Thoughts by a country philospher. Warning, this may be dry and boring to most of you

[old Grump]

Was off line for awhile because of family and health reasons and that gave me time to think and stink...er I mean think about things. Every time I hear a politician running for office or a pundit declaring what issues will be crucial to how people vote the word economy comes up. Well my last, first and only economics course was in 1972 at night school while I was in the service.

Since then I have been to busy scrambling and scratching for a living to give a lot of deep thought to it. Now old and retired and slowly mouldering away my little dinosaur brain goes off in strange directions. So for my own purposes I decided to outline what I think I understand and lay out here for critique, criticism and bombastic screaming and yelling by the unwashed and erudite alike.

If I get a lot of positive feed back or negative screaming indicating that my stupid quota has been met for the year I will endeavor to follow up with another essay like this one. Perhaps colored by what I receive from you.

Four Major Types of Economic Systems
The world’s economic systems can be categorized as one of four types: traditional economy, market economy, command economy and mixed economy; this does not take into account the limitless varieties of each system. By definition each system must define what to produce, how to produce it and for whom to produced it. The products produced, where they are produced and how they are produced will determine which system is best suited for that product


A traditional economic system is one in which each new generation retains the economic position of its parents and grandparents. History, social customs and tradition of small local economies determine what an individual will do to provide for his family. There is very little change for each succeeding generation.
Market economies is one where consumers and their choices determine products on the market rather than a governmental agency. Producers choose how to make products based on the best way to bring a product to market: machine labor to save costs vs skilled human laborers with specific skill sets. The buyers decide which products are on the market by their willingness to pay for it. No price controls, no subsidies and minimal regulation of what and how a product is produced. Supply and demand determine pricing. The profit motive for enterprise stimulates production. Information regarding available products and services is made available to producers and consumers. Producers use the information to set prices and buy their raw material for the lowest cost. Price relates directly to the costs, demand for the product and the need for a reasonable profit.
In a command economy, such as communism the government controls every aspect of the economy leaving very little control in the hands of market forces. They are not flexible and react slowly to customers’ needs or wants.
A mixed economy combines qualities of market and command systems into one. When neither the government or the producers and marketers can maintain the economy both sectors must work together to ensure a prosperous economy. Theoretically, this combines the strengths of both systems, but in practice the more governmental control you have the less flexibility you have and governments are loath to relinquish power over anything once they have regulatory control over it. Market economies can respond quicker and more efficiently to world wide demand for their products but governments can ensure the products will be available but at a cost in availability and price due to the stringent demands they place on the producers and the market.

All systems operate under the shadow of politics. A capitalist system is absolutely dependent on a free enterprise system. A free enterprise economic system demands that the government will not unduly interfere with economic transactions. No capitalist economy in practice is completely free enterprise, and it has been a bone of contention for centuries, maybe longer.


The free enterprise model states that transactions should generally not be interfered with by governments. Property rights should be upheld and protected not curtailed by the government. The methods of production should be within reason be left to the producer as long as his production does not interfere with or harm other citizens.



Economic systems that guarantee the fruits of labor to the people who produce such labor, (capitalism), are generally much more productive and create more wealth than economic systems in which the fruits go to the producer and the laborer. Countries such as the former Soviet Union and China have been forced to adopt the Free Enterprise system in order to grow their economies.



Singapore and the United States are noted for having the freest least regulated of all the free economies but both governments retain the rights to regulate business and agriculture which some deem heavy handed and anti-productive.



European free enterprise models have much stricter regulation. Strictly speaking they are still free economies they operate very differently than the USA model.


Adam Smith's laid out the principles for a free economy 200 years ago in his "Wealth of Nations". His theory that “The Invisible Hand of the Market” is more productive than economies run under the strict hand of the governors has been proven. However a lack of regulation does lead to consequences injurious to health, safety, welfare and to the environment if unsafe practices go unchecked. By the same token unchecked economies lad to corruption of the governors who may be inclined to regulate in favor of chosen companies instead of fairly across the board. Thus the conundrum we have now where our bought and paid for government has given the monoliths unfair advantages over the smaller and/or less corrupt competitors.



Libertarian political philosophy postulates that the only true free enterprise economy is one that is entirely unfettered by regulations. In truth there has never been such a system in place, ever. However both the United States and Europe enjoy a free enterprise system, even though regulations are imposed upon them The question is how much regulation is good for our system and how free can you let it be before it deteriorates into a Goliath vs David scenario to the detriment of all.

So whack me boys and girls where am I wrong or right and how wrong am I. This isn't a complete thesis just an outline of where I intend to go with this topic.

[mriddick]

IMO only those regs that protect society at large should be permitted. IMO it's the libertarian view of putting the individual above society that dooms it and it's philosophy when it comes things such as this.

[old Grump]

Define society. I had no idea I had to give up being an individual to be a welcome and productive member of society. :conf44:

[mriddick]

No where did I say you had to give up being an individual.

[stinker]

Singapore and the United States are noted for having the freest least regulated of all the free economies

Not anymore we don't. Not since the 0 took over. We were well on our way with Bubba and the shrub too.

Well written though.

[LAGC]

I agree that free markets tend to be more efficient at allocating and rationing finite resources, adapting to people's wants and setting prices, etc. and should be preferred where most products are involved.

But when it comes to human services, such as security (military/police/prisons) and the general welfare (education/health-care) I really think the government does a better job when the profit motive is taken out of the picture.

I really think the energy sector ought to be socialized as well, as there's really no need for private corporations to profit off of electricity generation, where you get corrupt entities like Enron trying to monopolize the industry and rip people off. And don't even get me started on how much the price of oil/gasoline is straight profit-taking and speculation by "investors."

In short, I think northern Europe has got it about right, the right balance between capitalism and socialism, market and command economies, while still guaranteeing a high standard of living for everyone.

[El Jefe]

I agree that free markets tend to be more efficient at allocating and rationing finite resources, adapting to people's wants and setting prices, etc. and should be preferred where most products are involved.

But when it comes to human services, such as security (military/police/prisons) and the general welfare (education/health-care) I really think the government does a better job when the profit motive is taken out of the picture.

I really think the energy sector ought to be socialized as well, as there's really no need for private corporations to profit off of electricity generation, where you get corrupt entities like Enron trying to monopolize the industry and rip people off. And don't even get me started on how much the price of oil/gasoline is straight profit-taking and speculation by "investors."

In short, I think northern Europe has got it about right, the right balance between capitalism and socialism, market and command economies, while still guaranteeing a high standard of living for everyone.

As long as you get yours with little or no effort, right? I mean actually trying is for others, right?

[LAGC]

As long as you get yours with little or no effort, right? I mean actually trying is for others, right?

No, I think it works better for society as a whole when basic infrastructure and services are provided for free. It provides a foundation for the rest of society to build on and prosper off of, like most of our roads and national freeway system. I think toll roads are silly, along with charging "user fees" for everything.

[stinker]

No, I think it works better for society as a whole when basic infrastructure and services are provided for free

Nothing is free dumdum. Government has no money of it's own. It's all funded through taxes which are all paid by the citizens either directly through confiscation or indirectly through cost of living. You should know this by now.

[El Jefe]

Nothing is free dumdum. Government has no money of it's own. It's all funded through taxes which are all paid by the citizens either directly through confiscation or indirectly through cost of living. You should know this by now.

Apparently it's not convenient for it to admit he's a leach.

[Warthogg]

[QUOTE=stinker;221076] Nothing is free dumdum.

Trust me on this If it is FREE you cannot afford it.


Wart

[old Grump]

No where did I say you had to give up being an individual.


IMO only those regs that protect society at large should be permitted. IMO it's the libertarian view of putting the individual above society that dooms it and it's philosophy when it comes things such as this.
I repeat define society because this statement makes little sense as it stands. It sounds like you are saying that the controls put on free commerce, business and agriculture are 'society' and that Libertarians are against common sense regulations therefore against society. We are not wild eyed bomb flinging anarchists no matter what you think of us. We just wish for the Constitutional Republic that the founders designed for us and we let slip through our fingers. We do NOT want the federal government to be in every single aspect of our working lives.

[LAGC]

Nothing is free dumdum. Government has no money of it's own. It's all funded through taxes which are all paid by the citizens either directly through confiscation or indirectly through cost of living. You should know this by now.

Aren't you a long-haul trucker? How would you feel about roads all being privatized, having to pay tolls on every single stretch of road you drove on, hundreds of dollars day after day? After all, that's what the economic libertarians want. "User fees" for everything, instead of government subsidies. Nevermind the privacy implications (the road owners and government being able to track everywhere you go), doesn't it just make more sense to have one low gas tax pay for it instead, then you can drive wherever you want without Big Brother breathing down your neck?

We need to face it, some things like infrastructure really are better managed by the public sector.

[stinker]

:dammit: ........:violent085:
You REEEEEEEALLY know absolutely nothing about trucking do you?
You would NOT have made this post if you did.


Aren't you a long-haul trucker? How would you feel about roads all being privatized, having to pay tolls on every single stretch of road you drove on, hundreds of dollars day after day? After all, that's what the economic libertarians want. "User fees" for everything, instead of government subsidies.

Trucks allready pay that and way the hell more. Actually, YOU pay it. It just gets added into the cost of transporting every single thing you ever have owned, do own or will own EVER.

For starters truck diesel is taxed at a higher rate than car diesel. Then there's highway use taxes and not to mention the gazillions of permits we have to buy. There's also actual toll roads. Here's a little sample of the fee's we pay as is for a standard 5 axle 18 wheeler.

Verrazano-Narrows Bridge $70
Robert F. Kennedy Bridge $35
Bronx-Whitestone Bridge $35
Throgs Neck Bridge $35
George Washington Bridge $35
Goethals Bridge $65
Will Rogers Turnpike(OK I44) $16.50
Turner Turnpike(OK I44) $16.50
Pennsylvania Turnpike full length $185.50
Ohio Turnpike full length $44
Kansas Turnpike $30
I'm just not going to go there with Chicago's nickel and dime raping system.
That is not even CLOSE to the full list.

Oh, here is a pic of the book of permits i have to carry on the truck at all times.
If you don't have the valid and current papers on you, you do not drive, PERIOD.
The can of gogo juice will give you an idea how thick it is.
http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/6414/0418120105.jpg

Included in that is the forms for when some cop just decides to pull me over at random for no reason at all and demand i go get a piss test too, which i am obligated to do and if i refuse i will never be allowed to drive a truck ever again.

I'm just scratching the expense surface here. When i ran a leased truck i grossed on my best year about $250k...guess that makes me a millionare according to the 0 eh? After expenses were paid out i took $51k(to which my ex put a match to all of it via her stupidity with money, but i digress). That was fuel,note,insurance,etc. Then lets not really go into the taxes that had to go unpaid and that fucking bar(i digress again)


Nevermind the privacy implications (the road owners and government being able to track everywhere you go), doesn't it just make more sense to have one low gas tax pay for it instead, then you can drive wherever you want without Big Brother breathing down your neck?

We need to face it, some things like infrastructure really are better managed by the public sector.

Mr.LAGC, meet Mr.Qualcomm MCP200.

http://www.qualcommtelematics.eu/~/media/Images/Header%20576x240/Hardware/mcp20/mcp20%20persbericht.ashx?mh=240&mw=960

He's a wonderful little companion to help you on your journey across the fruited plains with his many abilities.

He is also mandatory by federal regulation.

He monitors and records your current gps position 24/7.
He monitors and records if your engine is running or not 24/7.
He monitors how fast you drive 24/7 in 1 minute increments.
He automatically detects when the truck moves and records it.
He monitors and records to the second how long you use cruise control.
He monitors and records to the second your engine rpm's.
He monitors and records how far you drive down to 1/10th of a mile.
He allows your dispatcher to take a sattelite pic of your location at any time 24/7.
He detects if you slow down too fast and reports it to the safety personel.
He records and sends an alert to safety if you go 1 second over on your legal drive time.
He gives unconditional permission to the DOT to look at all that info any time they want.

Edit: Almost forgot, he's also gender confused, he has bitching betty's voice :lool:

I'm told how long i can drive, what time frame i have to drive that long, how much i can *work* within an 8 day period, where i can drive, where i can park, how long i have to park, how long i have to sleep, etc.

By the way, did i mention that the federal government tells me exactly what kind of footwear i'm allowed to wear while driving? If what i have on does not meet the criteria it's an instant ticket. Not really an issue for me because i only wear combat boots anyways, but it's the point.

Edgymercate Yarself.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Rules & Regulations (http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/rules-regulations.htm)

I have to know and comply with all that crap and if a cop grills me on what the applicable regs are for something and i don't know it, he can ticket me just for not knowing. I also have to have a copy of that in the truck with me at all times or i get a ticket if i'm caught without it in my posession.

If you get a ticket for breaking any of those rules, the fines can go into THOUSANDS of dollars very quickly over mundane bullshit. Not some pissy little couple hundred dollar ticket that you can get rid of with a defensive driving course like you would get. By having a CDL i'm not even eligible to take defensive driving.

Big brother? What the fuck do you think you know about big brother? :slap:

[LAGC]

Wow, that all sounds pretty harsh.

I still don't understand though, would you prefer there be nothing but privatized toll roads? Wouldn't that make your headaches even worse?

I guess I can kind of see your point that they can already track everything you do anyway, but should everyone have to submit to the same invasion of privacy? Those who don't drive trucks?

[stinker]

Wow, that all sounds pretty harsh.

I still don't understand though, would you prefer there be nothing but privatized toll roads? Wouldn't that make your headaches even worse?

I guess I can kind of see your point that they can already track everything you do anyway, but should everyone have to submit to the same invasion of privacy? Those who don't drive trucks?

We're hijacking grump's thread going here.

[LAGC]

We're hijacking grump's thread going here.

Whoops, okay. Sorry grump, carry on. :)

[mriddick]

I repeat define society because this statement makes little sense as it stands. It sounds like you are saying that the controls put on free commerce, business and agriculture are 'society' and that Libertarians are against common sense regulations therefore against society. We are not wild eyed bomb flinging anarchists no matter what you think of us. We just wish for the Constitutional Republic that the founders designed for us and we let slip through our fingers. We do NOT want the federal government to be in every single aspect of our working lives.
In the general sense the individual is the singular person, society is everyone and how they interact with each other, there do you get it now? Nowhere is society limited to the federal government, your state, city and neighborhood each represents a society in it's own right. Again I think this limited capacity to even admit there might be others that the law should deal with at large is a failing of the philosophy.

I have yet to meet anyone who can live the total libertarian lifestyle, even in your post you claim it's never been done in economic terms and probably can't. Lets take one other contentious aspect, immigration... The 100% libertarian line is no borders anywhere, people are free to move anywhere they want as they see fit. This would be an example of a law that benefits the individual greatly at the detriment of society. I have never met very few libertarians in my life that claim to be able to take the rights of the individual this far.

There are a host of things from entitlements, drugs, and defense that the philosophy has a tough time dealing with because for the most part we all know we are better off having some sort of limited community VS the selfish attitude of whats best only for me.

You asked...
Libertarian political philosophy postulates that the only true free enterprise economy is one that is entirely unfettered by regulations. In truth there has never been such a system in place, ever. However both the United States and Europe enjoy a free enterprise system, even though regulations are imposed upon them The question is how much regulation is good for our system and how free can you let it be before it deteriorates into a Goliath vs David scenario to the detriment of all. That system is society at large. You seem to suggest there is some need for regs to protect society when it comes to economics, I would say if you think about it you also need that mindset (society over the individual) when it comes to a host of other issues as well. Surely society can't be good only when dealing with economics can it?

I've maintained for some time libertarianism only gets right what it does by accident and not design, that is only because what's good for the individual is also right for society most of the time (and I would grant that it's a high percentage of the time) it's the remainder that shows how wrong the philosophy is. If you want to know why some regulation is needed to keep us "from deteriorating into a Goliath vs David scenario to the detriment of all" its to start honestly looking at it as what benefits society with the idea of protecting the individual as much as can be done (as opposed to some socialist like LAGC who would probably only do what's best for society 100% regardless of the individual).

[old Grump]

Again you make the erroneous assumption that Libertarians are anti-social and selfish to the Nth degree. Libertarians believe you should be free to do as you choose with your own life and property as long as you DO NOT harm the person or property of others. Libertarians being responsible people do not believe in using force against others except in defense of ourselves or others and we respect the peaceful choices other make for themselves. You will find that we are family people who would prefer we take care of our own instead of relying on a myriad of social agencies to take care of less fortunate family members neighbors or friends.

We are not pegged to Left or Right in politics, business or personal life choices. We have more choices, in politics, in business, your personal life, in every way. Libertarians advocate a high degree of both personal and economic liberty. Today's liberals like personal liberty but want government to control your economic affairs. Conservatives reverse that, advocating more economic freedom but wanting to clamp down on your private life.

Libertarian positions on the issues are not "left" or "right" or a combination of the two. Libertarians believe that, on every issue, you have the right to decide for yourself what's best for you and to act on that belief so long as you respect the right of other people to do the same and deal with them peacefully and honestly.



Libertarian Party on Homeland Security

Party Platform

Military should defend against aggression; not world police


We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world and avoid entangling alliances. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.
Source: National platform adopted at Denver L.P. convention May 30, 2008

Reduce defense spending by half; just defend the US


Certainly America’s defense capability should be strong enough to defend the United States. However, the US now accounts for 37% of all the world’s military spending. Another 30% of world military spending is by countries in Western Europe along with Japan, South Korea, and Israel -- nations which pose no conceivable threat to the US.Russia, our former Cold War adversary, certainly represents no military threat. Our military budget is $260 billion; Russia’s is less than $80 billion. China spends less than $7 billion on defense. The most commonly cited rogue states -- Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, North Korea, and Cuba spend a combined $15 billion. Nowhere are American vital interests under attack or even seriously threatened.

If the US were to pursue a policy of defending its own borders while avoiding foreign intervention, we could realistically reduce our defense budget to as little as $125 billion over the next five years.This is dated I know but the philosophy still holds although the numbers have changed.

Open borders, some Libertarians but most of us and if you have been paying attention to what I have been saying consistently all the years I have been on this board I have said our immigration policy is a train wreck. It needs to be dumped into the shredder and then the compost pile. congress needs to get off its yellow cowardly bought and paid for butt and get to work writing a fair and balanced policy that would be easier to administer and enforce.

You won't catch me or a lot of other Libertarians doing street drugs but you have to admit it has been billions of dollars wasted pursuing small time users. Net result, it only increased the profits for smugglers and dealers making our border situation even worse than it was. What did we get out of it? More users and more prisons, brilliant strategy.

Anyway enough about that. This thread wasn't about Libertarian philosophy but about economic systems.

[mriddick]

Libertarian political philosophy postulates that the only true free enterprise economy is one that is entirely unfettered by regulations. In truth there has never been such a system in place, ever. However both the United States and Europe enjoy a free enterprise system, even though regulations are imposed upon them The question is how much regulation is good for our system and how free can you let it be before it deteriorates into a Goliath vs David scenario to the detriment of all.




Anyway enough about that. This thread wasn't about Libertarian philosophy but about economic systems.

Considering you framed the question in regards to Libertarian philosophy I don't see how you can avoid linking it. As you stated the libertarian philosophy would have no regulation, but then you seem to suggest some regulation is needed and if that's the question how much. The difference between what's best for society and the individual isn't quite as great as most seem to think. I think most things good for society are good for the individual (and that works in reverse as well). This is why when viewed from the middle most of the various philosophical stances aren’t as different as most seem to think.

I think any issue (take my example of borders or yours of drugs) and a case can be made from either society’s or the individual point of view depending on how you want to frame the question. Most issues are this way, that is having both a society and individual aspect to them. Economics is the same way, clearly the libertarian hands off approach is not desirable. We can't base economic policy based on what is simply good for a small group of individuals or to leave everyone to fend for themselves trusting that others are doing “right”. I still think we need to go above the individual and look simply at what benefits society most with the goal of preserving individual rights the most. Where society doesn’t come into play there is no need for laws or regulations on the individuals but where it does we need an honest discussion of how far we can go with one and not impact the other.

[old Grump]

Hmm. I laid out 4 major styles and brought up Adam Smith and one line about Libertarian economics and wham bam you are all over the place on borders and drugs. Trigger pint for you? Where do I ever say that there would be no regulation? I said free to choose if it harms no one. We believe in the constitution, pretty complete set of regulations in my book but apparently that doesn't count in your view. So besides your prejudice agaisnt anything labled Libertarian I gather from your remarks that a controlled society and economy is the only way you could possibley see as being anywhere functional. You like the constraints that our Federal government has laid upon nearly every aspect of our life and approve of the diminishing states and personal rights in order that we be well regulated. Marklets should not be free, wages should be controlled and a good farmer and a bad farmer should continue to get the same subsidies because their production is controlled by some suit in the Agricultural department. It is a good thing that even though we have an abundance of rare metals it is a good thing that government regulation has made it so expensive to produce that we are sending all our dollars to china so we can have jets, flat screen TV's and MRI machines.

I disagree. When a man stops a robbery the police take his gun away, I disagree. When a small governmental agency has to buy their supplies from the GSA at quadruple the cost instead of locally I disagree. When a man buys or finds gold and amasses a fair amount the government gets to take it away I disagree. When a government tells me I cannot have a prayer meeting in my house even though I have not obstructed traffic or created a disturbance in my neighorhood I disagree. Your government is in to many places it was never meant to be and I object but apparently we would not be the free peaceful productive and happy society that we are if it weren't for Uncle Sam looking over us and directing our behavior. I disagree.

[mriddick]

You posted fur types of economies then at the end pretty much summed it up as all of them are just shades of the same thing (government regulation needed for the protection of the people) with differences in being why and how they use those regs. In the end the question is basically the same for all, how much is too much and what's the best way to keep it as free as possible.

*edit* I think I just figured it out, are those your words or a copy n paste?

[old Grump]

1 through 4 were pretty much paraphrased, everything else was mine. I used several different sources and made a lot of notes, it was just something that was nagging at me and something my nephews geography teacher told him at school about all markets being free markets today. That rang some bells and I hit the books. I was reading John Locke on personal relationships and tolerance at the time so I was in high gear when I hit this subject.

My economics professor was pretty much of a John Maynard Keynes man so basically that was all I learned in that class. According to him if George, Clemenceau and Wilson had listened to Keynes at Versailles they could have prevented WWII. I see no reason to not believe that was a true statement.