes reasoning, and why Samuelson thought the economy would tank is that the drop in demand would cause a major recession/depression, but it didn't.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Hop in your DeLorean and have a look. There was no massive government investment in the early days of America. Capitalism worked.

Early America was based on Feudalism and Slavery. And the inequities created by both systems persisted long after capitalism existed.

But the question is about present day existing economies.

Slavery ran cotton, it didn't run society.

- - - Updated - - -

Hop in your DeLorean and have a look. There was no massive government investment in the early days of America. Capitalism worked.

So the government giving away vast tracts of land, is not in any way similar to the government giving away vast sums of money, then?

No. That was about getting people to settle in the west.

 

[bilby]

Early America was based on Feudalism and Slavery. And the inequities created by both systems persisted long after capitalism existed.

But the question is about present day existing economies.

Slavery ran cotton, it didn't run society.

- - - Updated - - -

Hop in your DeLorean and have a look. There was no massive government investment in the early days of America. Capitalism worked.

So the government giving away vast tracts of land, is not in any way similar to the government giving away vast sums of money, then?

No. That was about getting people to settle in the west.

Sure, that's the purpose of it. But the effect is one of giving away vast wealth. In land, not dollars; but nevertheless, a big chunk of wealth was given out by the government.

And if they didn't see the encouragement of settlement in the west as an investment, why the fuck did they encourage it at all?