This is what happens when you have marxist socialist central planning.

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

The leftists nearly destroyed Detroit. It's really sad.

There were also a ton of other factors as well that played into the decline of Detroit's economy...
One of them being the market forces that caused gas prices to rise in the early 70's and in effect pushing consumers to stop purchasing vehicles from U.S automakers. This caused the companies to make budget cuts in their manufacturing sectors in Detroit by laying of hundreds if not thousands of people in the span of a few years.

I'm sorry but you can't play the partisan politics card every time.

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman
What about Chavez's government stealing(nationalizing) businesses from people?

What about it?

What about the hyper inflation effecting the people of Argentina?

Seeing that argentina is capitalist then I would say that that would be an argument against your own OP.

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: ketsuko

Marxist socialist, yes.

Under Democratic Socialism the people themselves own the means of production.

A clear distinction -- if completely unworkable in actuality -- under our current regime (where the means of production are owned by something far worse -- Oligarchs. See also, Nestle).

What would you rather have?

An gang of competing non-government oligarchs with a endless profit motive. (capitalism)

An elected oligarch (government)that nationalized a resource and may(or may not) give it to the public.(marxist socialism)

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

Neither.

Both should be taken out back behind the chemical sheds and put out of our misery.

originally posted by: NateTheAnimator
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

The leftists nearly destroyed Detroit. It's really sad.

There were also a ton of other factors as well that played into the decline of Detroit's economy...
One of them being the market forces that caused gas prices to rise in the early 70's and in effect pushing consumers to stop purchasing vehicles from U.S automakers. This caused the companies to make budget cuts in their manufacturing sectors in Detroit by laying of hundreds if not thousands of people in the span of a few years.

I'm sorry but you can't play the partisan politics card every time.

It's a combo of factors.

Market forces combined with an inflexible labor market (UAW) and government regulatory burdens. All of them together created a situation that sunk the economy, but the local government couldn't do much about that. They could however have responded by trimming back which they did not do. Thus, their budget did not fit their tax base which was shrinking.

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

Yes, he nationalized many companies. Then he used the revenues to boost the social safety net. As in, Venezuela's natural resources were literally being used to help Venezuela's citizens instead of enriching wealthy outside investors. Like it or hate it, but those policies were part of the reason poverty decreased so rapidly under Chavez. that's hardly a failure.

And the example I responded to was about Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea. So nope, I'm not touching Argentina.

Besides, I have a personal semi-grudge against Argentina because of its lingering anti-Black racism. So I deliberately ignore it, good and bad (just as I do Mississippi and South Carolina). I know it's not logical and I know for a fact that a lot of Argentinians are good people. But I reserve the right to be petty about it since I currently have no other way to fight the issues there.

a reply to: ketsuko

There it is! The actual difference between our philosophies. I also think unions should be forced to play nice with business, when ALL CARDS are on the table, and all stakeholders (owners, shareholders, employees, customers and society in general) are weighed and measured.

Getting rid of all unions though? No chance. Without unions, we would all be working 14 hour days for sweatshop pay and zero benefits, 6 days a week with no vacations, ever.

So, clearly, we will never be going back to that, right?

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

I think that if you remove some of the government controls that have been imposed on the market in terms of tax policy and regulatory, then you get closer to a free market. The closer to free market you have and the easier it will be for there to be true competition.

Competition is what knocks off the few oligarchs.

Only the very big can survive in the current interventionalist environment which is why you see all the lobbyists. Some do it to survive. Others do it to destroy the competition. Either way, we all lose.

Reduce the amount of intervention and you have less need to lobby.

The problem is that it creates an environment that gets back to people screaming about laissez faire. Not only that, but we have raised a generation who have little in the way of scruples and morals. They see nothing wrong with cheating a lot of 'em. You let people guide themselves and you need to make sure they are folks with character, not narcissistic little jerkwads.

But the answer is more competition, less lawfare.

Not Marxist. Socialist, certainly, but the effects you see are the result of US Economic warfare.

a reply to: ketsuko

What is better at providing wealth,services and commerce for the public?

government or the free market?

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman
What is better at providing wealth,services and commerce for the public?

government or the free market?

What free market?

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: ketsuko

There it is! The actual difference between our philosophies. I also think unions should be forced to play nice with business, when ALL CARDS are on the table, and all stakeholders (owners, shareholders, employees, customers and society in general) are weighed and measured.

Getting rid of all unions though? No chance. Without unions, we would all be working 14 hour days for sweatshop pay and zero benefits, 6 days a week with no vacations, ever.

So, clearly, we will never be going back to that, right?

I think there is a place for unions, but I think certain ones are way too big. I also disagree intensely with public sector unions and think they should be illegal.

I also think the UAW and unions like it present a conflict of interest. Why should they be allowed to be bigger than the entities they bargain against? Does no one see a problem with the employees for all the auto workers at competing companies being in the same union? I'd call that potential conflict of interest.

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

Like most libertarians on the spectrum, you deal in more absolutes than a Sith. The truth is, neither do a very good job of providing any of that to the public, no matter how hard the people work.

That's why absolutes can absolutely eat it. There must be above board dialog between all stakeholders, or we get what we have now: a world where the 62 wealthiest individuals own half of everything.

That will only lead to burning things. History is a stone bitch like that.

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

I think the free market would be, but since we don't actually have that. It's hard to say.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

Yes, he nationalized many companies. Then he used the revenues to boost the social safety net. As in, Venezuela's natural resources were literally being used to help Venezuela's citizens instead of enriching wealthy outside investors. Like it or hate it, but those policies were part of the reason poverty decreased so rapidly under Chavez. that's hardly a failure.

I don't agree with having government steal businesses from people.

And the example I responded to was about Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea. So nope, I'm not touching Argentina.

Besides, I have a personal semi-grudge against Argentina because of its lingering anti-Black racism. So I deliberately ignore it, good and bad (just as I do Mississippi and South Carolina). I know it's not logical and I know for a fact that a lot of Argentinians are good people. But I reserve the right to be petty about it since I currently have no other way to fight the issues there.

All of the post-colonial countries have a skin color/euro-centric caste system in place.It's getting better though. The USA is really the worst in that aspect I used to stay in the south and it was joke level bad a times.

a reply to: daskakik

How much does an economy need to be free of government restrictions to be considered a free market?

a reply to: ketsuko

Market forces combined with an inflexible labor market (UAW) and government regulatory burdens.

Didn't the UAW lose most of the benefits that they gained for auto workers during OPEC's oil embargo...? Unless your implying that UAW's demands for higher pay indirectly effected the companies decision to lay workers off around the embargo..

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman
How much does an economy need to be free of government restrictions to be considered a free market?

Way more than 1776 US.

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

Like most libertarians on the spectrum, you deal in more absolutes than a Sith. The truth is, neither do a very good job of providing any of that to the public, no matter how hard the people work.

That's why absolutes can absolutely eat it. There must be above board dialog between all stakeholders, or we get what we have now: a world where the 62 wealthiest individuals own half of everything.

That will only lead to burning things. History is a stone bitch like that.

So are you against the overproduction that comes with free market capitalism?

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman
How much does an economy need to be free of government restrictions to be considered a free market?

Way more than 1776 US.

I agree.

To what degree?