You can't "work your way to the top" in capitalism.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Marx55, Jan 11, 2007.

  1. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Obviously people can not have /chose what is not avialble. For example, I can not chose to teleport my self from Brazil to visit daughters in USA. - I must endure almost 10 hours in airplane. Likewise if the stupid command economy managers fail to order the factories to make toilet paper, I would need to use rags and wash them out later or take a bath more often etc. - I.e. I would be free to chose only among the options that are avialable, just as I can not teleport to the USA.

    To illustrate with my favorate current example: Government should not be promoting the use of corn to make alcohol when it is available much cheaper by importing it and that would actually reduce the flow of cash to the countries using it to kill Americans. Perhaps not the exact same cash (I do not know what the Saudis do or did except supply most of the 9/11 men, but if the oil demand were reduced the funds going to Iran would drop much more than the volume of oil does as it switches back to being in surpluss again. - Possibly importing alcohol could bring back $45/barrel oil?)

    Please do not misunderstand - I have made it clear that I do not support any form of central control of the economy, be that by the inefficient "command" or the more efficient "regulate via rules and complex taxes" approaches. On this I question I am just a little to the left of Anne Rand. I.e. I am a strong believer that the invisible hand of Adam Smith knows best. - Governments should not try to guide and control the economy as the US government does.

    It is not my fault that you can not understand that "personnal freedom" to chose (amoung what is available in the market) is a concept distinct from "economic planning," central or otherwise, by governments. I.e. you are wrong when you say:
    "They're the same thing. The more centrally planned an economy is, the less personal freedom people have, and vice versa."

    I have admitted twice now that in practice these two concepts are strongly correlated, but that does not make them the same. I will not repeat my discussion of prior post that illustrated how in principle even a command economy could be consistent with a high degree of personnel freedom. Or the one that noted that personnel freedom is being reduced in the USA under GWB, even the constitution violated.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 27, 2007
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    Okay. The problems with such an approach have been well known for a long time (see "externalities"), and that's why no country in the world has ever operated that way, or will ever operate that way, nor will any reasonable, informed person wish to live in such a society. I would tend to agree that government intervention should be limited to cases where the free market is known to fail, or when it is otherwise necessary to sustain the integrity and security of the country, but the only way to achieve a truly free market is world anarchy.

    Okay, but why are you so fixated on the United States in your critique? After all, essentially every other country in the world interferes with their economy MORE than the United States does, so it doesn't make sense to spend all your time harping on America. Clearly, then, something besides an abstract commitment to free-market principles is motivating your comments about the United States. And, of course, anyone who's read even a small fraction of your posts is already aware of your unhealthy obsession with criticizing America.

    Yes, it is. You're trying to make a point that doesn't make any sense, so there's no way I can "understand" it. Moreover, the economic freedom indices do not measure simply consumer choice, but also producer choice. So, even if your insistence that consumer freedom is somehow compatible with absolute central control were true, it still wouldn't be sufficient to upset the fact that the economic freedom indices measure (inverse) central planning.

    Sure they are. Freedom to choose is meaningless if there is only one choice. You can insist that consumers are still "free" in some abstract sense, but it's not going to impress me. People in prison are "free" in the exact same sense.

    The extent to which you're willing to contort the meanings of words and concepts in order to avoid admitting that you're wrong is literally stupefying and, moreover, far too transparent to convince anyone of anything.

    Now you're drifting off topic: we were talking about economic freedom here. There is a whole range of other kinds of personal freedoms, and some of them have taken steps backwards during W's administration, but economic freedom hasn't. Government wiretapping programs don't have any bearing on one's freedom to buy or sell as one sees fit. There are a few cases where it has affected economic freedom (it's more difficult to travel and move goods across borders, for example), but these are marginal and, in any case, so obviously motivated by strict security concerns that it's absurd to suggest that they amount to some kind of conspiracy to impose central planning on America.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Will not reply, line by line but I do expect that some day more freedom in the sense of variety of choices will be available from a version of central control. I do not know if the "center" will be the government or not, but suspect it will be. (Because government is growing bigger and more interferring every year -For example, now illegal in Marland for me to subdivide farm into lots and record their "meets and bounds" as I did*. Must hire registered civil engineer.) Again do not misunderstand: I agree that in the past the choices available from all centrally directed economies have been much less than from those that gain contol of the economy by laws and tax codes.

    For example, to take your own citation of Henry Ford's "You can have any color car you like so long as you want black." The now highly centralized car industry has sales offices where if you are willing to wait a couple of weeks, you can get a car with purple fenders and green interior etc. Computers are changing the world, making custom production economical. There is no reason in principle why a command economy can not conduct "market serveys" and have available on the sheves a wide range of products for those who do not want to wait or "make to order", just as well (if not better)** than one which achieves its central control via rigid regulations and complex tax codes as the US does.

    I agree many countries are moving to the US mode of control and even some may have more complex tax codes, but I doubt that. (I asked you to name one and either you honestly misunderstood my question or ducked by giving me data references about "personnel freedom") I suspect it was mis understanding as generally you do not "duck" - part of why I enjoy discussion with you. I think you responded as you did because in your mind, POV, personnel freedom is the inverse corrate of central control ("the same thing" as you said.) but it is not, at least in principle.

    Reason why I speak of US is that so many do believe it has a "free market" economy when it clearly does not. You even admit this with the term "mixed economy." We will just disagree, I fear, on whether or not the US economy is more or less "centrally guided and controlled" than the average. I think it has the most complex tax code in the world,if measued by the number of words in it or by the number of lawyers required to make it function, but could be wrong. Perhaps it is only in the top 3! MY point is that the US is far from a "free market" economy and to call it one must have Adam Smith turing in his grave.
    -------------------
    *Working in the field, I used one of the early HP hand calculators (model 35 I seem to recall,which cost about $500) to compute my boundaries with interger angles at every corner so at least one boundary lines came with many figures after the decimal point. (Most were thing like "turning 45degrees NW 145feet to a point..." but at least one closed the circuit by something like 99.4672388 feet.) I bet I made the most accurated deeds in all of Maryland's records. (My record can be broken as I did assume a flat Earth.) It is amazing how bad some are - fail to "close" by several feet! (I used large "sighting circle" with straight pins at center and 30, 45, 60 ... degrees on plywood sheet and 100 foot steel tape to dive stakes at approximnatley the correct corners to show buyers. - Where stakes are really does not matter as the recorded deed controls.)

    **To take extreme example, built on the fact laws and tax rules are RIGID for years, if the law states that all cars must be white as that color does have significantly fewer accident, then you can not have a black one in a centrally controlled economy of the "regulations and tax code" type, but could in some future computer controlled command economy, but it would probably set your insurance rate higher of restrict you speed after dusk etc. I.e. computers and people are more adaptable than laws and tax codes.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 27, 2007
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    You're forgetting a crucial aspect of these definitions. When we say "centrally planned" economy, we mean that the *government* does the planning. It's already the case that most industries are dominated by massive corporations that employ a hierarchical command structure to decide what goods are produced and what prices they are sold at. In this sense, there is *already* a central planning system that conducts market surveys and makes the appropriate range of cars available. It's called "the automotive industry," and most industries work the same way. This point is that "central planning" implies "by the government, as opposed to private entities." The issue is how much clout the *government* pushes around in the economy, not how centralized private decision making may become. A free market does not imply atomized, distributed planning and control; it simply means that the government lets people do it how they want. And, as history has amply demonstrated, a great deal of centralization (in private hands) tends to result. Indeed, one of the main ways that governments, and in particular the US government, interfere in the economy is to *reduce* the centralization of private decision-making through antitrust actions. While this can be seen as making the market less free, it certainly has the effect of making planning more decentralized.

    I.e., they're moving towards *less* total government control. It bears emphasizing that they're moving towards American practices *from* practices that put much more emphasis on central planning.

    I didn't do either. Rather, I recognized that the complexity of the tax code is not the only (or even primary) determinant of how unfree a given economy is. Nor, for that matter, does a more complex tax code necessarily imply a greater degree of central planning (it would be a simple exercise to write an arbitrarily complex tax code that had negligible effect on the economy). So, rather than go off on a probably-irrelevant tangent about the complexities of tax codes, I instead provided you with a comprehensive comparison of every country's market conditions, prepared by experts and taking into account all types of regulatory and planning methods (be they taxes, regulations, nationalization, etc.). To put it simply: Cuba probably has a simpler tax code than the US does, but that doesn't imply that they have less central planning.

    That's because everyone (except, apparently, yourself) knows very well that a true "free market" is an impossible ideal, and that all economies are going to be mixed, and so use the term "free market" to indicate mixed economies that approach the free market ideal. If you want to make a meaningful point about America's markets not being as free as people think they are, you need to come up with an example of a country that is freer. Outside of a few marginal exceptions (Singapore, etc.), no such countries exist, so the fact remains that America is pretty much the freest market that's ever existed. If you disagree, please name a country that you consider freer (and, no, simply having a simpler tax code is not sufficient).

    Also, this is not a matter of you disagreeing with me. You're disagreeing with just about everyone on earth over the age of 10, and in particular with legions of highly-educated specialists that dedicate their entire careers to this stuff. For that matter, your positions aren't even consistent. If it's really the case that America's economy is more centrally-controlled than that of the USSR, and you are opposed to central planning, you should view the outcome of the Cold War as a massive setback for free markets and support the adoption of Soviet-style command economics by the United States. This, of course, is nonsense, but it's a hole you dug for yourself.
     
  8. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    I have not read all yet as I think this is the heart of our dispute. I think the words "centrally planned" mean "centrally planned" period. You at first said that meant a "command economy" now you are relaxing it a little to mean "centrally planned by the government" (which now includes the "by regulations and tax code" versions of central planning) so I will stop this discussion, content with that small change as again my point is that the US (and most modern economies) are some form of "centrally planned" economies. I.e Adam Smith's invisible hand, which I prefer as the controller of the economy, has been firmly maniculed by some combination of regulatory laws, complex tax codes, or command economy beurocrates.

    I different mainly from Anne Rand in that I think it is the government's responsibility to make a "level playing field" and that definitely includes equal educational opportunity for all citizens regardless of skin color, native language, of other accident of birth.

    I look forward to our next set of exchanges, but think we have better understand of each other now and can bury this dead horse.

    Later by edit: I always try to respond to direct requests or questions so to your: " please name a country that you consider freer (and, no, simply having a simpler tax code is not sufficient..." I will only state manily from impression, not actual knowledge, I think England may be. I am not taking "freer" in the sense you some times have used it (i.e.having a greater ranges of choices available) but in the sense that there is more tolerance for diverse opinion and POVs. etc.
    Not that you asked, but just to be more clear, I volunteer that IMHO, France is less free than the USA in this sense.

    Still later: I can't resist one parting shot: Adam Smith would certainly allow Joe American to run his car on cheaper, duty-free, imported alcohol.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 27, 2007
  9. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    In a general context, it does mean that. But when discussing national economies and the role of government in them, the term "central planning" is understood to refer to Soviet-style command economics. You don't have to agree with this, but the fact remains that this is what the term connotates to the vast majority of people. So, if you want people to understand what you're talking about, you have to go along with that convention (whether or not you think it's a good idea).

    No, there's been no change in my definitions. From the Wikipedia page (which I posted yesterday):

    "Planned economy (also known as a command economy, centrally planned economy, or command and control economy) is an economic system in which the state or government controls of manufacture and formulates all decisions about their use and about the distribution of income."

    If you mean "centrally planned" in the sense that the government excercises some influence in the economy, then yes, of course. But they're not centrally planned in the usual sense, unless you're talking about North Korea or Cuba. Everyone else is a mixed economy, which implies some balance between the free market and central planning. Why you resist using the term "mixed economy," despite the fact that it is custom-made to describe this state of affairs, is beyond me. Expanding the definition of central planning to include all mixed economies doesn't prove anything except how obtuse you are capable of being.

    Okay, although the fact remains that in (almost) no country is it LESS manacled than the United States.

    Funny, I thought you said you were to her right?
     
  10. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    I did, in post 101 by error. (I just checked and corrected it by edit) Thanks. I would not want to claim to do the impossible.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page