Capitalism: a Love Story

[Darus Grey]

When governments outsource their traditional responsibilities to private firms, the result is often either more costly, or of poorer quality than when the government provided it, because of the need for profit.

Blackwater, for example. Student loans, for another. London Underground, for another.

Also ignoring that, it's just an extension of GOVERNMENT FUNDS. The government is still investing it, just paying someone different for the work.

There is no company that will just build a bunch of roads, by themselves, with their own money, and charge tolls to use them. Because it's not profitable, but at the same time, it's those roads that let people get to their business.

[Solefald]

That was a major topic for me, essentially capitalism is a product of nations competing with each other. The worth of a currency is evaluated against the worth of another.

If you actually had a one-world government, or potentially just a world currency, the value suddenly becomes completely arbitrary. The issue here is that the government needs to implement price controls, and enforce them, otherwise economy will degrade into a barter system as hyperinflation takes hold.

But if enforced price controlling is in effect, then value of currency is entirely fiat, in which case the government can print/circulate as much money as needed to meet a livable wage for all citizens, as long as there isn't a competition for resources(which there shouldn't be...we have enough arable land to feed 30billion+ humans if it's used efficiently. We currently produce enough to feed 14 billion...and *throw most of it away*, cause it's cheaper to throw it away, than give it away...another triumph of capitalism btw.)

Bad idea. That screws with national/regional competitive advantage, and reduces the ability of economically depressed areas to stimulate their economies. Look at the problems Spain is having since it went on the Euro. A lot of other Euro nations are doing relatively well in this recession, but because Spain can't devalue its currency it is having a harder time recovering.

[Darus Grey]

Bad idea. That screws with national/regional competitive advantage, and reduces the ability of economically depressed areas to stimulate their economies. Look at the problems Spain is having since it went on the Euro. A lot of other Euro nations are doing relatively well in this recession, but because Spain can't devalue its currency it is having a harder time recovering.

Non-issue if there's *only one currency*.

[Cadsuane]

That was a major topic for me, essentially capitalism is a product of nations competing with each other. The worth of a currency is evaluated against the worth of another.

If you actually had a one-world government, or potentially just a world currency, the value suddenly becomes completely arbitrary. The issue here is that the government needs to implement price controls, and enforce them, otherwise economy will degrade into a barter system as hyperinflation takes hold.

But if enforced price controlling is in effect, then value of currency is entirely fiat, in which case the government can print/circulate as much money as needed to meet a livable wage for all citizens, as long as there isn't a competition for resources(which there shouldn't be...we have enough arable land to feed 30billion+ humans if it's used efficiently. We currently produce enough to feed 14 billion...and *throw most of it away*, cause it's cheaper to throw it away, than give it away...another triumph of capitalism btw.)

I... that's really not how economics works.

[Sho]

You people are more interesting than the majority of my own buddies that major in this stuff. Thank you for blowing up (see: "increasing") my IQ more. >_>

Back to it.

[Darus Grey]

I... that's really not how economics works.

It is in a one-world system. Economics is based on competition, take away competition and the rules completely change. We're talking about essentially a global monopoly here, it's really as simple as they can do whatever they want.

[Kuya]

Also, it should be mentioned, that privatizing is not necessarily bad, it just requires that:

A- multiple companies compate for the role of providing a service

B- sufficient regulation and oversight is enforced in order to keep the company efficient (especially if it only has competitors before it is granted a role and not after).

C* A government institution can also be as efficient as a private one working within a competitive environment, particularly if... you guessed, if the government institution is within a competitive environment. The idea that the government can print money is not particularly true, since the different arms of government function independently to some degree, and the purse belongs to Congress, so the government institution providing the service does not have easy access to all the money it wants; that is simply absurd. There are other condiserations, but i do not want to get into a government vs. private sector argument since that seems like an old argument compared to what we're talking about now.

As to the idea of a one-world government... wouldn't that be a bit of an administrative nightmare? This is only speculation, but i only see that working if the government uses inmense surveillence technology in order to function or if the government is relatively hands free.

[Darus Grey]

I went the massive surveillance route, when I was writing up the system for a functional one-world government based on an entirely fiat finance system. A government with a completely fiat currency also has nearly unlimited resources to expend on enforcement. If you had a lax government, you couldn't enforce price controls, which leads to hyperinflation to barter.

I envisioned a scenario where cameras combined with RFID tags talked to each other to identify bootleg goods trying to work their way into the system. I.e. a complete database of....every object...in the world!. This is how you enforce price control, by making sure every product, everywhere, is licensed and sold at agreed upon rates. I also got rid of physical cash, so the only way to spend money was on government approved goods, which would be linked to their owners unless legally sold through the same system.

Madness you say!? Bwhahahah, this is just a glimpse into the depths.

I certainly would not want to live in this world, I just postulate how it could function.

[Cadsuane]

It is in a one-world system. Economics is based on competition, take away competition and the rules completely change. We're talking about essentially a global monopoly here, it's really as simple as they can do whatever they want.

You don't see a problem with repressing an essential darwinistic aspect of economics, the autocratic and overarching nature of the government you're describing, or the malthusian crisis that would probably occur when prices no longer limit resource consumption?

[Kuya]

Yea, that is definitely not the option i'd want.

edit: 3 things

He is not advocating a super authoritarian government.

I thought that the Malthusian crisis was discredited after the green revolution.

Isn't the creation of Economics as a field of study primariraly based on the administration and understanding of the capitalist government? Social sciences were also, in part, created by the nation-state and every nation-state involved in this process was capitalist. In effect, the justification used for getting rid of the old field of political economics (market administrated by the government) was in part to justify separating the government from the free market, because this was the reigning ideal that was taking over; capitalism. Basically what i'm trying to say, is it prudent to invoke the darwinistic nature of economics, when economics (as a social science) was born out of capitalism itself? If capitalism dies, doesn't economics as we know it lose legitimacy?

I think the problem is, we're speculating about things that are both outside of our paradigms, and they don't exist.

[Solefald]

using "unlimited resources" to combat hyperinflation... makes sense.

[Olo401]

You people are more interesting than the majority of my own buddies that major in this stuff. Thank you for blowing up (see: "increasing") my IQ more. >_>

Back to it.

You're welcome ^^ Glad we all could be of service.

[Darus Grey]

You don't see a problem with repressing an essential darwinistic aspect of economics, the autocratic and overarching nature of the government you're describing, or the malthusian crisis that would probably occur when prices no longer limit resource consumption?

In a word, no. I don't see a problem with it being able to function, we're talking about a distant future here where computational power will make most issues of presence reach irrelevant. We're talking about a REAL 1984, taken to the next(5) levels.

Also why mention a Malthusian Crisis? I already stated we're operating under the assumption that enough food CAN be produced and is not a contended resource...so why mention it?

(I honestly think people like to throw out concepts they assume others don't know like it somehow refutes something...).

[Cadsuane]

I'm throwing it out there because if Malthus was right, the fact that food and other resources aren't contended for just means people will multiply like crazy until they are.

[Kuya]

Anthropology and geography aren't my strong points. Is there anything other than disease and food that limits population growth?

[Cadsuane]

According to Daniel Quinn's the Story of B, food (edit: and space) is really the only thing. Darus' scenario would just replace normal competition mechanisms with Orwellian ones, but, he's sort of acknowledged that.

[Solefald]

Anthropology and geography aren't my strong points. Is there anything other than disease and food that limits population growth?

Economics, culture, generational trends, among others I guess. Western Europe's population growth is being sustained almost entirely by immigration. Japan's and Russia's populations are shrinking due to aging and lack of immigration.

[Beckwin]

That's nice and all, but if he's against capitalism so much, would you not expect him to put his balls on the line and just offer it for free period?

That just screams "I'm against capitalism when its convenient for me" In my eyes.

that would imply that socialism is against being properly compensated for your work... which would be a gross misunderstanding of socialism. And as Correction pointed out, it isn't free to make movies. Saying that all socialists have to not use money (aka run off in the woods and live like ascetic buddhist monks) is pretty ridiculous.

[Darus Grey]

I'm throwing it out there because if Malthus was right, the fact that food and other resources aren't contended for just means people will multiply like crazy until they are.

Hasn't history proven that wrong? people who are content and fiscally secure have less sex and less children on average. "Success" is the best birth control, along with TV(we can only assume VR will be even more effective).

In PolySci classes we were always shown it's poor people who statistically have the most sex and children, because they're poor and they can't afford other forms of entertainment. Which humans by all statistics, prefer to sex.

[Beckwin]

Because no one on this board has an academic outlook on libertarianism or conservatism ( I think ). If swamp, leif and crew pop in here you might get some but-but-but's about the post office or welfare queens but thats about it.

A few pages later this will be forgotten by those that would argue against it and it's our responsibility to dickslap their attempts with a copypasta of your post.

And for that we thanks you.

pohibaba and guartz can argue for libertarianism/capitalism well enough. I've had long discussions with both in the past; I still don't agree with either on much of anything outside of foreign policy issues, but they can definitely put forth a genuine argument without Leif's hannitytalk or sirrus' "hay bitch shit ur dunm hows that dick taste" version of hannitytalk.