What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Business, Economics, and Taxes: Capitalism. Yay? >=(

Status
Not open for further replies.
dxmnkd316 said:
bieksa-superman.gif
Click to expand...

Mayo sucks...be less White ;^)
 
Mayo by itself has little value no matter how good it is. Mixed with mustard, or Sri Racha or whatever it has its place. Even in Asian cuisine you'd be surprised especially Kewpie.

Thank goodness no one here is arguing in favor of Miracle Whip or I might have to go nuclear.
 
A conversation I am having on reddit, submitted for discussion.

Context:

The problem with using the term "free market" to refer to "unregulated market" is not that unregulated markets don't exist but that they can't exist, by definition because it's a contradiction. Markets are defined by regulation in the same way that nation states are defined by borders. Talking of an unregulated market is like talking about a borderless nation state. (unless I suppose one were to presume some sort of one world government but even then there would be hypothetical limits to its sovereignity in practical terms)
Click to expand...

My response:

This is an interesting way to look at it. What would you say to someone who in contrast compared an unregulated market to a river in nature without human contact? It follows a blind logic (volume and gravity = supply and demand). It has no "value" in the way a natural river is not defined in terms of human uses or risks. So, you may try to ride it to move faster, and it may as easily flood and kill your family. But it is still a river. In that way, an unregulated market does exist.

I think it is more fair to say as soon as any human sees a river she bestows it with meaning and value based on her needs and wants. If nothing else, it is a barrier. But very quickly, and especially as more people are involved, it becomes transportation, a food source, a threat, a power source, an amusement... In the same way, it's impossible to have a "value-free" market: the second humans enter their choices become distortions / regulations / preferences. There are winners and losers. And, people being people, they immediately begin to cheat and coerce.

So either you let the system be "free" in the sense that the strongest and fastest and luckiest dominate everyone else (Capitalism), or you recognize that regulation is inevitable and democratize it (Socialism).
Click to expand...

Full sub thread here.
 
Kepler said:
A conversation I am having on reddit, submitted for discussion.

Context:



My response:



Full sub thread here.
Click to expand...

I disagree with the presumption that there's a binary state of no regulation = capitalism and regulation = socialism. A regulated market doesn't automatically equal socialism. The commodities market in Chicago is highly regulated and also one of the purest forms of capitalism out there.
 
unofan said:
I disagree with the presumption that there's a binary state of no regulation = capitalism and regulation = socialism. A regulated market doesn't automatically equal socialism. The commodities market in Chicago is highly regulated and also one of the purest forms of capitalism out there.
Click to expand...

Regulation is unavoidable, it's just a question of who controls it: the voracious feudal rich, the corrupt and cynical Capitalist state, or an impartial (with heavy oversight) technocracy.

This is the OP's follow-on and I quite agree with them:

The problem is that you can point to a "natural river" that exists apart from human contact but you can't point to a market that exists apart from human contact. Markets are social constructed. Their construction is best understood as being through regulation.

If I were to walk into a open area where people were gathering to buy and sale, and there was no regulation, then I could go up to a person and just take their goods without payment. What is to stop me? What enforces contract and property rights?

Maybe those regulations are not enforced by a central government. It can also be enforced through some sort of moral/cultural/social principle, or through a federative association. It can be self enforced through personal threat of violence. But there's still some regualtive principle at work.

When the concept of "free markets" arose this was in the context of mercantalist State competition. What people like Adam Smith were calling for was free trade and for the peaceful buying and selling within the competitive global market. Free" here is an inherently moral and metaphysical concept. One's definition of "free" can't be taken for granted anymore than if you and I were to debate the morality of slavery. Free is metaphysical. It is not a property of physical material reality.

Capitalism depends on regulation just as much as socialism. Capitalism only exists to the degree in which property rights of capital owners are enforced.

The distinction you draw is really more between oligarchy and democracy. Which I agree that socialism is a form of economic democracy and that capitalism is economic oligarchy. But you can have markets in both feudal, capitalistic, and socialist societies (even if you take a very strict Marxist view on socialism as lower phase socialism includes a market economy purchased with labor vouchers)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The OP is right. There is no such thing as a truly unregulated market. Whether it's who has the biggest pile of money, the biggest gun, or both, someone has to enforce the trades and will always come out on top. Say we agree to trade $1 for an apple. What happens when someone refuses to give the full $1? Who's to enforce that? Morality, rules, and equity are not able to enforce that. They're just motivations or constructs. If we choose no "rules" then it goes to who has the biggest gun and the market self regulates that way.

it's a lot cleaner to let the gun be a government. Slightly less people die.
 
dxmnkd316 said:
The OP is right. There is no such thing as a truly unregulated market. Whether it's who has the biggest pile of money, the biggest gun, or both, someone has to enforce the trades and will always come out on top. Say we agree to trade $1 for an apple. What happens when someone refuses to give the full $1? Who's to enforce that? Morality, rules, and equity are not able to enforce that. They're just motivations or constructs. If we choose no "rules" then it goes to who has the biggest gun and the market self regulates that way.

it's a lot cleaner to let the gun be a government. Slightly less people die.
Click to expand...

Fewer.

The problem with the government under Capitalism is the rich immediately co-opt it and it just becomes the same thing. Libertarians and Crony Capitalists make a big show of opposition but the sh-t still comes through the same hole in the end.
 
Interesting development on the "no one wants to work" front:

We're starting to see management at my facility get real anxious with our retention rate and a noticeable lack of incoming applications. We're currently staffed at around 2/3 "capacity". In the past, that number has been around 85-90%. They also realize that the perpetual 58 hour weeks for EVERYONE will push out people that have been otherwise dedicated to a job that was once 48-50 hours. There are glimpses that they are starting to see the light:

- With today's Snomageddon in Chicago, the outright cancelled my shift's OT day. They also told everyone who was regularly scheduled "Show up when you can" and just work your full 10 hour shift.

- They are testing the waters with "flex-scheduling" as well... 2 people per shift (volunteer and based on seniority) can now arrange their start times up to 4 hours before or after the scheduled normal start time (in my case, normal shift is 6:30am - 5pm). So I can start as early as 2:30am or as late as 10:30am. I would work the same 10 or 12 hour shift as everyone else, but just have a different start time.

These are both unprecedented moves, as the schedule has previously been rock solid and a non-negotiable thing up until this point. It's quite the big concession from management when you read between the lines. Things appear to be reaching a breaking point...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top