Are you on the left or on the right?

[Giancarlo]

I am not for complete unrestricted free markets. That will turn into a corruption arena. There has to be law enforcement. But free markets must be respected, and big businesses should not be restricted. That will kill the economy. Rather some of these businesses should be monitored for unlawful activity.

[red_jon]

But even if businesses adhere to 'lawful' activity (which often they don't) they will eventually destroy the competition - we've seen it in many areas already. How many soft drinks are now owned by the coca-cola coproration for example?

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by red_jon
But free markets left unrestricted eventually become monopolies as businesses eventually destroy the opposition.

The only way to keep markets free is by restricting big business.

It may be common but it is not inevitable unless the market lends itself to natural monopolization by having barriers to entry for new competitors.

(I think that sentence sounds more intelligent than it actually is )

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by red_jon
But even if businesses adhere to 'lawful' activity (which often they don't) they will eventually destroy the competition - we've seen it in many areas already. How many soft drinks are now owned by the coca-cola coproration for example?

The free market is meant to be a fighting ground. A volatile ground. To restrict that is to destroy jobs and the economy. You must have businesses competing. Your statements about eventually destroying the competition is false because there will always be somebody else with something better.

Coca-cola sure.. but there is also Pepsi, and other competiton on smaller base levels.

Same with McDonalds and Burger King.. in the US once kings of the fast food market are under pressure from other chains.

To restrict the free market, is to destroy capitalism.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by yavoon
really big crunch? I always ascosiated liberal w/ government intervention, universal health care, high taxes, welfare, etc...leading to socialism on the far left.

kinda odd to see it be polar opposite.

From my OE dictionary:

Liberal. n. & adj.
6a) Favouring individual liberty, free trade, and open minded to socio-political reform. Regarding many traditional beliefs as dispensible, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change.
6b) A person of liberal views.

That's pretty close to how I see the term liberal.

I'm politically and economically on the right, but I would consider myself liberal before I consider my self conservative.

[Giancarlo]

I am a neo-liberal classicist when it comes to the economy. In strictly 19th century terms. The word has been introverted. (is that the right word to use?)

[red_jon]

Originally posted by Fez


The free market is meant to be a fighting ground. A volatile ground. To restrict that is to destroy jobs and the economy. You must have businesses competing. Your statements about eventually destroying the competition is false because there will always be somebody else with something better.

Coca-cola sure.. but there is also Pepsi, and other competiton on smaller base levels.

Same with McDonalds and Burger King.. in the US once kings of the fast food market are under pressure from other chains.

To restrict the free market, is to destroy capitalism.

a - it is my opinion that either coke or pepsi will destroy the other, just as they have done with the other companies around them.

b - having only two major soft drink or burger companies does not qualify as 'competition'.

I don't see competiton posing a threat to these companies. If anything it's getting less. And what about Starbucks? I don't see much competiton to them, at least over here.

[GePap]

That's the older, not in vogue meaning of liberal, the 19th century liberal. People who use liberal in a derogatry manner mean socialists today: in the US the term socialist was in vogue only for a few decades at the end of the 19th century: since then, it is as dirty as Communist, so I guess liberal became the word to use in the US. Since in Europe Socialists and Labor parties kept those names without problems, the old term "liberals" could live on.

[Giancarlo]

Redfern:

A) If they do, other people will have to start from scratch.

B) That is entirely your own opinion. I believe otherwise.

Starbucks... try to the Coffee Store... another famous chain...

Any restriction on capitalism, screws us all over in the end. Law enforcement is good. If a company does something criminal, I would love to see the exec in handcuffs being dragged off to jail... but forcing illegal taxes on a law abiding corporation is not good.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by red_jon
And what about Starbucks? I don't see much competiton to them, at least over here.

Caffé Nero, Coffee Republic, Costa...

[GePap]

The problem is that a market totally free of government intervention will ultimately lead to monopoly. It is the only thing that makes sense: any company that gets even a temporary advantage will exploit is ruthlessly to crush competition in order to maximize profits. If the aim of the game is to make as much money as possible for yourself and company, crush the opposition and become the only game in town. To do anyting else is idiotic and cuts down on your possible profits.

People who make the Free market an ideology are as clueelss as communists, thinking that people have some deeper "economic" sense. They don't.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by GePap
That's the older, not in vogue meaning of liberal, the 19th century liberal. People who use liberal in a derogatry manner mean socialists today: in the US the term socialist was in vogue only for a few decades at the end of the 19th century: since then, it is as dirty as Communist, so I guess liberal became the word to use in the US. Since in Europe Socialists and Labor parties kept those names without problems, the old term "liberals" could live on.

I would of voted for Theodore Roosevelt early in the 20th century...

I am a 19th century liberal to put it. Now right-winger.

Gepap: I support law enforcement. Not a totally free market.

Capitalism is not an ideology, it is the well-being of a country. To screw with it, is to cause severe damage.

That is why communists and socialists have no case.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Big Crunch


Caffé Nero, Coffee Republic, Costa...

Luckily we don't have Starbucks We're not infected yet!!

[GePap]

The problem with communism (not socialism) is that they make economics all encompasing, "totalitarian", and yet have no real ideas about how politics should run in this system.

Socialism has some very good ideas, and in general, if efficiency is key, a socialist system of ensuring free access to most basic services such as education and health care makes more sense than the free market, since in that sense, the customer has no clue about what the most efficient choice for them would be. Many people expect a level of rational choice that is simply not forthcoming form the people at all. And what kind of choice is it, if I have the ability to chose 50 models of cars in myriad colors, but the choice not to have a car is prohibitive? That is not choice at all.

[red_jon]

BC - ya think those will be there in 10 years time?

[Giancarlo]

I am not for socialism. Never will be. I don't think it is possible. I think it is a system that can be easily corrupted and turned upside down. We saw this with Argentina. 500,000 public workers that have to be fired because they can't be paid anymore, a bankrupt health system...

No, in all senses, free market capitalism with adequate law enforcement and provisions is the best system.

[GePap]

The probem in Argentina was political, not economic. Everybody and their uncle given a subsidy they don't need, nepotism run rampant... But the efficiency issue remains. It is vastly mroe efficeint to make cheap rpeventive care free to the masses than then spend vast sums on curing the disease later on.

[yavoon]

well bringin up the dictionary is nice crunch. but I didnt get the concept out of thin air. Liberal---democrat---big government. maybe in the rest of the world it is reversed, but thats how it is in the US.

[St Leo]

Capitalism is not an ideology, it is the well-being of a country. To screw with it, is to cause severe damage.

Letting it run wild causes just as much damage as ripping it out. Commies are no dumber than libertarians; I think both are nuts and I am a moderate social liberal. I live in a country with a working universal healthcare system and a working (though underfunded) welfare system. I don't see any conflict between them and the market.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by GePap
The probem in Argentina was political, not economic. Everybody and their uncle given a subsidy they don't need, nepotism run rampant... But the efficiency issue remains. It is vastly mroe efficeint to make cheap rpeventive care free to the masses than then spend vast sums on curing the disease later on.

That is what I believe socialism turns into. A state runned disaster.

Free market capitalism as I propose is more efficient than socialism. I believe proper law enforcement will do. I am not for letting it run out of control. It just needs to be monitored.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

looks like leftists are winning

[GePap]

So how do you explain Canada and the scandinavian states? All of which have plenty of socialist systems running and yet also some of the least corrupt democracies out there?

Or why do state run school systems in europe and Asia outpreform more free-market type schools in the US at the primary and secondary level?

I think socialist ideas can work, but you need very clean courts and a low corruption political system to make them work well, which is a tough thing to get.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by red_jon
BC - ya think those will be there in 10 years time?

Despite the tough competition I don't think there will be a monopoly if thats what you mean. It will probably end with an oligopoly.

Interestingly though, its McD's who were bought out of the market first when they had to sell the Aroma (?) chain to Caffé Nero after posting large losses. So much for multinational big business eh? They were bought out by a UK regional business less than 5 years old.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by yavoon
well bringin up the dictionary is nice crunch. but I didnt get the concept out of thin air. Liberal---democrat---big government. maybe in the rest of the world it is reversed, but thats how it is in the US.

I know you didn't, I was just clarifying my understanding of the word. I am aware of the American meaning of the word liberal.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by GePap
So how do you explain Canada and the scandinavian states? All of which have plenty of socialist systems running and yet also some of the least corrupt democracies out there?

These countries had the money to spend on vast state runned bureaucracies in the first place. I just think these bureaucracies at a great risk in being corrupted completely. The United States for example is not a uncorrupt or clean country but government transparency helped it attain the most of efficient and best economy in the world.

I think socialist ideas can work, but you need very clean courts and a low corruption political system to make them work well, which is a tough thing to get.

I think socialism is a bad system that must be thrown out as one.

Can we just agree to disagree? You aren't changing my mind. I am not close minded, and what you are saying is valid... yeah I want people to have good health care and education too.. but shooting the well runned business in the foot is not the way to do it. Cracking down on companies like Enron is completely fine.

In Spain, we had corruption. And a lot of it. The government in recent years cut the level of government activity in the economy and the unemployment level fell. Even the PSOE cannot deny this. The PP (Popular Party) has done good for the economy in its reign of rule with Aznar. We managed to pull unemployment down from 25% to 10%, in the system I described.

So forget socialism.

[VJ]

Then Tanja Karpela comes in and they mud-wrestle. Whee!

...

We managed to pull unemployment down from 25% to 10%, in the system I described.

There was an international recession going on, if we're talking about the same years, Finland, for example, had unemployment of 19% in 1995, now it's under 8%...

I guess you know more from Spains economic condition's, but you can't say that the rise on employment happened just because of new goverment in charge...

[GePap]

Originally posted by Fez


These countries had the money to spend on vast state runned bureaucracies in the first place. I just think these bureaucracies at a great risk in being corrupted completely. The United States for example is not a uncorrupt or clean country but government transparency helped it attain the most of efficient and best economy in the world.

The Us economy is hardly the most efficient in the world: the US spends vast sums on healthcare (more per pantient than any country) and on education (more per pupil than any country) and yet the Us porvides inferior primary care to vast amounts of its population and its education prior to college is sub-par in terms of the industrialized world. And then there is American transportation issues..The US may have very high per capita cincomes, but in mnay basic places it is highly inefficient

I think socialism is a bad system that must be thrown out as one.

Can we just agree to disagree? You aren't changing my mind. I am not close minded, and what you are saying is valid... yeah I want people to have good health care and education too.. but shooting the well runned business in the foot is not the way to do it. Cracking down on companies like Enron is completely fine.

In Spain, we had corruption. And a lot of it. The government in recent years cut the level of government activity in the economy and the unemployment level fell. Even the PSOE cannot deny this. The PP (Popular Party) has done good for the economy in its reign of rule with Aznar. We managed to pull unemployment down from 25% to 10%, in the system I described.

So forget socialism.

You ask to agree to disagree and yet you end with "forget socialism". Interesting. The question is, has the Spanish government cut its involveemnt in healthcrae and education, and transportation? Porbably not. I bet the cuts have been in places like Telecom and energy and otehr such common public monopolies.

[Giancarlo]

Okay you have the right to your opinion. I will just not agree with it.

I am too tired to take place in a discussion. Too much walking around today...

I don't see anything socialist about government spending in healthcare, education and transportation. That is called government spending and is necessary. I never advocated against it. That wouldn't make any sense as I use these services often.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

The argentinian problem occured because its exchange rate was fixed and its budget was never balanced. What happened was that the currency was too strong to be competitive, so people stopped buying exported goods from argentina because they seemed more expensive. A floating currency would have corrected a decrease in export sales by argentina by losing its value against hard currencies. This would increase demand, and thus more people would buy exports from argentina. A floated currency almost always takes care of itself. A pegged currency coveres up the problem of having a weak currency, but it doesnt fix it.

The only time a floating currency fails is when there is massive capital flight. This is what happened in Thailand and caused the Asian financial crisis. The foreigners pulled all their money out of the country and converted it to dollars. The thai currency lost its value and thus its exported goods looked very cheap. The other countries in Asia were afraid that they would lose all of their exports because the Thai money was so cheap, so they devalued. To keep massive foreign capital flight from happening, developing countries should adapt the dirty float, where the currency is allowed to float freely inside a certain band and when it goes under it, the governemnent steps in and buys the currency to inflate its price.

[Giancarlo]

So LoA, which system do you want?

Yes I am in favor of a floating currency for Argentina. Just if it was done in 1996.. be a lot better... fixing the currency causes market discrepencies.