We've never had, nor can have, free markets in capitalism. So why is the term used? Two possibilities: (1) Perfect competition: Its a hangover from neoclassical economics, where perfect competition- although acknowledged as unachievable- is used as a benchmark to measure market failure. The term then merely reflects an 'innocence' of that motivation. (2) False libertarianism: Its used to promote a right wing economics designed to coerce a result that favours a particular political dogma
You've added zero to the thread. Why is the term 'free market' used when capitalism has never delivered such an outcome?
Just because it is not the best idea to have a 100% complete free market for every last thing does NOT mean we should just give up and turn to Communism. Unless there is a really really good reason to intervene, the government should keep its hands off. They are just terrible at making economically rational decisions. There is enough overly rigid regulation as it is already. The light bulb "phase out" is an excellent case in point. Von Mises is rolling in his grave. Government intervention usually has all sorts of unintended consequences and side effects. I happen to be a strong free-market proponent, while also leaning Marxist. Really, there does not have to be a contradiction. Excessive regulation in the market is the problem. For some reason those who call themselves Socialists have taken it upon themselves to be control freaks in the market, with high taxes, all sorts of mandates burdened onto private industry and individuals, and a penchant for banning things.
Its not that the free market isn't desirable, its that its unachievable. The thread isn't about communism. Try to be relevant.
If we were not dependent on so much import, devaluation of the dollars wouldn't be so negative, in fact it would be POSITIVE if our balance of trade was more . . . Balanced! Wen the dollars goes down, it makes OUR products cheaper for other countries to buy, and products in other countries more expensive for us to import, so if we were smart, we would export more and import less, which would bring more equilibrium in our balance of trade and create more manufacturing job in the US, thus helping bring down unemployment and improve our economy. Deflation of the dollars is not only about the US, it also depends on how well other currencies perform, and on how confident other countries are about the US's ability to manage their economy . . . Which our own inner politics influence greatly. . . When nasty, obsessive partisanship in Congress brings our government to a hold, and create huge instability in our market and on main street, obviously the rest of the world looks at the dollars as a bad risk!
I believe most people understand so little about economics that they do not understand that "free market" is just an artificial term describing utopia in the markets. The term is useful to work out theories and big economic formula, but is not reflective of any achievable reality. But people who do not understand that see any perceived "attack" on free markets as an attack on Capitalism, and therefore an attack on the basis of American market philosophy.
It also makes our ASSETS cheaper for other countries to buy— real estate and ownership of our companies. We are selling out our future. All those rents, dividends, and mortgage payments we are paying will now go to some other country, and they will have even more of our wealth and purchasing power. Think of it this way. You own a farm. Do you hire your own son to work for you, and eventually sell the farm to your son? Or do you hire some Chinese person, who is willing to work for slightly less per hour, and eventually sell the farm to this stranger from another country? What happens to your own son?
Well, that is the downside of Capitalism! If you want to preserve people's choice, and to maximize profits, there will be downsides! NO ONE is forcing anyone to sell their property to "foreigners" if they don't want to. And, if a Chinese person has already been working for the farmer for years, and has become wealthy enough to purchase the farm from his boss. . .he is absolutely free to sell it to ANYONE he chooses. By the way, that Chinese worker is very probably a legal immigrant (or it is the farmer's fault if he hired an illegal to make that extra couple of dollars) or even a Citizen, and he has just as much legal right as a 10th generation White Caucasian American to own property and to sell it to whomever he wishes! What happens to your own son totally depends on your own son! If he preferred to work in another field, or not work at all, and if he doesn't have the attachment to the "father land" as his father does, or even the Chinese worker does, I'm not sure where the problem is! If the farmer had to hire a Chinese worker instead of his son (for any reason), maybe his son cares more about the proceed of that sale than he does to the land of his forefathers. . . and that is also Capitalism! Isn't the philosophy of Capitalism that everything is for sale for the right price? Well. . .you can't take the good without taking the bad!
With 'classical capitalism' we have to focus on how labour relations are characterised by the bourgeoisie buying control of the proletariat in exchange for a wage. With the diffusion of 'financial wealth', the definition of capitalist then just refers to the capital accumulation process, i.e. quoting Screpanti (1999, Capitalist forms and the essence of capitalism, Review of International Political Economy) capitalists are "the material subjects of capital accumulation" and are the "functionaries of capital". Capitalism is inherently unstable. Interventionism is key for the reproduction of capitalist profit. We of course also have to factor in issues of market failure. Even the origins of capitalism refers to government coercion (such as the use of protectionism to engineer dynamic comparative advantage and to allow domestic markets to develop)
In the long term we're all dead! Capitalism exists because of interventionism and it continues to 'thrive' because of interventionism
You're the one that referred to the long run. Bit of an error wasn't it? I'm not a psychic, nor do I have a machine that enables me to move in and out of parallel universes
You offer no content. You referred to the long run, not me. If you've convinced yourself that wasn't an error, then enjoy! I've referred to the obvious: capitalism has been constructed through interventionism and is maintained through interventionism. The repercussions of ending that interventionism are not known. We could be all utopian and suggest socialism. However, it might just as well be some crackpot fascist result consistent with the majestic army of gog.
You offer content that is not only nonsensical but also irrelevant. Just because I mention the words "long run" does not mean that quoting Keynes in such a way that is relevant adds jack to the discussion. If this is the case then you cannot determine if capitalism is maintained by interventionism because you claim to know nothing about the world in the absence of interventionism. If I claim that a steel beam is what holds up a building, then I would be contradicting myself if I claimed that I wouldn't know whether or not removing the beam would have caused the building to collapse.
Keynes correctly showed the stupidity of referring to the long run. Why haven't you learnt the lesson? Of course I can. The orthodox and heterodox combine in appreciating the tendency towards crisis. Crikey, we just need cost-plus pricing. However, we do not know what would happen with the collapse of capitalism. Bit obvious really!
Keynes showed that long term and short term consideration both matter in economic decision making, not that the long run didn't matter. So you believe that capitalism would collapse in the absence of interventionism? Thanks, that's mainly what I was looking for several posts ago, I won't bother trying to tease out the rest of the information.
It destroyed the orthodox view of the short and long run. I found your reference to the long run just laziness on your part. But try and justify it! I might find it amusing. I said that from the beginning. If you can't craft a coherent argument then stop wasting my time
Capitalism is Investor Supremacy. But investors only hike the ball; they don't make the play. So we can't afford for them to get the greatest reward, which will demoralize those who contribute more to scoring points than the one player who only happens to initiate the play. You have to understand the difference between what is necessary and what is valuable. You can't drive a car without an ignition key, but that key is only worth $5. Employees create the value of the investment, especially talented employees. Economists are not talented themselves; they are B students jealous of A students, so they all ignore the vital and superior contribution of human capital to economic health. Because America doesn't treat its talented students the same way it treats its talented athletes, from childhood on, our talent pool has become a puddle.
