Showing posts with label Capitalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Capitalism. Show all posts
Friday, November 29, 2013
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Big Government (or any Government) Will Never Lead to Prosperity
Big Government (or any Government) Will Never Lead to Prosperity
by Alex Merced
What we constantly get told in some form or other, is that you need government for things to work... but in all reality things work in spite of government. It's like when your a kid and you want something, all the rules in the world won't stop you from trying.
For Example, two countries that are catching up very quickly if not surpassing the US and Europe in economic power are China and India, arguably their governments are bigger and more coercive in scope of control. You can take the economist approach and see that spending as a share of GDP is vastly less than the US, but what I want to take a look as is the rules they govern with, not so much the spending.
China: By having it's non-democratic central government, the current leadership in China has LIBERALIZED a lot of it's economic policy and up until recently has focused on having a savings economy. While it's intervention in the supply of savings has and will cause problems, it couldn't of done it without somewhere to invest those savings in which the US more than glad to play the role which arguably leads to more problems for the US as the Spending economy. Another aspect to take a look at is Hong Kong, once the best bastians of Free Marketeering on the globe which played it's role in sparking the economic growth in the region if not being the Seed that grew into it.
India: This country is known for some of the largest amount of red tape and barriers to entry of any country, with buildings filled with stacks of pending applications for all sorts of things. Yet no one can honestly make the argument that the excessive beuracracy has led to it's quickening growth. So while the same type of Liberalization we see in China isn't in india, a system of corruption and bribery has developed to supercede the beuracracy and foster a freer market... essentially a black market for merely "permission" to enter and participate in commerce.
People will never be diverted from purposeful action no matter what the rules, every rule in the US either eventually is found to have loophole or has some built into it initially. What keeps people honest is their respect for boundries which comes from their own self developed ethical framework. So if we care about what people do in their social and business lives we may affect more change by discussing principles to live life by than about which rules we should establish that people will ignore if their principles allow.
by Alex Merced
What we constantly get told in some form or other, is that you need government for things to work... but in all reality things work in spite of government. It's like when your a kid and you want something, all the rules in the world won't stop you from trying.
For Example, two countries that are catching up very quickly if not surpassing the US and Europe in economic power are China and India, arguably their governments are bigger and more coercive in scope of control. You can take the economist approach and see that spending as a share of GDP is vastly less than the US, but what I want to take a look as is the rules they govern with, not so much the spending.
China: By having it's non-democratic central government, the current leadership in China has LIBERALIZED a lot of it's economic policy and up until recently has focused on having a savings economy. While it's intervention in the supply of savings has and will cause problems, it couldn't of done it without somewhere to invest those savings in which the US more than glad to play the role which arguably leads to more problems for the US as the Spending economy. Another aspect to take a look at is Hong Kong, once the best bastians of Free Marketeering on the globe which played it's role in sparking the economic growth in the region if not being the Seed that grew into it.
India: This country is known for some of the largest amount of red tape and barriers to entry of any country, with buildings filled with stacks of pending applications for all sorts of things. Yet no one can honestly make the argument that the excessive beuracracy has led to it's quickening growth. So while the same type of Liberalization we see in China isn't in india, a system of corruption and bribery has developed to supercede the beuracracy and foster a freer market... essentially a black market for merely "permission" to enter and participate in commerce.
People will never be diverted from purposeful action no matter what the rules, every rule in the US either eventually is found to have loophole or has some built into it initially. What keeps people honest is their respect for boundries which comes from their own self developed ethical framework. So if we care about what people do in their social and business lives we may affect more change by discussing principles to live life by than about which rules we should establish that people will ignore if their principles allow.
Capitalism and Democracy
Capitalism and Democracy
by Alex Merced
Detractors to Capitalism often will make satire of the idea of "the invisible hand" as if Free Market Capitalist believe there is an actual invisible hand. The Invisible hand is a metaphor for much more beautiful and plausible idea; that the actions and choices of every individual under no coercive influence can best manage scarce resources. I mean to anyone who calls themselves anti-establishment, how can this not be a beautiful idea, the lack of central power, the freedom from a top down world. Detractors will then make arguments about "Market Failure" essentially making claims that the market doesn't achive impossible and often impracticle goals such as EQUAL income distribution.
Proponents such as myself are always glad to point out any problems that do exist tend to often if not always come from the results of barriers to entry through prohibitions and costly regulations that inhibit the amount of choice and diversity that makes a market works to it's best ability. Essentially to believe in Free Market Capitalism is to believe in a sort of Market Democracy where instead of decisions being the votes of all individuals but by the purposeful actions of all individuals.
Detractors will claim that you can't trust people to make the right decisions with their resources and their lives, so of course you need a coercive foce such as government to correct these "failures". In order to choose who sits in government to make these corrections detractors will be proponents of a democratic process... believing that the choices of all individuals will put best people in power, basically a market for government power. My questions then becomes, if you don't believe peoples decisions individually can manage resources then how can you claim that those same individuals decisions on who to manage will be any better?
The counter arument would be "Like the markets, we believe it should be a regulated process", thus comes all the campaign finance rules, ballot access measures, and other regulations of the democratic process. Although, if this is a market process these regulations should achieve the same results we see in the market limiting choice thus limiting the ability for individuals to truly take actions that make the market mechanism work at finding the most valued result.
Bottom line...
If you can't believe in Markets, how can you believe in Democracy?
by Alex Merced
Detractors to Capitalism often will make satire of the idea of "the invisible hand" as if Free Market Capitalist believe there is an actual invisible hand. The Invisible hand is a metaphor for much more beautiful and plausible idea; that the actions and choices of every individual under no coercive influence can best manage scarce resources. I mean to anyone who calls themselves anti-establishment, how can this not be a beautiful idea, the lack of central power, the freedom from a top down world. Detractors will then make arguments about "Market Failure" essentially making claims that the market doesn't achive impossible and often impracticle goals such as EQUAL income distribution.
Proponents such as myself are always glad to point out any problems that do exist tend to often if not always come from the results of barriers to entry through prohibitions and costly regulations that inhibit the amount of choice and diversity that makes a market works to it's best ability. Essentially to believe in Free Market Capitalism is to believe in a sort of Market Democracy where instead of decisions being the votes of all individuals but by the purposeful actions of all individuals.
Detractors will claim that you can't trust people to make the right decisions with their resources and their lives, so of course you need a coercive foce such as government to correct these "failures". In order to choose who sits in government to make these corrections detractors will be proponents of a democratic process... believing that the choices of all individuals will put best people in power, basically a market for government power. My questions then becomes, if you don't believe peoples decisions individually can manage resources then how can you claim that those same individuals decisions on who to manage will be any better?
The counter arument would be "Like the markets, we believe it should be a regulated process", thus comes all the campaign finance rules, ballot access measures, and other regulations of the democratic process. Although, if this is a market process these regulations should achieve the same results we see in the market limiting choice thus limiting the ability for individuals to truly take actions that make the market mechanism work at finding the most valued result.
Bottom line...
If you can't believe in Markets, how can you believe in Democracy?
Monday, August 9, 2010
Capitalism, Socialism, and Voluntarism
Capitalism, Socialism, and Voluntarism
by Alex Merced
People blame all the worlds problems on it's systems of resource management, for in the end that is all that Capitalism and Socialism are, systems to managing scarce resources. Quality of life, happiness, joy; these are all things that are not quantifiable, and independent of how resources are managed. Someone in the most tyrannical despotic land can still find joy and happiness cause it's internal and has to do with ones perception of the world around them. So even if we agreed which system of resource management is better, does this mean people will be happy? Probably Not.
If you operate in a system that is objectively seen as "better" by others yet you subjectively see as "corrupt", "tyrannical", "immoral", and many other adjectives; you'll be unhappy since you feel forced to comply with something to which you not consent. This is the overriding issue than that of economics; that of consent. As long as their is a government imposing any system of any type on a entire population there will be despair and unhappiness from those who do not consent to participate. The road to happiness is that of your choosing.
This is the true Anarchist position, whether you call yourself a Anarcho-Capitalist or an Anarcho-Socialist or one of the many of other breeds of anarchist, your still advocating a system. The root of what makes anarchist different is the belief that participation in any of these systems should be voluntary, if everyone consents to play by the rules then any system is arguably workable like any board game is playable with those who are willing to follow the rules. No system can work when imposed on unwilling participants.
Arguably there is a case to be made that multiple communities running different systems that people volunteer in would actually have a positive synergy. If you had one voluntarist community of capitalist they would foster it's citizens competitive and innovative spirits and prices. If there was a neighboring voluntarist socialist community it would offer a place for those who don't want to or can't compete in the competitive capitalist system, yet can still benefit from the innovations of the capitalist society and not mis-manage resources as much cause of the prices set by the capitalist society.
Instead of focusing on which is better and who is right, how about we focus on individual liberty and how voluntarism and liberty leads to beautiful synergy.
by Alex Merced
People blame all the worlds problems on it's systems of resource management, for in the end that is all that Capitalism and Socialism are, systems to managing scarce resources. Quality of life, happiness, joy; these are all things that are not quantifiable, and independent of how resources are managed. Someone in the most tyrannical despotic land can still find joy and happiness cause it's internal and has to do with ones perception of the world around them. So even if we agreed which system of resource management is better, does this mean people will be happy? Probably Not.
If you operate in a system that is objectively seen as "better" by others yet you subjectively see as "corrupt", "tyrannical", "immoral", and many other adjectives; you'll be unhappy since you feel forced to comply with something to which you not consent. This is the overriding issue than that of economics; that of consent. As long as their is a government imposing any system of any type on a entire population there will be despair and unhappiness from those who do not consent to participate. The road to happiness is that of your choosing.
This is the true Anarchist position, whether you call yourself a Anarcho-Capitalist or an Anarcho-Socialist or one of the many of other breeds of anarchist, your still advocating a system. The root of what makes anarchist different is the belief that participation in any of these systems should be voluntary, if everyone consents to play by the rules then any system is arguably workable like any board game is playable with those who are willing to follow the rules. No system can work when imposed on unwilling participants.
Arguably there is a case to be made that multiple communities running different systems that people volunteer in would actually have a positive synergy. If you had one voluntarist community of capitalist they would foster it's citizens competitive and innovative spirits and prices. If there was a neighboring voluntarist socialist community it would offer a place for those who don't want to or can't compete in the competitive capitalist system, yet can still benefit from the innovations of the capitalist society and not mis-manage resources as much cause of the prices set by the capitalist society.
Instead of focusing on which is better and who is right, how about we focus on individual liberty and how voluntarism and liberty leads to beautiful synergy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)