Free-market "failures" and South American socialism

[Hydroblunt]

Quote from futures_shark:



If you admit that free-markets and capitalism work in the UAE & Hong Kong, then I see no reason why it wouldn't work everywhere. But this is obviously a difference of opinion and not provable either way. You are correct in calling them out of the ordinary areas because most of the developed world is under the control of big government.

But they are NOT free market according to YOU. There is government involvement in both of the nations and if the corporations get out of line, the government is expected to step in. If it gets corrupted and the market goes to monopoly/oligopoly you claim it to be the governments fault. There is a socialism aspect to both of the "free market" regions mentioned and there is also the FACT that Hong Kong, UAE and a few other regions that have near free market/raw capitalism economies are very very different from most of the world. I suggest you look into UAE and understand why it is what it is today. You could NEVER run a system like that in USA or most of Europe. This is globalization age, all that crap from the free market spills over somewhere else.

Like I said, and you even requoted wikipedia, there is no consensus on free market principles which are THEORIES that came from raw capitalism/laissez faire. Before you start telling me to reread the wikipedia definition, which I originally read over a year ago, I suggest you do some real research and read much more detailed articles & research paper on raw capitalism. A study of European history and US history about the periods in question would help also. A simple look into how Rockefeller built his empire is exactly what happens. The immigrant NYC slaveshops & factories of the early 1900s is exactly what happens. It's not pretty..

I never claimed to be a proponent of either socialism or total capitalism. I think free market theory is a bunch of crap because it contradicts itself, let alone that there is no real agreement on it. I believe into a combination of both capitalism & socialism, because raw capitalism has horrific consequences on the masses and on the environment, while total socialism is a nightmare of bureaucracy that strangles the market and stuns innovation. There are a few close models out there, USA's welfare state is not bad but far from perfect. Germany has a decent model also but also with its obvious problems.

 

[futures_shark]

Quote from Hydroblunt:

But they are NOT free market according to YOU. There is government involvement in both of the nations and if the corporations get out of line, the government is expected to step in. If it gets corrupted and the market goes to monopoly/oligopoly you claim it to be the governments fault. There is a socialism aspect to both of the "free market" regions mentioned and there is also the FACT that Hong Kong, UAE and a few other regions that have near free market/raw capitalism economies are very very different from most of the world. I suggest you look into UAE and understand why it is what it is today. You could NEVER run a system like that in USA or most of Europe. This is globalization age, all that crap from the free market spills over somewhere else.

Like I said, and you even requoted wikipedia, there is no consensus on free market principles which are THEORIES that came from raw capitalism/laissez faire. Before you start telling me to reread the wikipedia definition, which I originally read over a year ago, I suggest you do some real research and read much more detailed articles & research paper on raw capitalism. A study of European history and US history about the periods in question would help also. A simple look into how Rockefeller built his empire is exactly what happens. The immigrant NYC slaveshops & factories of the early 1900s is exactly what happens. It's not pretty..

I never claimed to be a proponent of either socialism or total capitalism. I think free market theory is a bunch of crap because it contradicts itself, let alone that there is no real agreement on it. I believe into a combination of both capitalism & socialism, because raw capitalism has horrific consequences on the masses and on the environment, while total socialism is a nightmare of bureaucracy that strangles the market and stuns innovation. There are a few close models out there, USA's welfare state is not bad but far from perfect. Germany has a decent model also but also with its obvious problems.

There are no socialist aspects to Hong Kong. What they have there is a limited government. You seem to be confusing any government with socialism. Hong Kong actually has a CEO, rather than a mayor or president. And when you mention UAE I assume your talking about Dubai where the ruler has been busy creating the best business environment in the middle east in preparation for when their oil runs out. Currently, I believe all citizens of Dubai share in the governments oil revenues; more like a shareholder than a socialist.

You keep mentioning the terrible consequences of capitalism in European & American History yet you fail to mention any source for this. I've looked on the web and have found nothing supporting your arguments. I have a book on the way about the history of capitalism in the US but most likely it will refute what you're saying.

You also seem to have something against the Rockfellers. I find it strange when you put their name in Google the top sites are philanthropic organizations set up in the early 1900's. Once again, if you have some source for your views I would be more than happy to read it.

Socialism was created therefore it is definite. Free-market theory attempts to explain natural human behavior and therefore there will be differing viewpoints.

 

[futures_shark]

Hydroblunt, and others, who think capitalism is a bad thing I really reccomend the book I mentioned above.

It seems that the terrible consequences you talk about are due to mercantilism where governments get involved in businesses, not capitalism.

The book also makes an excellant distinction between market entrepreneurs and political entrepreneurs.

For example, the Standard Oil/Rockefeller anti-trust case was bogus. There were over 100 competing businesses at the time but they were tried becauss they were so good they trounced the competition. They displayed no behaviors of a monopoly run business. Rockfeller was a market entreprenuer, his competition were political entreprenuers and they yused the govenrment to attack his business since they weren't smart enough to beat him fairly.