Am I a Marxist, Austrian School, Chicago School, or Socialist?

Its been pounded in my head that free market capitalism is the path to prosperity but the more and more I read up on Marxism, The Austrian and Chicago Schools, and other economic theories Im started to wonder where I stand. Maybe Gateway or someone can point me in the right direction.

First off I know this that taking from working people to give to non working people does not work and the competition drives economies. I also feel that regulation is counter productive in a growing economy. But I ask a question when does drive turn to greed. I feel to sustain a productive economy there has to be a strong working class and it seems over the past 30 years we have seen the middle class shrink and shrink. I feel there are two reasons for this.

A. Executive Greed. The executives start focusing on how they can make us much money as they can in a short amount of time with as little work as possible.

B. The stock market. The stock market has robbed the working class because instead of companies putting this money back into their companies via raises for employees and technology it is being given to the investors. Employers cut pay and other expenses to show a "strong bottom line"

So if there is to be no regulation how do you stop the greed and the real socialism of the country and that is the siphoning of wealth from the production of the working class via forms like taxation and the stock market and then greed from the execs from paying less to employees so they can get paid more. The fact is in 1980 the average fortune 500 exec made 60x their average employee and now they make almost 600x their average employee. How did we allow this to be?

The reason why I bring this up is because I feel there is a bigger picture of why we are where we are in both the economy and in society in general. I feel it is all linked. We now live in a society of its about me me me and not in a society where take what I can when I can and F*** everyone else. Am I a socialist? Im not advocating wealth redistribution from rich to poor but I also do like seeing the redistribution from poor to rich off the backs off hard working people. Sigh someone help me out please. Help me to label myself.

Originally posted by mybigunit
The fact is in 1980 the average fortune 500 exec made 60x their average employee and now they make almost 600x their average employee. How did we allow this to be?

Because you haven't really got any mechanism in place to prevent it but rather you have mechanisms to encourage it.

Because Americans, specifically, are sold the idea of the 'American Dream': that you could be one of the Fortune 500 executives if you just work hard enough. So you allow it to happen because one day, fingers crossed, you could be the guy earning 600 x more rather than 600 x less. That's not "executive greed" though, that's average guy on the street greed allowing it to happen.

However, I can't blame the average guy in the street for this because America been told for decades that anything other than the 'American Dream' is unAmerican, so don't even toy with the idea of changing it, just get a 3rd or 4th job and pray you never get a serious illness.

[edit on 26-10-2008 by Merriman Weir]

Don't fall into the trap!

Why do you feel the need to label whatever combination of beliefs you have? Enjoy the freedom of making up your own mind and being able to synthesize something from all of them.

Has anyone actually read "The Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith?

I mean picked up a copy and actually read it, not read about it or read someone else's interpretation of what it all meant etc.

It was written in the 1700's and is a tough slog, but if you read it for yourself while trying to keep a lifetime of brainwashing out of your head, you will notice some nuances that are never mentioned by any modern day economist or in any textbook.

Adam Smith, the "father of capitalism" never advocated a laissez fair completely deregulated free market system you hear so much about these days. He simply made observations and suggested certain mechanisms at play in the creation of wealth.

His ideas were bastardized into tightly packed memes (or 30 second soundbites if you prefer) over the ages and all sides have been responsible for trying to politicize his work.

From the wiki page:

The Wealth of Nations

Nations is often mischaracterized and politicized.

Left-wing writers have characterized it as advocating the status quo, yet the work clearly discusses what Smith sees as the inefficiency, and inappropriateness of tariffs, apprenticeships, immigration control and cartels - arrangements favourable to special interest groups.

Right-wing politicians have often used a sleight of hand - erroneously equating "pro-business" with advocacy of free markets, thus using/abusing the Wealth of Nations to support their own protectionist objectives.

I would also recommend actually reading Marx & Engles' "The Communist Manifesto" for yourself. You will be shocked at how much the situation they describe and critique in the book applies to the distortions we see today. Again, don't read about them or about the book or someone's interpretation of the work. Read the actual work for yourself and make up your own mind if you can get through the brainwashing we've all been subjected to.

It always amazes me that if you ask people who are interested in or comment on economics if they have actually read the source material for these theories (and many others) the answer is usually no.

Same goes for anybody discussing Darwin. I bet you can't find a single person who has actually read "On the Origin of Species" published in the 1800's. Most people have only read about Darwin and never actually read Darwin.

It's a major fallacy of our education system that we teach interpretations (carefully selecting the ones that suit "certain" needs and agendas) of great works rather than read the great works themselves.
.

Originally posted by Merriman Weir
Because you haven't really got any mechanism in place to prevent it but rather you have mechanisms to encourage it.

Because Americans, specifically, are sold the idea of the 'American Dream': that you could be one of the Fortune 500 executives if you just work hard enough. So you allow it to happen because one day, fingers crossed, you could be the guy earning 600 x more rather than 600 x less. That's not "executive greed" though, that's average guy on the street greed allowing it to happen.

However, I can't blame the average guy in the street for this because America been told for decades that anything other than the 'American Dream' is unAmerican, so don't even toy with the idea of changing it, just get a 3rd or 4th job and pray you never get a serious illness.

[edit on 26-10-2008 by Merriman Weir]

I dont agree that if you work hard enough that you will be a fortune 500 exec. I think it is a combination of work, luck, and connections. Not everyone can be an exec even though there are many qualified people who could be. They just dont have the luck or the connections for this to happen. You see Im a free market guy I feel. But the one equation that isnt being considered in lets say the Austrian School theories is greed. Greed ruins the theory. Greed is why the trickle down theory on paper sounds great but in reality does not work.

reply to post by Gools


Believe it or not I have been studying up on Marx and that is why Im writing this. I see MANY similarities to his theories and how they are being applied today. I have always been told that Marxism is evil however when you see some of the issues today you will see he talked about some of the causes and effects of capitalism being what we are facing today in a sense.

I sometimes wonder if we shouldnt abolish the stock market. Siphoning money from workers to institutional fat cats to me doesnt make sense. Why not use that money to pay your workers more. That gives them more money to buy the very products you sell. Ford used the same model. People call is Fordism. Pay your people well so they can buy your products. Anymore because we have to be so free market this isnt happening anymore. Greed is in effect. The irony is the socialism of the losses we are now seeing.

Originally posted by mybigunit

I dont agree that if you work hard enough that you will be a fortune 500 exec. I think it is a combination of work, luck, and connections.

And you'd be correct! However, the last two are the small print at best on the leaflets. That's not how it's sold to you though is it. After all, how good does a society based on luck sound? Or the rich guy admitting that it's all down to his rich mates?

But the one equation that isnt being considered in lets say the Austrian School theories is greed. Greed ruins the theory. Greed is why the trickle down theory on paper sounds great but in reality does not work.

There's always going to be greedy people. It's rarely about 'drive' or 'hard work' and it's rarely about 'fairness' either. It's about 'more, more, more' or else, why don't rich people stop when they hit 'comfortable'. It's not enough and they want more, so they reach 'well off', then just keep going until you reach the point where they earn 600 x more than their average employee.

Greed is a consideration in socio-economic policies, just not the ones that Americans have been traditionally encouraged to look at.

I think you're seeing the flaw in the capitalist model. There are only so many individuals that can rise to the top of a pyramid. It always ends with a disproportionate amount of wealth at the top and the gap between rich and poor gets larger and larger, hence less opportunities to practice capitalism. In effect, it kills itself. It also always ends in revolt.

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
I think you're seeing the flaw in the capitalist model. There are only so many individuals that can rise to the top of a pyramid. It always ends with a disproportionate amount of wealth at the top and the gap between rich and poor gets larger and larger, hence less opportunities to practice capitalism. In effect, it kills itself. It also always ends in revolt.

Well there is nothing wrong with being wealthy. It is that drive for wealth that makes the system work. But at what point does wealthy turn into greedy. I think this is where the stock market kicks into play. I feel that because employers are more concerned about the bottom line so they can get paid more that they forget about the people who produce the products they sell or services they offer. Not all companies and CEOs are like this I understand. Some still have the belief you pay your people well. That is a belief I have as an employer. I only make around 7x my average employee. In fact I dont even drive as nice of a car as some of mine


So maybe we need to create a hybrid form of capitalism. But once again why is greed. Where would you draw the line. Could we do it on a % basis like execs can only make 100x their average pay of employees or something to that effect. To me this seems like a reasonable way. If the free market wont level this then maybe government does need to. Maybe this is a slippery slope. Its obvious after this fiasco something needs to be done because in recessions like this there is no base to get us out. the reason being all the money is sitting at the top.

Can I come work for you...? Only half kidding.

I don't know how you can limit greed because these bastards stay up at night thinking of new ways to play the system.

Don't fret, you're not a Socialist, because you don't believe in redistribution. In the UK even Conservatives believe in redistribution, because trickle down alone does not work very quickly at all. Sometimes a nice stimulus aimed at a specific person helps. Training is also a form of redistribution because you are paying teachers.

As for the exec who earns 500* their average employee, shall we propose a rule?

****No one should earn more than 50* their worst paid employee****

The staff might find they become part of the board's bonus packages then, to incentivise them? I'm not sure whether this is sane or not. lol.

N.B. I'm not pinning myself to 50*, it's an example number, the right number might be 45, 78 or 102, I just don't have the info......

reply to post by redled

****No one should earn more than 50* their worst paid employee****

I'm with you on that idea (and 50x might not be the right number, but as you say that can be debated).

If this "rule" was in effect, the only way the top earners could make more is if the bottom earners made more as well...seem fair enough to me!

Correct the number can be debated but I do feel that a policy like this might help. I know in a "true" free market this would seem like socialism but a failed free market as we now see turns into socialism anyways. To me trickle down would work if the greed fact was not in the equation. But in the real world it is so trickle down does not work. Maybe im on to something big and write a book. My hybrid capitalism will be the theories used in the future I need to come up with a name. Call it Millerism


I do think the limit works because now the execs would get paid on how well their employees are getting paid. If your average employees make 50k a year you can make 5 million and if you give your peeps raises to 75k you can make 7.5 million or whatever number is used as a %. It helps the economy because it give the middle class more money to pour into the economy. I dont see a downfall to this. its not like your limiting the wealth of execs they can make however much they want. They just have to be in proportion of what they are paying the peeps that work for them.

[edit on 26-10-2008 by mybigunit]

Thanks for the support, don't think anyone will listen though...... if we're worrying about Marxism, do you think ATS should support revolutions on an open forum basis to give the security forces a fair chance? With some luck, they won't give a cr#p about anything we say, let alone our plans?

Where do I stand?

I stand with me...

Several different economies have since been tried in the Western World, and even in America, since the Industrial Age. The idea to produce as much as possible, as cheaply as possible, doing the least work as possible to make the biggest profit as possible has been the driving heart of all economies.

Communism was a novel idea, the problem is, no one knew how to implement Communism in a Capitalist World..

And in my opinion, no one actually ever cared enough to look out for the people.

For Communism to work, imo anyways, YOU NEED AN ENLIGHTENED MONARCH.

Economies based on mass production or worthless crap sold at a premium price, produced by slave labor, to the materialistic world is the problem the World faces. A return to a more "simplistic" life style, where "currency" and money are not the regulations of good or bad lives is the perfect system.

A system where the Government is not paid. Cannot be paid. Cannot "earn" anything from their job.

Where housing is free, the largest burden on life, but it doesn't have to be massive concrete block projects like the USSR.. There is no need to bring every one down to the lowest level..

Today we work 40+ hours a week, we wake up at 7 to get ready to go to work, then go to work, hate our jobs, come home by maybe 7 depending on traffic, and go to bend at 11 to start over. We do this 5 out of 7 days a week. Many of us work far more then that. And we work for what? We work so that we cen enjoy that 4 hours to our selves we have each day, or the weekend where most of us spend the time catching up on house work that is neglected during the week..

My philosophies could work, but only for a single generation .. even absolute corruption with absolute power will eventually erode.. Human Greed will destroy everything..

But in OUR system, the only system we have .. the Free Market System is the only way it can work properly. If we allow government intervention, we only reward risky behaviors by taking away the consequences. Without consequence there is no longer a threshold the economy can bare to risk on .. because you can pass the point of no return and walk away perfectly fine, leaving countless others buried in the rubble.

You cannot have a system where the Government holds portions of the economy, a Socialist system, it can only fail. It will fail by the simple nature of the bureaucratic beast that is the Government.

IMO also, there are far to many people in this world to have any form of successful communist economy.. but if there was only a way to reduce the number of Humans that needed to be taken care of...

(ps by stating I stand with me, I imply that we cannot attach names to our ideologies, as they differ so widely. We can only exist, and act in the name of our own consciousness.. to attach a name is to follow a guideline, and guidelines do not take into account the changes that come with the different ages. This lacking ability to adapt to the times is what gives us situations as we have at the present... it inhibits growth.)



[edit on 10/26/2008 by Rockpuck]

Before I start, I wanted to let you know that for the longest time I had a problem with what I was learning while going through college. I remember one time being upset with one of my professors and telling him that I thought the "IMF and World bank did nothing to alleviate world poverty, and that how was it that the world kept growing in wealth (for at least a few countries) and the poorest nation in the world kept growing poorer?" Where is the general wealth in prosperity I asked him? He calculatingly blew me off by telling me that the IMF or World banks "if anything" provided credit to those that couldn't otherwise. That if I believed that the IMF and World should be eliminated that these countries would be worse off. He continued to explain that the resulting continued poverty in these nations is due to their own making. And that was it... (He gave me a statist, and Neoclassical-Keynesian answer)

I was left still puzzled, and still upset with his answer and what I saw unanswered and what I viewed as unfair "inequality" in this world. Mind you, to me the thirst for economics started when I was young I wanted to know how the world works, this has always been very personal for me. It upsets me to hear about people losing their jobs through NO fault of their own. People work hard and try to do the best for their family, and then one day, they are given a pink-slip and have to figure out how to feed their families. My father and mother both lost their jobs while I was in high school, our family faced a serious financial crises one which left us with almost nothing, my father used ALL his 401k to help feed our family. To this day, my father has "0" to his name, my mom and dad do not own their own home and rely on us "his kids" along with a minor insurance disability payment that he receives due to his illness to continue to enjoy what he has left of this life.

Anyway, looking back now I think this entire mess drove me to seek answer to what happened, to us. Who was responsible... At that time, I blamed the so-called free-market for this entire mess we were in, I blamed greed, corporation, and our uncaring American people for the mess we were in. Mind you, again I was young and impressionable, I was an ardent democrat WHO despised the republicans as a bunch of heartless ruthless group of people who only cared about money and didn't give a rat's ass about the people in this country.


Funny how my last statement hasn't really changed too much as far as how I feel about the republicans...


I still hate the republicans but for more fundamentally sound economic reasons now. Which I can go into, perhaps later.

Anyway, as I went through and finished college, not much had changed for me, as far as what I thought about republicans, I was still a democrat who thought that the minimum wage was a good thing, that unemployment insurance was another good thing, and believed and was taught that the "Great Depression" occurred because of the Free-Market, and that FDR fixed our problems. (By the way, all of these myths were reinforced in undergraduate studies)

I decided to continue my studies, and pursued an advanced degree. I can honestly tell you that this is where my world was turned up-side down; where I unlearned everything...all my beliefs, I had a difficult time accepting these new ideas, but time after time again we studied, the subject matter LOOKED at the evidence IN DEPTH and what I thought was good for people actually turned-out to be bad. There were times that my sense of what I believed was right and wrong was telling me one thing and the "Stupid" journal or Book that I was doing research on was telling me something different; to the point of being made me angry. I had a difficult time; I remember in class debating with some of my professors, and staying after class and asking them to clarify on certain topics. I wanted to know, WHY!!! And HOW!!

It wasn't until I met a certain professor that taught me a completely new type of Economics, and one that I'd never heard-of up until that point. I started reading, and have not stopped since. I can't get enough of Austrian economics because it answers ALL my questions. Needless to say I have turned from a Democrat bordering on a Socialist...to an ardent Libertarian.

Oops...I've noticed this post is rather long, but I felt in necessary to point-out to you that I've never really been some Republican type. And the reason why is that...do to the fact that I a democrat I saw that these types subsides and corporatism as wrong but at the same time saw nothing wrong with social-welfare. It was finally through the Austrian and Libertarian readings that I saw that ALL OF this subsidies along with either type of welfare was wrong, and saw these people (the republicans) for who they are, they in FACT NOT support CAPITALISM, they are Statist, and use the coercive power of government to their benefit.

Ok, now I will try to answer your questions.

I also feel that regulation is counter productive in a growing economy.

Yes, time and time again, regulation is just that. It is design to REGULATE competition, to limit entry, and ultimately hurts the consumer. There is ample evidence that for the most part it is the industry itself that ASKS for the regulation in order to benefit themselves. For example; the recent creation of Sarbanes Oxley was pushed by the accounting industry. And guess what, it has spawned a whole new industry of jobs for the Accountants. I could give you a ton of more examples...of so-called regulation that CERTAIN groups clamor for and then show you how the SAME few within the industry have benefited at the expense of others.

But I ask a question when does drive turn to greed.

Well, it turns to greed when certain companies in certain industries for example use the coercive power of government to increase their market share unfairly. This happens so much in this country you would be surprised. This is due to rapid growth of government, and then corporations either influence or outright buy government influence through our elected leaders. This clearly has NOTHING to do with CAPITALISM. Capitalism can only occur with little to no government interference. This is the inherent problem with democracy I'm afraid. Since we all have elected leaders, those of us with large amounts of capital and wealth instead of continuing to improve their product and thereby out-compete their competitor turn to "rent seeking" activity. In other words, opt for the easy way out, instead of competing your way to success, they lobby their legislative representative to limit entry or limit their competition. Hence there is a WHOLE industry devoted to getting your COMPANIES share and feeding at the government trough of subsidies, and or regulations in Washington.

I feel to sustain a productive economy there has to be a strong working class and it seems over the past 30 years we have seen the middle class shrink and shrink.

I agree as well. The reason why we have seen a shirking in the purchasing power of the middle class, and hence their standard of living seem to decrease is because the money supply has been increased. Let me explain; As businesses produce products and continue to increase the productivity or output rate of producing goods due to efficiency, driven through investment this should produce prices of ALL goods in the long run to decline in prices. Think of the prices of Televisions and Computers...when they first came out only the most wealthy of individuals could purchase them, but over time as production through investment continued TVs and Computers more and more were affordable for the common man. The same thing for telephones, Ipods, sofas, pepsi....any good. See other post...



[edit on 27-10-2008 by Gateway]

Continuing on...

Investment drives production which creates the products more affordable which in turn should make you and the money you have purchase more goods, here your standard of living should increase. This includes all goods, even groceries, think about the great advancement in agriculture food should be increasingly cheaper and cheaper to purchase.

But they haven't you say, "Why are prices either going up or not moving downward what's going on?"

There is 1 major factor that effects these prices from coming down, and that is GOVERNMENT interference. One way is that government through interference in markets limit competition or regulates and therefore artificially distorts prices, by making it more expensive for producers. I could talk about this for days, but I want to focus most of my post on the MAJOR contributor of propping prices upward, and that is the FED.

Well, the good folks who work for the FED or more specifically the Bureau of Labor Statistics see Prices going down as a BAD thing. (Using the CPI) They call this "deflation", and try to wrong headily increases the money supply in order to stave off this "deflation" they try to achieve Price Stability, in fact that is their goal. funny thing tho, is that they act CONTRADICTORY to their claims. Think of it this way; If prices are worrisome for them should they not RAISE interest rates and thereby decrease the money supply? Well, what has happened...prices of goods have been going still going up should they not continue to raise interest rates since their aim is so-called price stability.

Nope, the Central Bank is inflationary by its very nature the evidence of it is the massive cut in interest rates recently even though we still see prices going-up.

The middle class that both YOU and I live in is being hampered because the money continues to be created to pay for a large federal government, our two wars, our bail-outs, and our bases abroad. Increasing the money supply causes a "redistributive effect". You see, those that get this new money, the politically connected; the Banks, Boeing, Northrup, military contractors and others, those that work for government and those that receive these bail-outs and subsidies are getting this new money FIRST. They in turn deposit this new money or start buying other goods and services, before YOU and I see this money trickled down into the economy. So they buy up things before the prices have adjusted to the NEW demand this causes prices to increase. This means that for people like YOU and I will first see the price increase, before we will see an increase in our salary or income if EVER, but even then the prices have gone up so our meager increase has come to late.

I feel there are two reasons for this. A. Executive Greed. The executives start focusing on how they can make us much money as they can in a short amount of time with as little work as possible.

Well, I think if there is any greed by executives in how they run the corporation they are usually reprimanded by the stockholders.

The stock market. The stock market has robbed the working class because instead of companies putting this money back into their companies via raises for employees and technology it is being given to the investors.

Well, the stock market exists because investors who initially received a prospectus from some business owner needed to have a secondary market to sell the ownership claim to others. Think of it this way, say some guy came to you who ran a pretty good software company or a discount department store he told you of his plan to expand and showed you his product. You feeling confident give him your money or you invest in his company. This is what underwriters do. Then you wait...and see what this guy does with his software company or the discount department store owner do with the new capital you have provided. They then sometimes price these instruments or stocks through initial public offering. Sometimes the public or people in the Stock Market reward those companies that issue the stock with equaling the price or more so for the money they gave to the software or discount department stores. Here the underwriters make a little money between the difference of the money they issued to Microsoft or Walmart and the INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING...sometime more...depending on what the market says. Mind you this doesn't mean that ALWAYS underwriters get their money back....sometimes they lose. Sometimes nobody wants to buy these stocks, hence they are left holding the bag, between the money they gave to microsoft and walmart and the money they thought they were going to make.

You see, a stock market is VITAL to an economy. It provides money/capital to the companies that need it to invest in "whatever" they want, and those that want to take the risk of providing that money. The market therefore brings these two people people together. Now....what happens after in the market in terms of people selling stock, yes is like gambling and is secondary. But it is the initial providing of capital to businesses that is the most important, the fact that it is then issued to the public these shares removes as well as provide the capital back to these investors that MADE MICROSOFT and Walmart WHO THEY ARE.

The stock market itself did not MAKE Microsoft or Walmart who they are today, rather the Price of their stock has gone up because investors feel that future returns and the success of Microsoft was do to the initial investment and continued investment in producing quality products.

And this is what markets do. They get people who have capital and those that need it to get together and transfer risk.

Companies, through their profits must reinvest into their company in order to produce cheaper and better goods in order to out-compete their competitor. It is in their interest to do so, because they use up capital goods. Think of a plant that produces cars. Those machines must be replaced or they will breakdown and they will not produce anything. So companies must continue to invest in new and better ways to produce.

Employers cut pay and other expenses to show a "strong bottom line"

Employers cut pay because they have wrongly over-estimated demand. This is because of false market signals given to them by the FED. When the Fed artificially lowers the rate of interest, entrepreneur's ROI is decreased (return on investment) in other words the entrepreneur who normally would have not invested in buying or producing a certain activity, mistakenly takes it thinking that it will be a profitable venture. He therefore hires and uses capital and equipment because he think he will receive a decent return. When the interest rates are manipulated back up by the FED, this venture no longer profitable since the older rate of return and the new interest rate is no longer yielding the return that he was expecting.

Here the massive layoffs begins. And the numerous clusters of mistakes are revealed to everyone but more specifically to the entrepreneur. Thus he begins laying people off. If interest rates were not manipulated they would have not hired more people in this industry in the first place. Instead the interest rates would have reflected or dictated other industries to produce or invest in REAL production, and you would not see the massive cluster of error that occurred.

So if there is to be no regulation how do you stop the greed and the real socialism of the country and that is the siphoning of wealth from the production of the working class via forms like taxation and the stock market and then greed from the execs from paying less to employees so they can get paid more.

Well we all want to live in a democracy. So the only things we can do to reduce these fluctuations in the business cycle is to:

See next post...




[edit on 27-10-2008 by Gateway]

1) Get rid of government, reduce it as much as possible. (This will also help in deregulation, no longer will certain industries manipulate regulation in their favor, they will have to compete)

2) Get rid of the Fed.
a) They artificially lower interest rates and give false signals to entrepreneurs to hire and use capital that they probably would have not undertaken had interest rates been set by demand and supply.

b) They increase the money supply which makes everyone worse off. Particularly those that only live on pensions or fixed income. It hurts the poorest because they hardly ever see this new money. This increase only benefits the well connected who tend to be the wealthy, since it is only the wealthy who are politically connected, not YOU nor I.

3) Decrease your and mine as well as corporate taxes. How are business and you and I going to be better off if our taxes are increased or remain the same during these times when we are starting to see higher unemployment.

4) Eliminate Fractional Reserve Banking. Banks artificially increase the money they don't have through this system. This cause instability in the banking system, when and if depositors want to extract their deposits. This kind of system is also morally reprehensible, what other business would take your property give it to someone else and only hold a fraction of it. It is and would be considered illegal in any other industry. But the banking system is the financier of government debt and hence this activity is overlooked or ignored.

5) A commodity backed or commodity money. This limits government spending since it cannot debase gold. Your money overtime should purchase more goods and services and as I have mentioned before a decline in prices should be seen, due to technological advancement of production.

To start off these things would elevate this country even stronger...

The reason why I bring this up is because I feel there is a bigger picture of why we are where we are in both the economy and in society in general. I feel it is all linked.

Yes, we are all inter linked. Some more so than other though, unfortunately. Like those that seek political and economic favors from our representatives. It is a shame that our representatives do not see the long run picture on how they harm us all.

We now live in a society of its about me me me and not in a society where take what I can when I can and F*** everyone else.

Yep, that's what the politicians working with those that hate capitalism are trying to do. Capitalism contrary to what most people think is a difficult system to live in if you are a producer. Think of it...having to please people constantly who have change and preferences that alter as often as the wind blows. It is much easier to stifle these pesky desires by limiting people's choices through the use of government coercion, it keeps those at the top ON top. Again this has nothing to do with capitalism. Both of the parties, Democrats and Republicans practice this system. When Republicans are in office it is the Oil industry, the banking industry, the Energy industry that get the political favors....then when you have the Democrats, you have the Bio-fuel industry, Banking Industry (as well), Medical Industry, trade unions, the list is endless. People in both parties want to maintain a MERCANTILISM or CORPORATISIST system where they prop-up their pet industry, and they DESPISE capitalism.

Am I a socialist? Im not advocating wealth redistribution from rich to poor but I also do like seeing the redistribution from poor to rich off the backs off hard working people. Sigh someone help me out please. Help me to label myself.

You sound like an Austrian. We hate ALL forms of subsidies, preferences, tariff, and limits to people's choices which otherwise would only enrich those few at the top. We despise, WTO, IMF, World Bank, Nafta, because they do not help anyone, they have to do with managing trade, they also support or subsidize regimes that bankrupt and starve their own people. These are not free market tools used to help everyone, they are designed to help a few at the expense of the many. No you don't sound like a socialist, you want to rightly blame those that have caused this mess. And you are right to blame the government as the culprit of this entire fiasco, I also can guarantee that since they are the culprits, that they will only succeed to make things worse. These institutions that they created that I mentioned above were created by people who did not believe in Markets to price things properly in the first place, they believed that they are elevated above markets that they are smarter, people like Keynes, Friedman, Bernanke, Greenspan, Bush, Republicans, Democrats, all proclaim to be smarter than the MARKET, they think they know better, but ultimately will lead us all into the abyss with their stupid policies of interventionism.





[edit on 27-10-2008 by Gateway]

reply to post by mybigunit


Also,

Don't waste your time with Marx, those that read it and put value in it, have very little understanding in economics to begin with and how the world and people function. I find it hilarious when people advise others to READ Marx. They might as well advise you to read Dr.Sues for insight into "economic" matters.

Suffice it to say, that LONG ago the Austrians ripped Marx to shreds and pointed out the inherent fallacy in his system. Both Böhm-Bawerk and Mises destroyed Marx.

Bohm-Bawerk destroyed Marx's labor theory: Here

Mises then finished him of with this:

Mises and the Challenge of Calculation

That new man would be devoid of any selfish, or indeed any self-determined, goals; his only wish would be to work as hard and as eagerly as possible to achieve the goals and obey the orders of the socialist State. Throughout the history of socialism, socialist ultras, such as the early Lenin and Bukharin under "War Communism," and later Mao Tse-tung and Che Guevara, have sought to replace material by so-called "moral" incentives.

This notion was properly and wittily ridiculed by Alexander Gray as "the idea that the world may find its driving force in a Birthday Honours List (giving to the King, if necessary, 165 birthdays a year)."[2] At any rate, the socialists soon found that voluntary methods could hardly yield them the New Socialist Man. But even the most determined and bloodthirsty methods could not avail to create this robotic New Socialist Man. And it is a testament to the spirit of freedom that cannot be extinguished in the human breast that the socialists continued to fail dismally, despite decades of systemic terror. But the uniqueness and the crucial importance of Mises's challenge to socialism is that it was totally unrelated to the well-known incentive problem. Mises in effect said: All right, suppose that the socialists have been able to create a mighty army of citizens all eager to do the bidding of their masters, the socialist planners. What exactly would those planners tell this army to do? How would they know what products to order their eager slaves to produce, at what stage of production, how much of the product at each stage, what techniques or raw materials to use in that production and how much of each, and where specifically to locate all this production? How would they know their costs, or what process of production is or is not efficient?

Mises demonstrated that, in any economy more complex than the Crusoe or primitive family level, the socialist planning board would simply not know what to do, or how to answer any of these vital questions. Developing the momentous concept of calculation, Mises pointed out that the planning board could not answer these questions because socialism would lack the indispensable tool that private entrepreneurs use to appraise and calculate: the existence of a market in the means of production, a market that brings about money prices based on genuine profit-seeking exchanges by private owners of these means of production. Since the very essence of socialism is collective ownership of the means of production, the planning board would not be able to plan, or to make any sort of rational economic decisions. Its decisions would necessarily be completely arbitrary and chaotic, and therefore the existence of a socialist planned economy is literally "impossible" (to use a term long ridiculed by Mises's critics).

Source:www.lewrockwell.com...





[edit on 27-10-2008 by Gateway]

You strike me as being closest to the Marxist interpretation of economics. However I also agree with Gools, dont swallow any "ism" without interjecting your own opinions into it, otherwise you will become a mindless drone.

For me personally, I have come to the realisation that labels and appelations, schemes and ideas for governance are all flawed in some way or the other.

I am closest to the total laissez faire approach of Friedman and Rand, since I believe that any intervention is a waste of time. The rich will end up richer, the poor will stay poor. This is not because of failed governmental policy, but because the rich are driven to attain their wealth.

The successful will attain success in any scenario, regardless of which mode of government they fall under. In Russia, the bureacrats of the party were the gentrified nobility, and continued to be so under the gangster capitalism of Yeltsin when the USSR fell.

So in the end, artifical methods of governance by way of a unified philosophy will always fail, because human nature will always triumph.

Originally posted by Gateway
Well, I think if there is any greed by executives in how they run the corporation they are usually reprimanded by the stockholders.

Great post and yes I agree with you on 99% of what you say. I disagree with you on two areas and maybe you can give me the Austrian School views on this.

When greed is being perpetrated on Wall Street very rarely is it handled on Wall Street. Usually it takes the government to step in and throw in jail time. We all know the names Tyco, Worldcom, Enron, Health South, and more recent Freddie and Fannie, Lehman, AIG, Wachovia, Wamu, and my favorite which has cost me a chunk of money Yahoo. The execs of these companies pillage these companies at the expense of the workers who go to work every day just looking for a paycheck. I have seen over and over again where instead of giving pay raises to the working class in their business they will pass so their bottom line looks bigger so they themselves can make more money.

This is why you see jobs going over seas. This is the one and only reason that we are losing so many people over seas. Not because there is no smart people who cant do these jobs. Its for cheap labor to grow the bottom line so the execs and the shareholders can make a mint off once again the working class. You wonder why in these credit booms wages go no where. Yes I understand inflation and the FED trust me I know but your seeing wages and Im not even factoring in inflation going no where. But yet the people at the top are making more money than ever.

This is where the greed comes into the free market equation and a free market cant work if the middle class have no money to buy the products and services these companies sell. This is why I believe in Fordism and I practice it myself. Then again Im not a public company that has shareholders to satisfy. So this is one are where the free market is flawed. Also in a free market with NO government that you describe our rivers and waters would be polluted to the max. Our food we eat would be crap. This is how it used to be till Teddy Roosevelt came into office in the early 20th century. He passed the laws that helps to clean our water both drinking and non drinking. He made companies clean up their act in regards with food. The free market did not do this before.

So above are my two areas where free markets have failed in both the past and present. Medical could be solved pretty easy if government would take off the restrictions of allowing people to buy prescriptions from Canada and what not and allowing people to buy insurance from other states. The government has made medical high no doubt I totally agree. That and the high costs for the illegal uninsured and trial lawyers.