Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
lord_casek

The Myth that Laissez Faire Is Responsible for Our Present Crisis

Recommended Posts

personally I don't believe in having an unregulated free market, mainly because all the companies with all the money would very quickly run rampant over everyone.

 

Maybe if all the business wealth was distributed across every business and then all companies started from an even playing field then maybe then, would the free market principle work because it would be the consumer who decides which companies prevail due to the better product/service, rather than how it would be at the moment which would be all the huge mega comapnies forcing all the smaller companies out of business and cornering the market.

 

But I don't believe in the financial markets running unregulated, because ultimately the human race is greedy and that is a downfall, why would I give a shit as a trader if I was playing gambles that could fuck up the whole market if I was going to get a huge multi-million paydeal out of it, I can just sit back with my money when everything goes to shit and fuck everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.

If free market suposed to prevent concentration of power than explain to me wheres the diversity in the media, in the private distributors of power, and energy, communications?? there isnt one. Where the fuck is your cellphone company homeboy? youll never own one in your life.

 

But i feel you man. go ahead and defend slavery toby.

 

Fundamentally the free market system is a great one.

 

However, it has been severely perverted over time. I agree with you, in some sectors there is very little diversity. Why? Because over time governments and individuals have given in, deals have been made, concessions given, etc. Hence certain companies and individuals have have gained a lot of power and money.

 

I'm happy to defend the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Capitalism is a necessary evil. Greed is not.

 

Greed is part of human nature.

It's difficult to control.

Ultimately we are all individuals with our own opinions, thoughts, values, etc. Some will be more greedy than others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fundamentally the free market system is a great one.

 

However, it has been severely perverted over time. I agree with you, in some sectors there is very little diversity. Why? Because over time governments and individuals have given in, deals have been made, concessions given, etc. Hence certain companies and individuals have have gained a lot of power and money.

 

I'm happy to defend the system.

 

companies and individuals have had power for a long time. I dont think there was ever an equalizing point in history that really allowed for the equal pursuit of happiness as depicted by proponents of this idea. People with the capital to establish factories and sweatshops in the 1800s didnt pull it out of thin air. And if ur going to make the loan argument you still need a considerable amount of capital and have the influence to go through the designated channels to get one.

 

This being said from the get the agenda of the already rich and powerful has been a fucked up one for a long time. The justifications and excuses came later as debate sprung up about the unignorable human suffering that became part of this system. Companies like coca cola, or ibm go back what, damn near a hundred years? Other entities that have been aroud for longer? these are pretty much dynasties no different from the feudal nobility that managed the resources before industrialization.

 

so to me to say that the motivation behind and blame for the coruption of the free market lies on greed. Is absurd because these are people who already have money and power that is alloted to them thanks to the system they are preserving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Asa Griggs Candler (December 30, 1851 – March 12, 1929) was an American business tycoon who made most of his money selling Coca-Cola. He also served as mayor of Atlanta, Georgia from 1916 to 1919. Candler Field, the site of the present-day Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, was named after him, as is Candler Park in Atlanta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Greed is part of human nature.

It's difficult to control.

Ultimately we are all individuals with our own opinions, thoughts, values, etc. Some will be more greedy than others.

 

I'm not talking about human nature, I'm referring to the inextricable link between unregulated commerce and avarice.

 

If there's nobody minding the store, then who's to say what can happen? People are advantageous by nature, it's an unavoidable fact. That's why simple rules and consequences should be in place from the top down...what exists now is byzantine, riddled with loopholes and exceptions you basically need a degree in economics to understand.

 

If that's the way the system was meant to be, it was fucked from the start. You can't play fair with a stacked deck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thats a great talk. i remember laughing my ass off when i first saw it on mises.org and he was saying...'you know, used to be you worked hard so you could afford a house. but it soon became, if you have a house, you dont need a job. and if you lost your job, you didnt worry, you just bought a vacation house.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People are advantageous by nature, it's an unavoidable fact. That's why simple rules and consequences should be in place from the top down...

 

And what's the "top"? Govt?

What makes up Govt? People.

So you want to give these advantageous people powers that no one else among society has? This is the biggest temptation for the greediest of the greedy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Greed is part of human nature.

It's difficult to control.

Ultimately we are all individuals with our own opinions, thoughts, values, etc. Some will be more greedy than others.

 

Greed is not a product of human nature, it is a product of certain human cultures. Not all cultures have been egocentric, some believe that you can only be as wealthy as your community... reading a quick ethnography on the Canela people of Brazil would be a good start on your quest to learn more about the diversity of humanity and the many different ways of perceiving the world (and people) around us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Greed is not a product of human nature, it is a product of certain human cultures. Not all cultures have been egocentric, some believe that you can only be as wealthy as your community... reading a quick ethnography on the Canela people of Brazil would be a good start on your quest to learn more about the diversity of humanity and the many different ways of perceiving the world (and people) around us.

 

I think greed as a concept is over represented in its relationship to capitalism and modern society. Self interest is key to capitalism and greed may be an aspect of self interest, yet many other forms of behaviour may be initiated from a position of self interest as well. For example, I may give my friend a gift out of self interest, knowing that giving the gift will give me a personal sense of satisfaction.

 

But anyway I thought I would take a look at your example, and it seemed that this paragraph seemed to capture the issue quite nicely (my emphasis added);

 

The Canela in earlier times were outstanding for their generosity of spirit through which they shared most possessions upon request. Not sharing freely was being stingy, which was the same as being evil. This sharing was relatively easy to do, because they had so few and such simple possessions such as bows and arrows and baskets made of plant materials. These days, however, due to the seduction of vast quantities of urban material goods, they have lost much of this compulsion to share. They cannot simply give away to others their items of significant monetary value such as steel axes, cast-iron caldrons, and shotguns. They have developed instead a need to acquire household goods to satisfy a sense of well-being.

 

http://anthropology.si.edu/canela/environmentfr.htm

 

This would seem to suggest to me that a society without highly developed technology may have less difficulty maintaining altruistic relations. In this case this is demonstrated as those lending the goods to others in the society are not so concerned of significant loss if their goods are damaged or lost, this is as these goods do not hold such a great value. When goods are introduced that they could not produce themselves this culture of easy loans is disrupted as the person who owns the steel axe. for example, would be more considerably disadvantaged at its loss.

 

Another contributing factor in this could be the size of the society. I would argue that the larger the numbers in the society the less robust an altruistic system becomes. But that is another discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for taking the time to do that. Yeah, the ethnography I read a bit ago was from the late 70's, and it appears now they have become much more stingy. What you argue about "the larger numbers in in the society the less robust an altruistic system becomes" is true and has been covered extensively in cultural anthropology. Yes generalized reciprocity only really works in smaller communities, but the point I was really trying to make to KMART was that you can't generalize the entire human species by looking at just one culture. Generalizations can only be made through cross-cultural and comparative studies.

 

Marx argued that you can not change an economic system without changing the culture. The Apache were an egalitarian culture before they acquired guns, horses and started hunting buffalo in the Great Plains of America. Once their economic system changed they stopped worshiping female deities based upon the land and started worshiping male warrior gods. Furthermore, they became brutally patriarchal to the point where they treated their horses better than "their" women.

 

Where do you stand? Do you think the Capitalist economic system based upon self interest and competition is the only economic system that could manifest from a culture of greedy people? Or do you think our culture of competition, self interest and greed is a manifestation of the capitalist economic system?

 

(note: I am in no way condoning state socialism, communism etc. I happen to dislike any centralized power or economic system based upon production, consumption and competition with ourselves and other nations. Call me a libertarian socialist or perhaps a borderline anarchist..)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for taking the time to do that. Yeah, the ethnography I read a bit ago was from the late 70's, and it appears now they have become much more stingy. What you argue about "the larger numbers in in the society the less robust an altruistic system becomes" is true and has been covered extensively in cultural anthropology. Yes generalized reciprocity only really works in smaller communities, but the point I was really trying to make to KMART was that you can't generalize the entire human species by looking at just one culture. Generalizations can only be made through cross-cultural and comparative studies.

 

Marx argued that you can not change an economic system without changing the culture. The Apache were an egalitarian culture before they acquired guns, horses and started hunting buffalo in the Great Plains of America. Once their economic system changed they stopped worshiping female deities based upon the land and started worshiping male warrior gods. Furthermore, they became brutally patriarchal to the point where they treated their horses better than "their" women.

 

Where do you stand? Do you think the Capitalist economic system based upon self interest and competition is the only economic system that could manifest from a culture of greedy people? Or do you think our culture of competition, self interest and greed is a manifestation of the capitalist economic system?

 

(note: I am in no way condoning state socialism, communism etc. I happen to dislike any centralized power or economic system based upon production, consumption and competition with ourselves and other nations. Call me a libertarian socialist or perhaps a borderline anarchist..)

 

I don't find either of the two options you have presented as particularly satisfying. First of all I don't see that capitalism and greed have a direct relationship at all. Secondly the notion of greed is problematic in itself, here’s why;

 

What is greed exactly? When do you know when an act is motivated by greed and when is it not? It seems to me that the only real gauge for greed is a relative one measured against a subjective standard. For example; I could charge Bill Gates of greed since he has far more stuff than I do and I know I am living fairly comfortably. But my standard of living may also be viewed as a product of greed compared to our friends in less developed countries. It also seems that greed loses meaning when viewed over time; by the standards even a westerner living 100 years ago, my lifestyle would be viewed as one of lavish excess due to the technology I have available to me. So for these reasons, and a few others, I think it is better to avoid discussions of greed as the concept is illusory.

 

I think it is also fairly difficult to nail down what exactly capitalism is as well. However, I am happy to make this statement;

Capitalism is an economic product of the nexus formed between a liberal society and self interest.

 

So would you say you are a social libertarian in the vein of Chomsky? I find this brand of libertarianism almost as problematic as centrally controlled socialism. I quite like a lot of the Neo-Marxist writing, but mostly because I think they built a great discourse for deconstructing the current paradigm of corporatism, I think they fall waaaayyy short when they start to make positive statements about how things ‘should’ be.

Out of interest, would you argue that the ownership of property equates to theft?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Capitalism is a necessary evil. Greed is not.

 

The last frontier is collectivizing everything on a planetary scale and the human race is nowhere near evolved enough (or fucked enough) for that to be viable.

Nor do I think laissez faire can work at this point. It's a little late in the game (by about 200-300 years) to not have some kind of system of checks and balances in place, but that system should be lightweight and impartial. What exists now is far from ideal.

 

smart man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fuck i am really interested in this but there is no fucking way i'm reading all that shit right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(note: I am in no way condoning state socialism, communism etc. I happen to dislike any centralized power or economic system based upon production, consumption and competition with ourselves and other nations. Call me a libertarian socialist or perhaps a borderline anarchist..)

 

Yo Cuntsauce. You may or may not be aware of this 'left libertarian' data base put together by Roderick Long. Great theorist, great resource. Enjoy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
competition is the justification for a lawless form of mercantilism in which slaves are taken the masses exploited and manipulated the earth obliterated not for profit or pursuit of happiness or equality but for the establishment of a unilateral standard of evil death and destruction.

 

If free market suposed to prevent concentration of power than explain to me wheres the diversity in the media, in the private distributors of power, and energy, communications?? there isnt one. Where the fuck is your cellphone company homeboy? youll never own one in your life.

 

But i feel you man. go ahead and defend slavery toby.

 

uhh our current economic system is NOT capitalist, more like corporatist (Keynesian)

I'm okay with the voluntary socialism, but you're spouting nothing but empty statist rhetoric.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...