What Any Society Needs Is Balance

[Sukerkin]

I know that I sometimes bring up the fact that the Free Market is anything but free and that unbridled Capitalism is a bad thing. I stand by that, which is why I have ever argued that a balanced economy is the way forward, where free-ish markets are allowed to handle what they do well and the government manages (allbeit not very efficiently) those things that should not be subject to the whims of the market because they are an essential service for society as a whole (utilities and infrastructure).

However, these two short reports from North Korea show the flip side to an 'American' style of economy; a 'planned' one riddled with corruption and structural inefficiency:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8711895.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8720870.stm

I hope these are viewable for our trans-Atlantic cousins as they really are very revealing of the pitfalls of ideologically lead central planning for all aspects of an economy. I feel truly sorry for those poor people trapped in that so completely ravaged country.

 

[chrispillertkd]

However, these two short reports from North Korea show the flip side to an 'American' style of economy; a 'planned' one riddled with corruption and structural inefficiency:

I'm always amazed by people who refer to the American economy as a free market or "unbridled capitalism." It really makes me wonder about what the government regulations in their own countries must be like.

Pax,

Chris

 

[Sukerkin]

What was my first sentence? I am actually trying to say that non-centrally planned economies are better at providing for their people (in Soviet Russia, for example, the 'private' market-gardeners were much more productive than the state farms). I didn't mean to imply that the Capitalism in America was a Free Market because there is no such thing; it was simple shorthand to display one way of doing things against another.

In the end, there are things that market forces handle very well. There are things that it doesn't, usually those things that would generate low profit or a loss if they were done in a way that emphasised function and service.

Balance is the key, combined with practicality.

 

[chrispillertkd]

What was my first sentence?

You said: "I know that I sometimes bring up the fact that the Free Market is anything but free and that unbridled Capitalism is a bad thing."

There's no possible way unbridled capitalism or a true free market can be imputed to the economy of the U.S. so your statement about the DPRK having the "flip side" of an American economy was puzzling.

Pax,

Chris

 

[Flying Crane]

balance in the economy? c'mon Mark, you know better than that. That's crazy talk!

 

[Makalakumu]

Or maybe Americans need to take a look at these videos and see where the torture, indefinite detention, Stasi-like surveillance and 100,000 pages (and growing) of Federal Laws will lead.

Sukerkin - I'd really like to challenge the idea that we need "balance" in our society. Essentially, whenever we discuss making a law for this or that, we are invoking the legalized monopoly of the use of force to control one group of people at the behest of another. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the balance that you are talking about is the balance between liberty and force. We need to use force in society in the places where it will do the most good and in all other places, let people be free.

What if you can't restrain the use of force? What if your society was based on the concept of restraining the use of force by government and STILL the oligarchs wrestle away that power and do what they will to us? Is North Korea and/or bankruptcy the end game whenever force is allowed to be used to solve social problems?

I believe that when we use force to solve our problems, its wrong. We don't want to "balance" something that's wrong into our society. Time to evolve?

 

[Sukerkin]

I was talking simply about economic balance, because either extreme, on the spectrum of entirely free or entirely centrally managed, is not good for a country (or indeed a planet) in the long term.

 

[ballen0351]

I was talking simply about economic balance, because either extreme, on the spectrum of entirely free or entirely centrally managed, is not good for a country (or indeed a planet) in the long term.

How would we know there is no truly "free" economy. A true "Free" economy cant fail. It has its own checks and balances built in. Its when the Govt starts to pick winners and loosers and gets involved for the "Greater Good" that we run into the problems we have now.

 

[Tez3]

You said: "I know that I sometimes bring up the fact that the Free Market is anything but free and that unbridled Capitalism is a bad thing."

There's no possible way unbridled capitalism or a true free market can be imputed to the economy of the U.S. so your statement about the DPRK having the "flip side" of an American economy was puzzling.

Pax,

Chris

America was in inverted commas meaning American type not America per se.

 

[Makalakumu]

I was talking simply about economic balance, because either extreme, on the spectrum of entirely free or entirely centrally managed, is not good for a country (or indeed a planet) in the long term.

I think it all depends on what we know and how you envision the future. We KNOW that centrally planned economies don't work. We also KNOW that partial central planning eventually slides toward total as the winners start using government force for their own benefit. What does an economy look like when it is absent of the use of force? I contend that we have no historical analogues. Even early in United States history, where our Constitution supposedly restrained the government's guns, it's Founding Fathers violated the Constitution.

So, what would an economy look like if...

1. People didn't use force to get what they wanted.
2. People respected property rights.
3. People were held to account for violations of the above two.