Capitalism: Do you believe in it? (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter Orwell
- Start date
wannaspoon
ремове кебаб
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2012
- Messages
- 1,401
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2007
- Uni Grad
- 2014
Yes, that phone you own, the computer that you used to type that message, the clothes on your back, the retail/hospitality/whatever job you picked up to get you a bit of cash while at school, etc are all products of something beyond the notions of a free market
Capitalism is good, croney capitalism is very, very bad
There is obviously an element of welfare and opportunity that the government needs to impose (eg: the provision of education, pensions, disability care and unemployment assistance)... However, the free market is quite a thing, if you examine it in detail...
Last edited:
This (often repeated) analogy is simply absurd. It has nothing to do with we whether ought to be pro-capitalist or anti-capitalist; it merely is a descriptive statement affirming that we live in a capitalist society. It's simply absurd to insinuate that if one were to hold a coherent anti-capitalist ethic they should like reject literally everything associated with the capitalist system. Additionally, many arguments can be made (and have been made) that the development of innovative technologies can in particular be attributed to the state-sector, rather than the free-market per se http://www.amazon.com/The-Entrepreneurial-State-Debunking-Economics/dp/0857282522 (not that I'm a big fan of the state but whatevs)
How do you demarcate between capitalism and "croney capitalism"?
Last edited:
Orwell
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2015
- Messages
- 830
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2017
Subsidisation of businesses/government officials using unethical means to keep businesses at the top.
Thing is, I don't believe we have a capitalist society nor a mixed economy. Currently, in America and Australia, the system we have in place is a system of corporatism.
Thing is, I don't believe we have a capitalist society nor a mixed economy. Currently, in America and Australia, the system we have in place is a system of corporatism.
seremify007
Junior Member
Yes.
Orwell
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2015
- Messages
- 830
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2017
Re: Taxpayers fund private school orchestra pits and swimming pools
Voluntarilysm. Privatisation. Broaden your horizons saltedwound.
Private police figures prominently in anarcho-capitalist theory and, along with advocacy of private defense agencies, dispute resolution organizations, and private production of law, distinguishes it from minarchism. It is argued that complete privatization of the police function (with funding, control, ownership, etc. of all police forces passing to private entities) would eliminate the ability of the state to forcibly collect taxes, and that arguably the only way it could work would be within the context of a society in which all other services were privatized as well.
This once more reverberates this notion of quality facilitated by the free-market/advocacy of competition.
Voluntarilysm. Privatisation. Broaden your horizons saltedwound.
Private police figures prominently in anarcho-capitalist theory and, along with advocacy of private defense agencies, dispute resolution organizations, and private production of law, distinguishes it from minarchism. It is argued that complete privatization of the police function (with funding, control, ownership, etc. of all police forces passing to private entities) would eliminate the ability of the state to forcibly collect taxes, and that arguably the only way it could work would be within the context of a society in which all other services were privatized as well.
This once more reverberates this notion of quality facilitated by the free-market/advocacy of competition.
Last edited:
Re: Taxpayers fund private school orchestra pits and swimming pools
The thing is that people who gain an education earn far more than people without and education and therefore pay more tax and increase australian wages. This then increases consumption and domestic investment as well as increasing the productive output of the australian economy further increasing australian exports as well as government spending increasing. This all increases australias GDP and economic growth. Australia with huge government intervention is far better off than countries without government intervention in education when compared to african nations such as central african republic which allows for complete freedom of market from the government and suffers drastically as market inefficiencies destroy the economy there.
The thing is that people who gain an education earn far more than people without and education and therefore pay more tax and increase australian wages. This then increases consumption and domestic investment as well as increasing the productive output of the australian economy further increasing australian exports as well as government spending increasing. This all increases australias GDP and economic growth. Australia with huge government intervention is far better off than countries without government intervention in education when compared to african nations such as central african republic which allows for complete freedom of market from the government and suffers drastically as market inefficiencies destroy the economy there.
Re: Taxpayers fund private school orchestra pits and swimming pools
It is so ridiculous to assume that a country would be better off with the market deciding everything. In the US private health insurance companies own their healthcare system and they pay more than any other country in the world for worse healthcare outcomes becomes of this privatization. Per capita they spend $8,713 on healthcare compared to Australia $3866 on healthcare. If this is privatized waiting periods increase as their only incentive is for profit and not actual healthcare outcomes as well as this they don't live as long as Australians and pay more than 2x what we pay for one of the most inefficient healthcare systems in the world. Thanks to the liberal party Australia will be headed in this same direction as the US.
It is so ridiculous to assume that a country would be better off with the market deciding everything. In the US private health insurance companies own their healthcare system and they pay more than any other country in the world for worse healthcare outcomes becomes of this privatization. Per capita they spend $8,713 on healthcare compared to Australia $3866 on healthcare. If this is privatized waiting periods increase as their only incentive is for profit and not actual healthcare outcomes as well as this they don't live as long as Australians and pay more than 2x what we pay for one of the most inefficient healthcare systems in the world. Thanks to the liberal party Australia will be headed in this same direction as the US.
Re: Taxpayers fund private school orchestra pits and swimming pools
The market has some clear inefficiencies which I don't think you realize. The environment is the obvious one where if say there were no regulations and companies polluted all they like as seen in china the air quality becomes ridiculously bad and leads to serious health impacts that end up costing the tax payers more because the health costs of asthma etc are greatly increased which is an obvious inefficiency. Other inefficiencies include healthcare which costs the US taxpayer $14.541 trillion dollars if they opted for an Australian medicare system which would almost completely eliminate their deficit. Obviously they would have to pay more taxes to reduce these inefficiencies but they would save so much over the long term. Education works the exact same way providing a premium charge to private educators for their own profit, and hence the inefficiency. So maybe you dont care if poor people get a education or not from a "human rights" perspective but from an economic perspective it is clearly in your best interest for all Australians to obtain an education for the very reasons I have highlighted, (unless of course your parents own a private school then you'll be much better off). I always find it interesting how people can be sucked into going against their own economic self interest and denying logic based on highschool economics which does not highlight inefficiencies in a real world global market context.
The market has some clear inefficiencies which I don't think you realize. The environment is the obvious one where if say there were no regulations and companies polluted all they like as seen in china the air quality becomes ridiculously bad and leads to serious health impacts that end up costing the tax payers more because the health costs of asthma etc are greatly increased which is an obvious inefficiency. Other inefficiencies include healthcare which costs the US taxpayer $14.541 trillion dollars if they opted for an Australian medicare system which would almost completely eliminate their deficit. Obviously they would have to pay more taxes to reduce these inefficiencies but they would save so much over the long term. Education works the exact same way providing a premium charge to private educators for their own profit, and hence the inefficiency. So maybe you dont care if poor people get a education or not from a "human rights" perspective but from an economic perspective it is clearly in your best interest for all Australians to obtain an education for the very reasons I have highlighted, (unless of course your parents own a private school then you'll be much better off). I always find it interesting how people can be sucked into going against their own economic self interest and denying logic based on highschool economics which does not highlight inefficiencies in a real world global market context.
Orwell
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2015
- Messages
- 830
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2017
Re: Taxpayers fund private school orchestra pits and swimming pools
We've heard it before and I'll say it again, it's as rudimentary as: Quality > Quantity.
I don't agree with saltedwound, in fact, the guy's more than likely a spastic who when confronted can't even get the bat off his shoulder. I'm not going off any of the economics content I've learnt in school, this is all from leisure readings of Austrian Economics School Theory. I'll insert and extract from a website I was reading: Crony-capitalism is, by the dictionary, “a term describing an economy in which success in business depends on close relationships between business people and government officials. It may be exhibited by favoritism in the distribution of legal permits, government grants, special tax breaks, or other forms of state interventionism.” Needless to say, real capitalists condemn such a vile maneuver. In capitalism, interventionism and protection are emphatically rejected. It is the very core of the laissez – faire: don’t intervene our business, don’t protect our business, don’t regulate our business: give us liberties and let us do. Unfortunately, due to some cronies, the whole system (a system of innovation and creation of wealth) has to bear with a fearsome reputation.
No-one opts for an environmentally detrimental business, to assume one would is downright ludicrous. I've stated this before, if businesses desire prosperity in the free market they must show strict adherence to consumer wants and preferences. Unless a majority of people want to see the environment being destroyed and demolished, businesses will ensure that they preserve the environment, if not, they'll fall second to businesses that do. There is profit in mind, that's the aim of a business, however, in the free-market it's competitive which means in order to make profit you have to go beyond and above your competitors.
We've heard it before and I'll say it again, it's as rudimentary as: Quality > Quantity.
I don't agree with saltedwound, in fact, the guy's more than likely a spastic who when confronted can't even get the bat off his shoulder. I'm not going off any of the economics content I've learnt in school, this is all from leisure readings of Austrian Economics School Theory. I'll insert and extract from a website I was reading: Crony-capitalism is, by the dictionary, “a term describing an economy in which success in business depends on close relationships between business people and government officials. It may be exhibited by favoritism in the distribution of legal permits, government grants, special tax breaks, or other forms of state interventionism.” Needless to say, real capitalists condemn such a vile maneuver. In capitalism, interventionism and protection are emphatically rejected. It is the very core of the laissez – faire: don’t intervene our business, don’t protect our business, don’t regulate our business: give us liberties and let us do. Unfortunately, due to some cronies, the whole system (a system of innovation and creation of wealth) has to bear with a fearsome reputation.
No-one opts for an environmentally detrimental business, to assume one would is downright ludicrous. I've stated this before, if businesses desire prosperity in the free market they must show strict adherence to consumer wants and preferences. Unless a majority of people want to see the environment being destroyed and demolished, businesses will ensure that they preserve the environment, if not, they'll fall second to businesses that do. There is profit in mind, that's the aim of a business, however, in the free-market it's competitive which means in order to make profit you have to go beyond and above your competitors.
eyeseeyou
Well-Known Member
Re: Taxpayers fund private school orchestra pits and swimming pools
But you're the one that's saying there should be no taxation at all
eyeseeyou
Well-Known Member
Re: Taxpayers fund private school orchestra pits and swimming pools
Dunno but I'm pointing the fact that you're saying that there should be no taxation at all
eyeseeyou
Well-Known Member
Re: Taxpayers fund private school orchestra pits and swimming pools
Yeah nobody wants to damage the environment on purpose but what occurs is that it happens accidentally because their only incentive is for their short term profit over the long term benefit for the market economy. No environment = no profit and economy.
Yeah nobody wants to damage the environment on purpose but what occurs is that it happens accidentally because their only incentive is for their short term profit over the long term benefit for the market economy. No environment = no profit and economy.
Paradoxica
-insert title here-
Re: Taxpayers fund private school orchestra pits and swimming pools
Well, the Tragedy of the commons is unfortunately a result of single minded bias.