Do you think America is doomed, or that it hit a bump in it's progression as a nation? - General

[QUOTE=Noble;37387653]If there's nothing stopping them from entering the market (like expensive regulations), and there is a potential profit to be made, then it's inevitable that new competitors will enter the market. They will try to offer better goods and services than their competition in order to make a profit, and in the process of doing so, they benefit everyone else (by providing jobs, more choice of goods/services, and lower prices for consumers). It's unsustainable for a cartel to keep its prices below market levels for very long, it will eat away at their profits and new competitors seeking to make a profit would just keep coming into the market anyway, so the cartel would have to keep lowering prices and losing profit to fight their competition. Eventually, that will come to an end. It's not an efficient way to do business and I don't see how it would be a significant issue.[/QUOTE] There's other ways of attacking the competition. What is there to stop a company literally becoming so powerful from the use of underhanded tactics that it eventually grows into a government itself?

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37386916]but you said we should have a 3% inflation rate, not a 3% growth in the money supply. You seem to be confusing inflation with growth in money supply. EDIT: sorry, you did say growth in money supply. but how can we make our growth in money supply equal to our GDP growth? GDP growth is not constant, and it is very hard to regulate growth in money supply (we can't know when bills leaves circulation). and do you have a source on this 3% a year growth in gold supply? more importantly, how can that growth continue for much longer? we only have so much gold.[/QUOTE] You can't make money supply growth completely consistent with GDP growth by increasing the money supply according to the data. Data lags make precision money printing difficult as gdp data is always a few months old and not always accurate in representing the state of the economy. The best way to keep the money supply consistent with economic growth is the 3% thing, because after the wins and loses of the boom/bust cycle are sorted out, that is what the GDP averages to be. The idea that the best monetary policy is one that aims to keep markets on equilibrium is a monetarist view.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37388261]There's other ways of attacking the competition. What is there to stop a company literally becoming so powerful from the use of underhanded tactics that it eventually grows into a government itself?[/QUOTE] How would you propose that they are going to get all the money and influence needed to do that and keep it running?

[QUOTE=Noble;37388794]How would you propose that they are going to get all the money and influence needed to do that and keep it running?[/QUOTE] Imagine a company becomes very successful, and then using their wealth and influence they use underhanded tactics to attack the competition? A lot of companies have done, still do, and will continue to do that. The British East India Company literally conquered India through such tactics.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37388879]Imagine a company becomes very successful, and then using their wealth and influence they use underhanded tactics to attack the competition? A lot of companies have done, still do, and will continue to do that. The British East India Company literally conquered India through such tactics.[/QUOTE] I don't know what kind of underhanded tactics a company could use, in the absence of government interference, that would allow them to gain such a level of control. Right now, companies can sink their hooks into the government (political donations) to get what they want. That's an underhanded tactic that exists today and distorts the market, but it wouldn't exist in a free market. A company simply couldn't get the influence and the resources needed to take over without the government's existence. How are they going to build up an army and establish all this control without anyone noticing what they're doing and putting a stop to it in its early stages? They're never going to establish that control unless they have a central point of influence over everyone that they can manipulate (the government).

[QUOTE=Fenderson;37388765]You can't make money supply growth completely consistent with GDP growth by increasing the money supply according to the data. Data lags make precision money printing difficult as gdp data is always a few months old and not always accurate in representing the state of the economy. The best way to keep the money supply consistent with economic growth is the 3% thing, because after the wins and loses of the boom/bust cycle are sorted out, that is what the GDP averages to be. The idea that the best monetary policy is one that aims to keep markets on equilibrium is a monetarist view.[/QUOTE] what? since when is 3% the average GDP growth? any data to back that up?

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37391562]what? since when is 3% the average GDP growth? any data to back that up?[/QUOTE] Usually the GDP growth of a country is 1 to 6. If you took the all the US's GDP data from 1912 to 2012 and averaged it, you'd end up with a average annual growth of about 3%.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37388879]Imagine a company becomes very successful, and then using their wealth and influence they use underhanded tactics to attack the competition? A lot of companies have done, still do, and will continue to do that. The British East India Company literally conquered India through such tactics.[/QUOTE] British East India Company? you do realize that the British East India Company was given a monopoly by the government. The East India Company did not grow into a government, it was taken over by the government. In a true free market, it never would have happened. [editline]24th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Fenderson;37391643]idk my economics teacher told me[/QUOTE] from the little research I just did, GDP growth (for America) is usually close to, but not equal to 3%. So your idea would simply lead to cycles of inflation and deflation.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37391650]from the little research I just did, GDP growth (for America) is usually close to, but not equal to 3%. So your idea would simply lead to cycles of inflation and deflation.[/QUOTE] Assuming we can not know what the increase or decrease in economic growth is during the printing of the money, by the time the money has any effect the data you printed it on has been way way out of date, thus suggesting that this monetary policy is any less stable than price level targeting it stupid.

[QUOTE=Noble;37389206]I don't know what kind of underhanded tactics a company could use, in the absence of government interference, that would allow them to gain such a level of control.[/QUOTE] I have explained multiple times. Private contractors, detectives, mercenaries, thieves, robbers, criminals, etc. This was the same case in Sicily after the end of the Feudal system. The government had token influence at best in the island. The island was covered with private farmers who were often harassed by criminals. They then hired private contractors to help protect their businesses, who eventually grew into criminal groups that would protect their clients in return for financial resources. These groups became the Mafia, and exerted a considerable degree of control on affairs. In an unregulated free market, organised crime would be indistinguishable from legitimate businesses. They WOULD take over, they WOULD use dirty and honest tactics to crush their rivals. A society like the one you describe would be impossible to maintain in its current form. Technological, social, political, religious and demographic change makes it impossible for a country to maintain the same system forever. [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37391650]British East India Company? you do realize that the British East India Company was given a monopoly by the government. The East India Company did not grow into a government, it was taken over by the government. In a true free market, it never would have happened.[/QUOTE] It was given free reign to do whatever it liked in India, whilst in competition with multiple other companies, small and large Indian states, in an environment that was very much unregulated.

the East India Company had no competitors. [QUOTE=Wikipedia]This time they succeeded, and on 31 December 1600, the Queen granted a Royal Charter to "George, Earl of Cumberland, and 215 Knights, Aldermen, and Burgesses" under the name, Governor and Company of Merchants of London trading with the East Indies.[5] For a period of fifteen years [B]the charter awarded the newly formed company a monopoly on trade[/B] with all countries east of the Cape of Good Hope and west of the Straits of Magellan.[5] Sir James Lancaster commanded the first East India Company voyage in 1601.[6][/QUOTE] [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company#Founding"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company#Founding[/URL] The government gave the East Inda Company a monopoly. That's called mercantilism, not laissez-faire capitalism. Your Sicily example also doesn't work. Organized crime violates the non-aggression principle. Finally, here is the dictionary definition of a free market: "an economic system in which prices and wages are determined by unrestricted competition between businesses, without government regulation or fear of monopolies." [URL="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/free%20market"]http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/free%20market[/URL]

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37392777]the East India Company had no competitors.[/QUOTE] Yes it did. It had the French, the Dutch, the local Indian rulers, the Portuguese, the list goes on. [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37392777]Your Sicily example also doesn't work. Organized crime violates the non-aggression principle.[/QUOTE] What makes you assume that in a libertarian system in which everything was run by the private sector (And the government didn't or barely existed) that there would be no aggression?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37393015]Yes it did. It had the French, the Dutch, the local Indian rulers, the Portuguese, the list goes on. What makes you assume that in a libertarian system in which everything was run by the private sector (And the government didn't or barely existed) that there would be no aggression?[/QUOTE] But the East India Company had no direct competitors from Britain, and as I already explained, it was the result of mercantilism/state capitalism, not laissez-faire capitalism. The East India company basically served to colonize India for Britain. The non-aggression principle is essential to libertarianism. Any system without it isn't truly libertarian. And who said there the government shouldn't exist? The police force is a public good that can only the state can provide efficiently.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37393111]But the East India Company had no direct competitors from Britain, and as I already explained, it was the result of mercantilism/state capitalism, not laissez-faire capitalism. The East India company basically served to colonize India for Britain. The non-aggression principle is essential to libertarianism. Any system without it isn't truly libertarian. And who said there the government shouldn't exist? The police force is a public good that can only the state can provide efficiently.[/QUOTE] This is however not what Noble is arguing, as Noble has stated that the private sector can do everything. The non-aggression principle would be also assuming that all humans would be perfect. (Which we aren't.)

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37393247]This is however not what Noble is arguing, as Noble has stated that the private sector can do everything. The non-aggression principle would be also assuming that all humans would be perfect. (Which we aren't.)[/QUOTE] oops, didn't notice that he was an anarchist. And the non-aggression principle does not necessarily assume that all humans are perfect. The non-aggression principle can be enforced by law, atleast in my mind.

[QUOTE=Noble;37389206]I don't know what kind of underhanded tactics a company could use, in the absence of government interference, that would allow them to gain such a level of control. Right now, companies can sink their hooks into the government (political donations) to get what they want. That's an underhanded tactic that exists today and distorts the market, but it wouldn't exist in a free market. A company simply couldn't get the influence and the resources needed to take over without the government's existence. How are they going to build up an army and establish all this control without anyone noticing what they're doing and putting a stop to it in its early stages? They're never going to establish that control unless they have a central point of influence over everyone that they can manipulate (the government).[/QUOTE] What makes you think big capital won't just set up a new state, perhaps even with a new nation for it? Another state stopping them?

hey if the federal budget is 1/3rd of the us's gdp isnt 1/3rd of the us's economy command?

[QUOTE=Fenderson;37393630]hey if the federal budget is 1/3rd of the us's gdp isnt 1/3rd of the us's economy command?[/QUOTE] did you just realize that we are a mixed economy?

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37393647]did you just realize that we are a mixed economy?[/QUOTE] yes consisting of 2/3rds free market and 1/3rd command

and I would say that it's less than 1/3, seeing as we spend a lot of money overseas.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37393674]and I would say that it's less than 1/3, seeing as we spend a lot of money overseas.[/QUOTE] "You will build us more jets!"

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37392332]I have explained multiple times. Private contractors, detectives, mercenaries, thieves, robbers, criminals, etc. This was the same case in Sicily after the end of the Feudal system. The government had token influence at best in the island. The island was covered with private farmers who were often harassed by criminals. They then hired private contractors to help protect their businesses, who eventually grew into criminal groups that would protect their clients in return for financial resources. These groups became the Mafia, and exerted a considerable degree of control on affairs.[/quote] That is obviously not the type of system I am advocating. There wasn't sufficient protection of contracts and private property rights at that time, things that are absolutely required for capitalism to work. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;37392332]In an unregulated free market, organised crime would be indistinguishable from legitimate businesses. They WOULD take over, they WOULD use dirty and honest tactics to crush their rivals. A society like the one you describe would be impossible to maintain in its current form. Technological, social, political, religious and demographic change makes it impossible for a country to maintain the same system forever.[/QUOTE] How would organized crime be indistinguishable from legitimate business? Legitimate business does not use coercive force (initiation of force) against individuals and criminals do. It's pretty a pretty clear division between the two. Also there wouldn't be any need for some corruptible entity to maintain society by coercive force as governments do. It would be conditions of total freedom to do as you please, as long as you aren't initiating force against other individuals, it would be fully self-sustaining. [QUOTE=Conscript;37393569]What makes you think big capital won't just set up a new state, perhaps even with a new nation for it? Another state stopping them?[/QUOTE] I fail to see how they're possibly going to get the resources and influence to do this, let alone sustain it. The only plausible way for a business to gain that level of control is to manipulate an existing central power structure that controls everyone: the government.

[QUOTE=Noble;37394029]How would organized crime be indistinguishable from legitimate business? Legitimate business does not use coercive force (initiation of force) against individuals and criminals do. It's pretty a pretty clear division between the two.[/QUOTE] It would be indistinguishable because there would be no government in place with a public system of law enforcement that would prevent private companies from doing what they pleased. What is there to stop a company making a very cheap and addictive substance and mass marketing it? Here is a major thing I wish to point out: What is there to stop a company hiring somebody that will go to a rival to deliberately damage it?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37394148]It would be indistinguishable because there would be no government in place with a public system of law enforcement that would prevent private companies from doing what they pleased. What is there to stop a company making a very cheap and addictive substance and mass marketing it? Here is a major thing I wish to point out: What is there to stop a company hiring somebody that will go to a rival to deliberately damage it?[/QUOTE] What's stopping a company from making a very cheap and addictive substance and mass marketing it? Well currently nothing, you've got your cigarettes, you've got your bath salts. Don't people have those papers that they sign that prevent someone from leaking company info? We should just keep using those.

[QUOTE=Noble;37394029]That is obviously not the type of system I am advocating. There wasn't sufficient protection of contracts and private property rights at that time, things that are absolutely required for capitalism to work. How would organized crime be indistinguishable from legitimate business? Legitimate business does not use coercive force (initiation of force) against individuals and criminals do. It's pretty a pretty clear division between the two. Also there wouldn't be any need for some corruptible entity to maintain society by coercive force as governments do. It would be conditions of total freedom to do as you please, as long as you aren't initiating force against other individuals, it would be fully self-sustaining. I fail to see how they're possibly going to get the resources and influence to do this, let alone sustain it. The only plausible way for a business to gain that level of control is to manipulate an existing central power structure that controls everyone: the government.[/QUOTE] I'm very confused. You say we need contract protection, and private property rights, but you are also against government. How can we have those without government? And without government, who will stop individuals from using force on other individuals? Large businesses would be able to set up new states fairly easy in a system of anarchy. How do you think the original governments were created? Landlords turned their workers into slaves. [editline]24th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;37394148]It would be indistinguishable because there would be no government in place with a public system of law enforcement that would prevent private companies from doing what they pleased. What is there to stop a company making a very cheap and addictive substance and mass marketing it? Here is a major thing I wish to point out: What is there to stop a company hiring somebody that will go to a rival to deliberately damage it?[/QUOTE] what's criminal about making cheap addictive substances? ever heard of candy bars?

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37394299]what's criminal about making cheap addictive substances? ever heard of candy bars?[/QUOTE] Hard drugs. This happened in China with opium. After the monopoly of the East India Company expired, the Chinese were flooded with cheap opium that eventually helped to cripple the country.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37394148]It would be indistinguishable because there would be no government in place with a public system of law enforcement that would prevent private companies from doing what they pleased.[/quote] There would be private courts/independent arbitrators to settle disputes. [quote]What is there to stop a company making a very cheap and addictive substance and mass marketing it?[/quote] Companies have already been doing this for a long time, I fail to see the problem. I'm not concerned with what people decide to voluntarily put in their own bodies, as long as it's not affecting anyone else. [quote]Here is a major thing I wish to point out: What is there to stop a company hiring somebody that will go to a rival to deliberately damage it?[/QUOTE] If you hired a hitman to go kill someone, you're still a criminal even though you didn't commit the murder yourself. If you hired someone to sabotage a company, it would work the same way, you are also responsible. [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37394299]I'm very confused. You say we need contract protection, and private property rights, but you are also against government. How can we have those without government? And without government, who will stop individuals from using force on other individuals?[/quote] Well as I said, private courts, private arbitration of disputes, private police can satisfy all of those needs. I don't see how businesses would be able to set up large states. First they would need to somehow acquire ownership of a massive quantity of land, then they would need a way to somehow enforce taxation on millions of people who live on that land to keep themselves funded. This is also assuming that somehow no other firm in the area was opposed to all of this taking place and would not have intervened to stop it from happening. I find it to be a quite far-fetched scenario. [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37394299]Large businesses would be able to set up new states fairly easy in a system of anarchy. How do you think the original governments were created? Landlords turned their workers into slaves.[/quote] That's not exactly my understanding of how governments are created. I'm just going to have to disagree with you there.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37394299]what's criminal about making cheap addictive substances? ever heard of candy bars?[/QUOTE] i love dosing myself on lazyboy recliner but i cant take too much or ill pass out

[QUOTE=Noble;37394558]That's not exactly my understanding of how governments are created. I'm just going to have to disagree with you there.[/QUOTE] How are governments created then?

[QUOTE=Noble;37394558]There would be private courts/independent arbitrators to settle disputes. Companies have already been doing this for a long time, I fail to see the problem. I'm not concerned with what people decide to voluntarily put in their own bodies, as long as it's not affecting anyone else. If you hired a hitman to go kill someone, you're still a criminal even though you didn't commit the murder yourself. If you hired someone to sabotage a company, it would work the same way, you are also responsible. Well as I said, private courts, private arbitration of disputes, private police can satisfy all of those needs. I don't see how businesses would be able to set up large states. First they would need to somehow acquire ownership of a massive quantity of land, then they would need a way to somehow enforce taxation on millions of people who live on that land to keep themselves funded. This is also assuming that somehow no other firm in the area was opposed to all of this taking place and would not have intervened to stop it from happening. I find it to be a quite far-fetched scenario. That's not exactly my understanding of how governments are created. I'm just going to have to disagree with you there.[/QUOTE] Private courts are optional, so companies could simply ignored their decisions. If the courts tried to force the decision on them, they would violate the non-aggression principle. And companies could force others to pay taxes, if they choose to violate the non-aggression principle. And what do you mean that's not how governments were created? Feudalism, one of the original forms of government, was where landlords used aggression on each other and on workers to gain control. With no government, private companies will create government.