Talk Elections

"Guns at the ready, turn around, take ten paces, turn, Fire!"

A mixed economy, of course.

Deregulated Capitalist Economy

neither one nor four have ever existed and 2/3 are the same thing.

Yes, that is true, but ideally what would you like?


Rubin (Unregulated Capitalist)
TR (Regulated Capitalist)
France (Mixed Economy)
Attlee (Socialist)

Should we get rid of the US Postal Service and the Fire Department?

No. That is not what I meant.

lol

What is the difference between a 'regulated capitalist economy' and a 'mixed economy'?  Aren't the two roughly the same?

I guess the only distinction one could make between the two is that in the former, there are simply basic regulations and supervision over private businesses and little to no public/nationalized institutions, and in the latter there are large public/national institutions that operate simply for the public good (like the Post Office, Fire Department, things like the Tennessee Valley Authority, etc) and regulation goes simply beyond "basic."

I'd guess a mixed economy.

Thanks!

Well, given the definitions, I'd pick option 2.  The only time I would favor any government takeovers of privately-owned businesses would be during an economic crisis (aka, the Great Depression or today's unusually severe global recession), and then only with the assumption that such takeovers would be temporary once the crisis had passed.  

     Would an unregulated capitalist economy still have a night watchman state? Or would it be more like true anarcho-capitalism?

Socialist Economy.

Regulated capitalist economy, I guess... I'm not a anarcho-capitalists by any means.

A mix of 3 and 4.

Yes, exactly. "Regulated Capitalist Economy" makes no sense.

Under my interpretation I voted regulated capitalist economy. I figured that meant something like 33% regulation  and 67% capitalism with mixed being the other way around...also, I understood this as relating to the production of goods and services, not purely redistributionist policies.

I would think mixed is more 50/50... where most utilities and infrastructure are publicly owned along with some major industries that are either public or very regulated.

Regulated capitalism is capitalism lite.  You are free to start your own business in most any industry but regulations are in place to keep businesses in check...

If that Kenyes is Keynes, I must push the lol, actually, pay attention to what you write, and I don't only say it for the typing mistake.

I would like something in between France and Attlee... leaning towards Attlee when necessary, and leaning toward France when 'things are going well'.

Anyway I voted Mixed Economy, but I probably should have voted Socialist.  I just want there to be, small, individually owned restaurants.

I think people are seriously misunderstanding the definition of "mixed economy." The United States even meets the definition as one.

In theory, an unregulated capitalist economy.

Unfortunately...it's naive and stupid to ever think that it would work in reality. As much as I love the market economy, it does need to be regulated to a certain extent, as in providing a safety net...health...education. These things are necessary in order to try to reach equality of opportunity.

And of course things that I don't believe would work privately....like roads....military, and other stuff that anarchists would consider privatizing.


So basically....I obviously think the market economy is the only thing that really works...but some things don't work that way...at least not for the benefit of most people.

Regulated Capitalist Economy

I would prefer mixed, assuming that mixed is about a 50/50 split.

Sneering aside, let's try to take this semi-seriously... but that's impossible as it's hard to tell what's meant by any of the terms.

Deregulated Capitalist Economy: this could mean several different things; from laissez faire to the system of advanced-capitalism-with-minimal-regulation seen currently in the U.S.
Regulated Capitalist Economy: this could mean, literally, almost anything. A meaningless term.
Mixed Economy: again, what's meant here? The basic economic structure of most of Western Europe during the Golden Age of Capitalism? The economic structure of the U.S during the same period? (very different!). Any system that incorporates a proper sized Welfare State?
Socialist Economy: again... I mean, does this mean the economic structure of the future (?) Socialist Commonwealth? The sort of economic structure that might have emerged in Britain had Labour won the 1951 election or of certain Northern European countries around the same time? The basic economic structures of Western Europe during the Golden Age of Capitalism? The economic structure of the Soviet Union?

No, one has certainly existed in the past (and does exist in parts of the Third World). Not much fun if you're a prole, though.

     I guess the way I try to think of it is in terms of Smithian economics versus Marxist economics. So:

option 1 -- 100% Smithian
option 2 -- 75/25 Smithian
option 3 -- 50/50
option 4 -- 75/25 Marxist

     Of course, that's not really any less vague than it would be otherwise.

Deregulated capitalist.

I think a useful distinction between 'regulated capitalist economy' and 'mixed economy' can be made:

Regulated capitalist economy could be thought of as one in which there is virtually no State ownership of industry, even utilites and transport, but in which there is meticulous well-enforced regulation in place for the stability of markets, and the protection of workers and consumers.  I do not think that anything in the title 'regulated capitalist economy' implies a social saftey net, but I suppose it would be reasonable to guess that any society which was so careful in its embrace of the brute suitor 'capitalism' would also try to ensure some very minimal safety net.  However, this net would be a reluctant and parsimonious one, due to the generally 'pro-capital' mindset evidenced by the overall system.

To contrast 'Mixed Economy' I think one would envision it this way - the State not only regulates the activities and limits the powers of the capitalist class in the above way, but also engages in fairly large scale ownership and operation of industries which would be considered almost by definition 'private' in the above system.  Of course most utilities and transport would be directly State operated in a 'mixed economy', but also many 'vital industries' such as heavy industry or minerals exploitation.  Lastly one could assume that 'troubled' industries - for example large companies like GM - would inevitably be nationalized, at least for a time, under such a system, regardless of their field.  Finally I think we can assume that such a pragmatic system would have adopted a somewhat Benthamite outlook and would probably see the 'Welfare State' as not so much a humanitarian necessity, but a sort of reasonable demand or right of the toiling classes.  So we could infer a somewhat more generous and less tenuous social safety net than in the above sytem (regulated capitalism).

Lastly I suppose one must try to make a distinction between Mixed Economy and Socialism - maybe not so hard.  In the mixed economy 'socialist' undertakings are not shied from, but they are utilized by the State only in part and only when it is really necessary.  'The market' and the capitalist heirarchy are still in place and utilized, but in the same way.  I think in socialism we would see a resistance to allowing more than a token amount of such brutality - the socialist would want to eliminate this inequality in principle, even if it were impractical to do so.  I think in 'mixed economy' lots of large industries would still be privately owned - i.e. controlled by a privileged class - though with some limitation on their purview of power.  By contrast 'private ownership' would only be tolerated in small business in a socialist system.

kind of a stupid continuum considering Smith was one of Marx's main influences and they agreed on some key points - like estrangement of labour.

The whole the British Political Economy tradition was one of Marx's major influences in itself (not just Smith, but Ricardo and others as well; Marx was a great intellectual synthesizer of early 19th Century ideas).

Much more David Ricardo than Adam Smith. (Smith's theory of value was rather ambiguous. Indeed, it's not even clear to what extent he had a coherent value theory.)

And yes; Marx was a brilliant synthesizer of the worst parts of early 19th century thought.

Not a Hegel fan then? :P

Of course I was being very general, my knowledge of Marxian economics is not the greatest, I know more about the materialist-Hegelian side of his thought.

     People typically are influenced by their forebears. They can deeply disagree with their influences, though. Of course, I'm rather uncomfortable with the notion of an ideological continuum in the first place.

I dare you to give one example. I would argue not only that no 100% unregulated capitalist states have existed, but also that none (that I'm aware of anyway) come even close enough to be accurately labelled as such.

Oh come on - utter chaos has often ruled in many parts of the world.

I'll give you an example that I'm very familiar with.

There was no regulation of industry (or, bluntly, of almost anything else; urban issues being especially "fun") in Britain during the first few decades of industrialisation and no effective regulation until much later even than that. This is not opinion, this is fact. Now you can point to various things (almost all meaningless things) around the margins, enough to claim that it wasn't "100%" (whatever that means) but the basic point stands. It was unregulated, unfettered, unrestrained capitalism.

Just to throw out scenarios (as is my wont nowadays) - there is a decently reasonable scenario out there in my mind whereby the present form of European/US socialism is fundamentally destroyed/altered by the culmination of present economic events.  I actually don't think it can last *that* much longer anyways - present events are just pushing forward the event horizon, so to speak.

As to what will replace it, I have no clue.  Could be something more "capitalistic" or something more "socialistic" or something completely outside these boundaries...

Wait a minute.... are you saying there is at present a form of "socialism" in the US or Europe? Where is this thing, it seems to have vanished all together?

Mixed. Government control (or at least heavy regulation) of vital services and industries, with private control of services and products that are nonessential.

Have you not noticed in his years of posting, Al, that Sam Spade is one of those crazy right-wingers who think that any slight window-dressing of the capitalist process is 'socialism'.  The man's a kneejerk nutter.

I'm not familiar enough to argue the fine points. However, to name one thing IIRC England didn't introduce free trade until 1846. And when were the traditional rules for what we in Swedish call "skrån" abolished? (that is, privileges and the likes associated with certain crafts)

I suspect you are thinking of unregulated as in rich people being able to treat poor people however they want. I'm thinking more in terms of whether you can use your property and financial resources completely unfettered. And I think state sovereignty tends to interfere with this in several respects. Besides, I suspect there was room for a lot of behaviour from those "unregulated" capitalists that in itself would be infringements on the free market. 

19th century Britain may be your best case though, I'm willing to cede that. I don't buy there being any such cases in the world today though.

As an aside to Opebo, I'm not just ignoring you for the usual reasons but in this case because you were unusually non-cognitive in your post.

As a final note it's a little sad that topics like these tend to degenerate into "we're so far from my favourite system, because it would be so good and the world is so bad" going back and forth.

You aren't ignoring me, you are insulting me, you simpering Swede.  Try to be man enough to own up to it.

"simpering Swede"? Whatever happened to prude?

Anyway, if you were man enough to actually argue rationally with people instead of arrogantly demeaning them I would respond in turn. Since I am a believer in communication and betterment I ignore your posts in the sense that I don't bother to respond to their "points". I usually note them and refer briefly to my reasons for not responding so as not to make anyone think that I missed it or have some other reason for my behaviour. I normally make a point out of not running away from discussions, but I make exceptions for those who fail to show respect to differing view-points and never make an effort to properly discuss an issue.

But you know what they say: don't dish it out unless you can't take it!

They sometimes simper, like you.  Christ man, I've used many an insult upon this forum, not just 'prude'.

To a point, but there's more to it than that. I mean capital, industry, etc (whatever, the name isn't important) being about to treat anyone and anything in any just about any way that it/ they/etc feels like.


But then you aren't thinking about capitalism (as it has existed and as it does exist) so much as a sort of market-utopia.

Eh, yes. That is exactly my point. :P "unregulated free market" has not existed and does not exist.

Deregulated capitalism.

I apologize because, quite frankly, I didn't describe it properly.

There are forms of socialism both in the US and Europe right now most assuredly - you see I tend to think of these things as variable scales, so when I say socialism or capitalism, I am likely referring to some part of the system that I view as being such even though it may only be slightly more capitalistic than socialistic or vice versa.  Let's not get more complicated than that, for now.  :)

Anyways, the avenue of US/European socialism that I am discussing when I said the above is the vast level of "social safety nets" present in both areas.  Namely, things like SS/Medicare/Medicaid and the military in the US (yes the military is a part of a "social safety net"), alog with national health care programs, welfare payments and the like in Europe and pensions in both.

Wages also fits somewhere here, but I feel more confident about the impact on wages than I do the above, which is more of a scenario than anything else.

Regulated Capitalism. We need strong investor, employee and consumer protections and we need a strong civil service which will create jobs and help people get to work. We need better roads and more funding for scientific research that will not be economically productive immediately, but will be crucial to our continued success. Other than that, we should make sure that private enterprise and commerce is unobstructed.

Okay then, you meant state control/welfare vs "the deregulated market" (not that I didn't think that wasn't what you meant originally; I'm just doubtful of whether the word "socialism" or even "capitalism" can apply to such a system. Yes, I am big on semantics. It also involves a dichotomy I particularly dislike, simply because it assumes we all be 'capitalists' if there wasn't a state in the way - for Middle Class Americans, Perhaps...).

In saying that I doubt, even given the worst case scenario, the "socialism" you refer to will be destroyed, at least if it did, it would take alot more than that down with it. I will refrain from commenting more, simply because I haven't been paying as much attention to the situation as I probably should be.

Well, in that it would be destroyed, something else would certainly replace it, although that might take some time.

And of course, a lot more would be taken down than just those "nets" - don't disagree there one bit.

On #1: Yes, certainly. But I doubt whatever it is, it would be American-style "capitalism" in the pure sense that is recognizable to Americans - though no European at present at least of any intelligence considers themselves living in anything other than a "capitalist society". There is simply too much history, culture, social values, etc against that.

#2: Well that's pretty obvious here. Remember the countries we talking about. (I should add when I writing this I'm mainly - though not exclusively - thinking of France).

The problem is that 'socialism', however one uses the term, can only be used to describe policies in one country; Fantsystan can be socialist, or have socialistic policies. Fantasystan can be capitalist, or have capitalistic policies (or lack thereof). But the world as a whole can only be capitalist; not because the people of the world have decided collectively to enact a certain balance of market and government but because there is no world government. And little to no inclination to move toward it.

Thus Fantasystan can provide for a minimum wage, job guarantees, high taxes, a social safety net, and such and such and such, but it cannot set a minimum wage for the world, or regulate the markets in Imaginationstan. Imaginationstan can enact similar socialistic or capitalistic policies, but provided the standard of living is lower and it has sufficient infrastructure, Imaginationstan can always undercut Fantasystan.

The world only has a set amount of natural resources, and they become relatively scarcer when being competed for by both Fantasystan and Imaginationstan than they were when only Fantasystan was in the running.

Fantasystan is a 'developed' country. The process of development begins in the 'basic sciences', and then moves through 'invention', which become products through 'innovation', and these products are widely dissemenated through 'industrialization'. Having experienced these process for several centuries, the residents of both Fantasystan and Imaginationstan, but especially Fantasystan, come to expect ever rising standards of living. The standards of living become quantified through a market price. A certain percentage growth is expected in this market price every year, and when it does not grow, it is considered to be abnormal. But this whole process depends on continued basic science of the type which yields to the process of invention, innovation and dissemination in a useful manner. As any basic researcher will tell you, the process of basic science is highly unpredictable.

If the real cost of energy resources and other natural resources, for example, continues to rise through scarcity, without an offsetting decrease in costs brought about by scientific discovery, or better organization, there is downward pressure on living standards.

Does there need to be world government for "socialism" (however you define it) - couldn't one say that for "capitalism" (however you define it) as well? Perhaps not, the USSR and the USA occasionally cut economic deals after all


Are all those "socialist" policies? In reality, or State welfarist? or paternalist? or various other imaginary "ists" that could be invented but our only staid words? No "Socialist" state ever won the people; except perhaps China during the Cultural Revolution and a couple of the 3rd World Socialist uprisings - and the leaders then were insane. The problem is that people want to force their will upon others; perhaps what is more desirable is some form of communitarian "drop-out" (but non-hippie-ish, please) society. In the Socialist-Capitalist dictonomy the "socialist" state must force things to happen - like welfare services, etc which wouldn't happen in a "capitalist order" - implying to some extent the capitalist order is the nature of things without the interfering state. But in reality, I don't believe that to be case.


Why speak of nation states? Why speak of scarce resources? Resources are only scarce relative to our wants and needs. Perhaps my quest is more metaphysical, against certain aspects of human behaviour - "natural" or "socially constructed" it doesn't matter too much, it's probably a bit of both - that have brought this particularly unreal and maddening worldview. Medieval Monks had more sense, well when they weren't paying for personal concubines anyway.


Completly arbitrary categories, the best thing to ask is why do we want we don't need?. Often it is for social goals or "benevolent (ha!) egotism". The people who got us into this economic mess were very driven (unlike me), very talented, fairly intelligent at least relative to what they were doing... but they were driven by desires, not rationality. What sort of person wants a CEO salary anyway? Isn't that the root and cause of this mess?

Your emphasis on competition is maddening too; perhaps it is proof that macroeconomics creates reality, rather than describing it (which it patently does not - and don't get me into that "individualist conservative morality designed as social Science (with a big S)" that is the Austrian School. What japes!)

SS you're making a mountain out of a molehill - at least in the US the 'social saftey net' is both very negligable and mostly gone already.  Its really just a window dressing - but a quite transparent one.  To beat a dead horse: rose coloured glasses.

I suppose you're right. But in that case, get yourself to 700 19th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20431 and you'll be set.


No, they're not really socialist. The definition of socialism is when the state owns the means of production. In so far as Social Security is a transfer scheme and does not actually produce anything, it is not really socialist. Education, on the other hand... But there is some subjectivity in these labels, so I was merely following the diction of the current thread.


Why, h'aint you ever heard of greed? Those wonderful Medieval Monks would cast off their frocks and run, not walk, to the 21st century if they could.


What sort of person wants a CEO salary? Yes, that's the root of the current mess.. and the root of all civilization.

Let me put one interpretation out there. The following is only an interpretation. We should mourn, that in the 21st century, limited natural resources and environmental degredation, combined with the decelerration of economically useful science, will--may gradually lead to a decline in human civilization after a more than 10,000 year advance. It is truly a tragic inflection point to be at, and there is a good chance that distasteful son of privilege was leader of the world, and these corrupt Wall Street insiders were those to enjoy the most of what the world had to offer, at what may be Western-- or human civilization's crowning moment of glory-- the last summer days when indefinite growth into the future seemed possible.

I guess, I guess... semantics are problem. I was to a more general form of "socialism" which meant "everything in common" (what a nightmare!) or something like that. It is a great tightrope walk, everyone falls down eventually.


Greed? I can't say I care much for him. Though I must say there is something much too flat of this view of humanity... not that it isn't true, for the most part though individuals are more various and stranger than that, but flat.


Indeed. That is our problem, good we agree.

Now the next question is: why care about such tools?


Poetic and Beautiful. Much too poetic and beautiful to be true.

Well true, it is. It is one view. A flat view to be sure, but one that nonetheless dominates many people's lives.


Beats me. All I'm saying is that people do care. That question is much like 'what is the meaning of life'?


We'll see.