|
|
|
|
|
|
|
shall she sail seas Vice Captain
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 8:55 pm
At the risk of looking like a complete idiot. I have a question. Interpret what you will out of it:
You know how there are a lot of arguments for/against separation of church and state? What about economy and state? It almost seems that with what's going on right now, there is this very subtle argument among corporate leaders and political leaders about this.
Uhh... you're free to move/delete this topic if the question really is that stupid. I'm honestly clueless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2008 11:28 pm
To clarify the terms I will be using in the follow up..
Laissez-faire- A free market economy with no government involvement whatsoever.
Socialism-An economy under complete control of the government, essentially.
Capitalism- Laissez Faire
Communism- A branch of socialism. For this argument it has nothing to do with politics, like it was meant to be by Marx.
This argument has been around for quite a while, probably since the time these two forms of economies were thought of. The whole strife between capitalism and communism in Cold War and the strife that's going on today is
The problem with Laissez-faire/capitalistic systems is that there is absolutely no government involvement. The government can't set prices, can't guarantee whether critical items such as food and clothing are being sold and so on. And since free market is all about competition, prices will always to continue to fluctuate. Free Market economies also permit existence of monopolies because there is no government to prevent them from existing or to outlaw them. As we have learned from experience monopolies are quite bad.
The problem with socialism/communism is that for it to work everyone has to be socialist/communist. That's why USSR was so hell bet on spreading it all over the world. Also there is absolutely no competition in such a state and all the people reap equal benefits. Even those who don't work or do anything for the community. Of course that's not how it worked under the Bolshevik government but that's because the Bolshevik government completely perverted the communist/socialist ideals to their own goals, proving that socialism can only work in a Utopian society where people are not driven by greed or envy.
Myself, I prefer a combination of the two which is what the modern U.S./Russian government is. Government exerts just enough control to keep the economy from going south, but not so much that it fully controls the economy. However, the U.S. obviously didn't control economy quite enough as we can see by the current Recessions and the reasons that lead to it. (Playing on mortgages on Wall Street which is like selling something that doesn't exist for large sums of money... )
If you want me to clarify, I will. It maybe sorta weird because I'm Russian and because I'm out of coffee and am running on 3 hours of sleep.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
shall she sail seas Vice Captain
|
Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2008 8:58 am
NOTE: Forgive me if I say something stupid because I'm a n00ber 1st year Poli Econ student.
I was thinking regulation more along the lines of what IMF or World Bank was ideally used for.... only to be applied on a national scale as opposed to a global scale, run by a non-profit institution (could possibly even be government funded) but does not necessarily follow orders from the government.
Or does that just complicate things for the worse?
I guess this is why I used the church/state thing as an opening line... because the church (or churches) is generally non-profit, possibly funded by the government, and does not have direct control of the government nor does the government have direct control of the church.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
