Slavery was responsible for many good things but that doesn't make it acceptable.
It contributes hugely to many problems, which clearly outweigh the unprovable benefits.
I'm having a hard time following you here.
The "Market" (from your wording you treat it as a singular entity which it is not), cannot declare war on other nations. The closest thing to war the "market" can inflict is in the form of private military contractors, which are contracted by the government. Remember its congress and the executive that gets us into wars, and manages to stay in a state of unsustainable war while piling on debt year after year. Not some so called singular entity known to you as the "market".
Blaming water shortages and famine on the "market" instead of nature. I don't see how this makes sense.
Sweat-shops, although they indeed have deplorable conditions, are far better than alternatives. Sweat-shops are the intermediate step between an agricultural civilization and a fully developed, industrialized civilization like the US. If you legislate it such that all companies must provide adequate working conditions and health-care and all the shebang a first world worker is accompanied to, you would drive up the price of labor so much that many companies will choose to relocate. This in turn creates unemployment, forcing many laborers to revert back to a more agricultural lifestyle, or worse, turn to more illicit activities such as child prostitution, prostitution, human trafficking, drug dealing, etc.
The actions of ANY country in the world today are based on economic objectives (often the intrests of certain parties), It's clear that governments of today take a back-seat when it comes to decision-making compared the the 'invisble hand' of the free market.
That's without getting into the fact that wealthy countries eat in excess of what is needed, to the point where it causes health problems in itself.
Water isn't a difficult to obtain commodity, once the piping and water treatment facilities are in place it's cost is quite low.
There are plenty of unnecessary buildings being built around the world, if that effort was used to build water treatment facilities and pipe networks water could easily be made available for most, if not all of the world's population.
But once again this is less profitable than building leisure facilities for those who can pay more.
In what way is work in a sweat-shop 'far better' than agriculture?
I've yet to see bars put on farmer's windows to prevent suicides.
No amount of money will cause people to put in all their effort if they don't enjoy what they do.
-The system at the moment has it's share of monopolies, price-fixing and predatory MNC's.
A true free market with no government interference would lead to price-fixing and market domination on a much greater scale.
While the system of regulation tries to minimise these problems, it by no means eliminates them
-Free markets may be more efficient, the problem is the definition of efficiency.
If you can feed two people enough to survive or feed one person more than he needs which system is more efficient? It's clear that feeding two people is far more productive than feeding one too much.
Free markets define efficiency in terms of the abstract concept of money, rather than maximum utility for given inputs.
If everyone's allowed to make up definitions based on self-serving premises, then clearly burning everything is the most 'lavender' way of doing things.
Free-market economies aren't some sort of ideal, they have serious problems and are arguably not economic at all.
For all their benefits they are still far from a reasonable method of utilizing available resources.
I wasn't saying they were true, I was just responding to the claim that it's not possible to measure them.
Raise in taxes = less disposable income. It's pretty much impossible for real GDP to grow when people have less money to spend.
It doesn't apply to the wealthy which is who was paying the really high tax rates in the 50s.
"Yeah interest rates don't matter because pancakes".
That's your reply.
Cutting spending only makes the economy worse which makes the debt worse, so that's obviously not the answer.
What is the evidence for capitalism being responsible for starvation? If anything it reduces starvation because the profit motive drives producers to want to produce more food at a lower cost and to pass these savings on to consumers. On the other hand we can find examples of millions of people dying from starvation in the USSR and China with their planned economies.
Can you explain the need for empirical research to validate many basic micro and macro economic concepts? It might be a good place to start on the laws on diminishing returns.
Treasury bonds are bought and sold by the Federal Reserve as one of their tools to control the supply of money.
They can decrease supply by selling bonds. Money used to buy the bonds is essentially removed from circulation. The interest rates on bonds are used to entice people to buy or sell depending on if they want to increase money supply or decrease. Low interest rates gets people to sell them, thereby increasing the supply of money when the Fed gives them cash for the bond.
The government still pays interest on debt to it's own people... the interest is the entire reason people buy the bonds. If they just print the extra money for interest you get super inflation.
-pretty much what sg said above-
Um yeah they print the money to pay the interest on them.
It said right in the thing I quoted that money is printed to buy Treasury bonds from people which includes the interest payment. You don't get the interest until you sell the bond. The cost doesn't matter because the function is to put money into the economy.
And on top of that the Federal Reserve makes several billion dollars in profit every year (50-100 billion) and they give 90% of it to the Treasury, which they aren't required to do.
I was talking about the workers in factories, their quality of life is disgraceful and to claim it's far better than agricultural employment is absurd.
You seem to be talking about the products they produce, which hardly justifies what is essentially slavery.
Crop failures and other shortages are inevitable in any system but a more egalitarian method would ensure as many people as possible get what they need.
The market is made of many people pursuing their own personal interests, which leads to abuses of power that are evident throughout the world, not to mention complete disinterest in helping those who can't pay their way.
A government is by no means immune to abuses of power, but at least officials can be held directly accountable for their actions.
Both the free-market and governments are collections of people but governments are more structured and are expected to represent the interests of their citizens.
Governments have to consider the effects of their decisions on society at large before committing to them, whereas actors in a free-market only need to be concerned with profit.
It's not "essentially slavery".
If they have a choice between working in prostitution, begging on the streets, or working in a sweat shop, they are going to work at a sweat shop. They choose it because it is the best possible alternative. No one is being abducted and forced into "slave labor", there is heavy competition to get into these jobs.
Not to mention what are they doing with the money that don't go back to the Treasury?
Unless I'm missing something here, all workers choose to work. Maybe its just me, but I haven't heard of evil greedy corporations kidnapping people in the night and holding a gun to their heads; forcing them to work.
Workers work because they choose to seek employment, was satisfied by the pay/job quality offered by the employer, and choose to show up and work.
If they really thought their jobs were shit and that agricultural work was easy as pie (toiling in the sweltering sun all day isn't much better than sweatshop labor), then why in the world would they work for those "evil evil greedy corporations"
I don't believe in a priori truths, but even if I did, it still doesn't necessarily follow that any given mathematical formalisation of an economic concept applies to the real world. If I have any formal system X, and it turns out that p is a theorem in X, then p is true if and only if there is an isomorphism found between X and some aspect of the real world. The empirical research is needed to establish the isomorphism between X and the real world.
In the most trivial sense, you need empirical data to establish that humans can be modelled as economic agents, for example. If you were a non-human observer, it wouldn't be immediately obvious that this was the case.
A concrete example: there is substantial evidence that humans do not always act in the rational manner that most(?) economic theories predict. The Allais Paradox is a good example.
i see a thread about economic conservatism, and what i get is people arguing about economic liberalism.
for me the problem with capitalism is the same problem Marx had with capitalism, it's too costly and exploits one group of people for the sake of another group of people. essentially feudalism without divine right.
even the most free of markets during the colonial days was made possible only due to the aggressive policies of governments in that era.
By the definition of free market, that is not a very free market.
But I am interested in the actual policies though, if you could name some that would be very interesting
free market just means the prices of goods are controlled by supply and demand and not by government intervention
the definition doesn't say anything about how the goods or capital is acquired. slavery ultimately operated in a free-market. colonial governments making that possible doesn't change a thing.
It is also important not to get sucked into the Platonic thought that concepts are not derived from reality. I would put forward that any axiomatic statement is a statement derived from all particular instances in reality and that the statement is the proof itself.
For instance, the core axiom in Austrian economics is that humans act. This is considered to be axiomatic as making the claim that humans act, is acting. Logically, the claim cannot be refuted or even responded to without someone acting.
But I am slightly confused by the claim you are making. Why would humans have to always act rationally for economic theories to be valid? Would a biological science need the same prediction ability as a physical science to be considered valid? If so, why?
If I have you in a cage and tell you to either make me clothes or starve to death, you will do whatever you can to stay alive, that doesn't make the situation acceptable by even the lowest standards of human dignity.
Are the workers satisfied with the pay and job quality?
Because a huge number of workers who have protested against the poor pay and conditions are murdered, leaving others reluctant to speak up, were these workers just 'greedy' for wanting basic rights and minimal wage increases to afford adequate food?
A huge part of the problem with agricultural work is land ownership and guess what?
People who try to initiate policies of land reform also routinely go 'missing'.
If sweat-shop workers and tenant farmers are so satisfied with their lot in life why is it necessary to kill people who try to organise to get better pay and conditions?
Surely if the workers are so happy there's no reason to make an example to prevent them asking for more.
Other than that I seem to be in agreement with you. I'll not post more because my knowledge of economics is limited.
I also don't get your example, no one is forcing these workers to do anything. They simply provide a better alternative to what these workers would normally be doing to survive. There is no force, no extortion going on here. Same thing with your example about the airless room. Unlike your examples, there is actually no force being exercised on these people. They're offered a better alternative to the normal way of life in their country, and they take it, that's all there is to it. No force involved.
How is capitalism to blame for anything? Why shouldn't people have to provide resources for themselves to survive? i.e receiving money by selling their labor. It's either that, or someone else has to provide the resources for them, they don't appear out of thin air. Capitalism has always worked because the profit motive drives businesses to cut inefficiency and waste and make improvements in technology so that they can produce more with less resources. It's far from inexplicable, and you aren't ever going to find a better or more efficient economic system.
You seem to believe I blame the companies for this, their exploitative actions are merely incidental and are predictable given the system in which they operate.
There is no force involved because there is no need for force.
Working in a sweatshop is certainly preferable to starvation but neither should happen in a world of abundant resources such as we live in.
I agree that people should provide something in return for what they need, the problem lies in the fact that more powerful individuals and organisations can dictate rewards for labour, they have enough control that they can give people a pittance and reap the rewards of their productivity.
Capitalism hasn't been around for very long, has it always worked?
Economic systems are put in place to provide goods and services in an efficient manner, when you see people starving while others are dying from obesity there's clearly a problem with that system. Allowing such utter mismanagement of the earth's resources (Not to mention overuse of those resources) is inexplicable unless you can offer a reasonable explanation for why this is the case.
Improved efficiency depends on your definition of the word, surely rearing cattle for slaughter is inefficient when you could take the grain fed to cows and simply give it to people.
To merely assume there is no other possible system, now or in the future, that is better than capitalism is nonsensical and naive.