Free Market Idealism vs Communist Idealism

[john9blue]

you two are too classy to be arguing on the internet

[Symmetry]

Haha, so explain my argument, Sym. If you don't, then there's no point in responding to you because you don't care to understand.

And once more, just to make it explicit, it's up to you to do your research and post your counter arguments. It's not up to me to counter whataboutery, and inane dismissals.

[BigBallinStalin]

Haha, so explain my argument, Sym. If you don't, then there's no point in responding to you because you don't care to understand.

And once more, just to make it explicit, it's up to you to do your research and post your counter arguments. It's not up to me to counter whataboutery, and inane dismissals.

Haha, again! It happened again!

[Mr_Adams]

Did I really see people arguing that we have a free market/capitalist society now, more so than 1800-1914? The world went through 2 industrial revolutions with almost 0 inflation. Capitalism is based on capital, which is corrupted by the federal reserve system, which is why we don't have a true capitalist society. the capital is corrupted.

[Baron Von PWN]

Did I really see people arguing that we have a free market/capitalist society now, more so than 1800-1914? The world went through 2 industrial revolutions with almost 0 inflation. Capitalism is based on capital, which is corrupted by the federal reserve system, which is why we don't have a true capitalist society. the capital is corrupted.

Those were also times of high tariff barriers and strong state involvement in "securing" vital economic assets through force of arms. Which in my opinion removes the possibility of the free market if one of the most important factors, trade, is not free.

In the respective empires domestically there might have been more economic freedom in that economic activity wasn't really regulated in the same manner it is now.

However parts of the world still had serfdom, certain people couldn't own property or engage in certain trades. all of those things reduce domestic economic freedoms as well. So restrictions to the free market were present just different than they are now.

State involvement was different but it was certainly there, and I would say more significant in the past than presently.

[thegreekdog]

Did I really see people arguing that we have a free market/capitalist society now, more so than 1800-1914? The world went through 2 industrial revolutions with almost 0 inflation. Capitalism is based on capital, which is corrupted by the federal reserve system, which is why we don't have a true capitalist society. the capital is corrupted.

Those were also times of high tariff barriers and strong state involvement in "securing" vital economic assets through force of arms. Which in my opinion removes the possibility of the free market if one of the most important factors, trade, is not free.

In the respective empires domestically there might have been more economic freedom in that economic activity wasn't really regulated in the same manner it is now.

However parts of the world still had serfdom, certain people couldn't own property or engage in certain trades. all of those things reduce domestic economic freedoms as well. So restrictions to the free market were present just different than they are now.

State involvement was different but it was certainly there, and I would say more significant in the past than presently.

I think it seemed more significant because it was more blatantly obvious. "You know what? We need some African 'colonies' to exploit too!" says Germany. It still goes on now and I think it's still as significant, it's just less obvious. "You know what? Djibouti looks like it has some fine rare minerals. There's a guy making kids join some army right? Can't we 'partner' with the Djibouti government? What? Gang wars in Los Angeles? Who gives a shit? We need some rare earth minerals bitch!"

[Baron Von PWN]

Did I really see people arguing that we have a free market/capitalist society now, more so than 1800-1914? The world went through 2 industrial revolutions with almost 0 inflation. Capitalism is based on capital, which is corrupted by the federal reserve system, which is why we don't have a true capitalist society. the capital is corrupted.

Those were also times of high tariff barriers and strong state involvement in "securing" vital economic assets through force of arms. Which in my opinion removes the possibility of the free market if one of the most important factors, trade, is not free.

In the respective empires domestically there might have been more economic freedom in that economic activity wasn't really regulated in the same manner it is now.

However parts of the world still had serfdom, certain people couldn't own property or engage in certain trades. all of those things reduce domestic economic freedoms as well. So restrictions to the free market were present just different than they are now.

State involvement was different but it was certainly there, and I would say more significant in the past than presently.

I think it seemed more significant because it was more blatantly obvious. "You know what? We need some African 'colonies' to exploit too!" says Germany. It still goes on now and I think it's still as significant, it's just less obvious. "You know what? Djibouti looks like it has some fine rare minerals. There's a guy making kids join some army right? Can't we 'partner' with the Djibouti government? What? Gang wars in Los Angeles? Who gives a shit? We need some rare earth minerals bitch!"

That's true, however there is a much larger amount of trade going on on the basis of voluntary exchange. I doubt all of the exploitive trade in the manner you describe in the world, doesn't amount to even 10% of the volume going between the US and China. I don't think you could not make a similar comparison at any point during the period of 1800-1914.

The stuff I'm talking about isn't limited to colonial exploitation either. There were many wars in Europe which were both political and economic . The Naopleonic wars, the German wars of unification, the Franco-Prussian war, The division of Poland, Russian wars of annexation in the Caucasus ect. These were all aimed at securing political and thus economic control of vast amounts of resources. The reason these wars were necessary was in part due to the lack of economic freedom. Trade was hindered thus in order to acquire desirable resources military action had to be taken.

[BigBallinStalin]

Did I really see people arguing that we have a free market/capitalist society now, more so than 1800-1914? The world went through 2 industrial revolutions with almost 0 inflation. Capitalism is based on capital, which is corrupted by the federal reserve system, which is why we don't have a true capitalist society. the capital is corrupted.

Those were also times of high tariff barriers and strong state involvement in "securing" vital economic assets through force of arms. Which in my opinion removes the possibility of the free market if one of the most important factors, trade, is not free.

In the respective empires domestically there might have been more economic freedom in that economic activity wasn't really regulated in the same manner it is now.

However parts of the world still had serfdom, certain people couldn't own property or engage in certain trades. all of those things reduce domestic economic freedoms as well. So restrictions to the free market were present just different than they are now.

State involvement was different but it was certainly there, and I would say more significant in the past than presently.

I think it seemed more significant because it was more blatantly obvious. "You know what? We need some African 'colonies' to exploit too!" says Germany. It still goes on now and I think it's still as significant, it's just less obvious. "You know what? Djibouti looks like it has some fine rare minerals. There's a guy making kids join some army right? Can't we 'partner' with the Djibouti government? What? Gang wars in Los Angeles? Who gives a shit? We need some rare earth minerals bitch!"

Mine Your Own Business was an interesting documentary.

I don't really see how developing the resources of another country is overall a bad thing--assuming that their government doesn't screw over the people and their land by refusing to compensate them or respect their private property rights.

[BigBallinStalin]

Did I really see people arguing that we have a free market/capitalist society now, more so than 1800-1914? The world went through 2 industrial revolutions with almost 0 inflation. Capitalism is based on capital, which is corrupted by the federal reserve system, which is why we don't have a true capitalist society. the capital is corrupted.

Those were also times of high tariff barriers and strong state involvement in "securing" vital economic assets through force of arms. Which in my opinion removes the possibility of the free market if one of the most important factors, trade, is not free.

In the respective empires domestically there might have been more economic freedom in that economic activity wasn't really regulated in the same manner it is now.

However parts of the world still had serfdom, certain people couldn't own property or engage in certain trades. all of those things reduce domestic economic freedoms as well. So restrictions to the free market were present just different than they are now.

State involvement was different but it was certainly there, and I would say more significant in the past than presently.

I think it seemed more significant because it was more blatantly obvious. "You know what? We need some African 'colonies' to exploit too!" says Germany. It still goes on now and I think it's still as significant, it's just less obvious. "You know what? Djibouti looks like it has some fine rare minerals. There's a guy making kids join some army right? Can't we 'partner' with the Djibouti government? What? Gang wars in Los Angeles? Who gives a shit? We need some rare earth minerals bitch!"

That's true, however there is a much larger amount of trade going on on the basis of voluntary exchange. I doubt all of the exploitive trade in the manner you describe in the world, doesn't amount to even 10% of the volume going between the US and China. I don't think you could not make a similar comparison at any point during the period of 1800-1914.

The stuff I'm talking about isn't limited to colonial exploitation either. There were many wars in Europe which were both political and economic . The Naopleonic wars, the German wars of unification, the Franco-Prussian war, The division of Poland, Russian wars of annexation in the Caucasus ect. These were all aimed at securing political and thus economic control of vast amounts of resources. The reason these wars were necessary was in part due to the lack of economic freedom. Trade was hindered thus in order to acquire desirable resources military action had to be taken.

That, and since power was so centralized/absolute, the leader's personality could play a very large (and usually stupid) role.

[thegreekdog]

Did I really see people arguing that we have a free market/capitalist society now, more so than 1800-1914? The world went through 2 industrial revolutions with almost 0 inflation. Capitalism is based on capital, which is corrupted by the federal reserve system, which is why we don't have a true capitalist society. the capital is corrupted.

Those were also times of high tariff barriers and strong state involvement in "securing" vital economic assets through force of arms. Which in my opinion removes the possibility of the free market if one of the most important factors, trade, is not free.

In the respective empires domestically there might have been more economic freedom in that economic activity wasn't really regulated in the same manner it is now.

However parts of the world still had serfdom, certain people couldn't own property or engage in certain trades. all of those things reduce domestic economic freedoms as well. So restrictions to the free market were present just different than they are now.

State involvement was different but it was certainly there, and I would say more significant in the past than presently.

I think it seemed more significant because it was more blatantly obvious. "You know what? We need some African 'colonies' to exploit too!" says Germany. It still goes on now and I think it's still as significant, it's just less obvious. "You know what? Djibouti looks like it has some fine rare minerals. There's a guy making kids join some army right? Can't we 'partner' with the Djibouti government? What? Gang wars in Los Angeles? Who gives a shit? We need some rare earth minerals bitch!"

That's true, however there is a much larger amount of trade going on on the basis of voluntary exchange. I doubt all of the exploitive trade in the manner you describe in the world, doesn't amount to even 10% of the volume going between the US and China. I don't think you could not make a similar comparison at any point during the period of 1800-1914.

The stuff I'm talking about isn't limited to colonial exploitation either. There were many wars in Europe which were both political and economic . The Naopleonic wars, the German wars of unification, the Franco-Prussian war, The division of Poland, Russian wars of annexation in the Caucasus ect. These were all aimed at securing political and thus economic control of vast amounts of resources. The reason these wars were necessary was in part due to the lack of economic freedom. Trade was hindered thus in order to acquire desirable resources military action had to be taken.

Yeah, that makes sense. I guess I was concerned that we weren't concerned about exploitation going on today. Since that's not the case, I'm supportive of your statements.

[Mr_Adams]

Did I really see people arguing that we have a free market/capitalist society now, more so than 1800-1914? The world went through 2 industrial revolutions with almost 0 inflation. Capitalism is based on capital, which is corrupted by the federal reserve system, which is why we don't have a true capitalist society. the capital is corrupted.

Those were also times of high tariff barriers and strong state involvement in "securing" vital economic assets through force of arms. Which in my opinion removes the possibility of the free market if one of the most important factors, trade, is not free.

In the respective empires domestically there might have been more economic freedom in that economic activity wasn't really regulated in the same manner it is now.

However parts of the world still had serfdom, certain people couldn't own property or engage in certain trades. all of those things reduce domestic economic freedoms as well. So restrictions to the free market were present just different than they are now.

State involvement was different but it was certainly there, and I would say more significant in the past than presently.

I was making the point that inflation is unnatural, and so we don't have a capitalist society now. back then is a different story.

[saxitoxin]

Situation: As strike-prone Britain is on the verge of yet another crippling labour action, the British regime has drawn-up plans to use the Army to drive fuel trucks in place of striking workers. Argentina has pledged not to begin the liberation of the Malvinas while the Army is occupied on chauffeur duty.

Link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... trike.html

Control Market or Free Market Solution?: Control Market

Analysis: The intervention of the regime in a way that would benefit the staying power of one side (fuel distributors) in a commercial contract dispute is an example of a control market (the fact that the intervention is being supported by the Conservative Party is irrelevant to the proper identification of this situation).

[BigBallinStalin]

Hey, if they wish to go on strike, then that is totes fine with me. If people are willing to work part-time or "take their jobs" at a lower wage, then that's fine with me. I balk when the state prepares orders for its troops to commandeer the petrol trucks in order to continue deliveries.

That's a gross abuse of national "defense."

The whole point of a strike is to open up a forum on resolving some dispute between the owners and the employees, or those on strike. This process toward mediation is ruined if the state decides to step in and imply that it knows what's best.