Originally posted by WajomaDuh..? Surely you mean the opposite, that because of liberalization in their neck of the woods they now have to compete on an open market against the subsidized produce of other countires, thus making their position much harder to sustain. So the pressure is against them because their government, in dismantling regulation, has left them open to the wolves so to speak and thats why they have seen an increase in the number of suicides.
And another:
"...as a result of the impact of liberalisation policies in the agriculture sector."
The disproportionate suicides of these farmers can be attributed to the regulation (and the regulators) that came before It has created an unsustainable restricted industry, and now it has caught up.
Originally posted by kmax87Do you know of any market that isn't regulated in one way or another?
Just a thought on a topic that comes up quite regularly. We have those who are convinced that market forces should rule our economy and that the best strategy is to let the market just regulate itslef and not worry about trying to control it.
Yet the thought crossed my mind that if anyone suggested that the core of a nuclear reactor should run itself, that ...[text shortened]... mehow be more beneficial for humanity.
Does anyone care to discuss or explain this absurdity?
Originally posted by PalynkaThis was my initial thought about it that markets have to have some form of control just for them to function anyway, so all this talk of free markets really only emphasize one degree of freedom over some of the other expected constraints.
Do you know of any market that isn't regulated in one way or another?
The point that begs the question then is if this is indeed the case, then why not look at the freedom being touted as beneficial and analyse it in context to the whole of society that ultimately is meant to be served by these markets. If at the end of all that we find that the market really only serves itself, or more importantly the value of certain inanimate commodities within that market, then why don't we the people, who at some point initiated the creation of these markets, ostensibly to help facilitate the easy exchange of goods and services between people, claim back the market for the common good?
Originally posted by kmax87This was my initial thought about it that markets have to have some form of control just for them to function anyway, so all this talk of free markets really only emphasize one degree of freedom over some of the other expected constraints.
This was my initial thought about it that markets have to have some form of control just for them to function anyway, so all this talk of free markets really only emphasize one degree of freedom over some of the other expected constraints.
The point that begs the question then is if this is indeed the case, then why not look at the freedom being touted as ...[text shortened]... easy exchange of goods and services between people, claim back the market for the common good?
This simple point destroys any knee-jerk 'free-marketism' that states less regulation will necessarily imply more freedom. I'll make some assumptions now but we can come back to them if you disagree (they seem evident to me):
1) Markets function very poorly (if at all) without basic forms of regulation (think enforceability of contracts, for example).
2) A society without any form of markets is not desirable.
Do you agree with these assumptions?
Originally posted by PalynkaYes for 1).
1) Markets function very poorly (if at all) without basic forms of regulation (think enforceability of contracts, for example).
2) A society without any form of markets is not desirable.
Do you agree with these assumptions?
I think 2) is inevitable anyway, in that markets of some description will always form, but if you in fact were saying that it is desirable for society to have a well formed market, ie well constructed and transparently regulated such that everyone participating in that marketplace is held accountable to the same standard of conduct and behavior, then yes, I wholeheartedly agree to this point as well.
Originally posted by kmax87Yes, basically point 2) just says that we don't even want to scrape markets (and I agree that it is impossible).
Yes for 1).
I think 2) is inevitable anyway, in that markets of some description will always form, but if you in fact were saying that it is desirable for society to have a well formed market, ie well constructed and transparently regulated such that everyone participating in that marketplace is held accountable to the same standard of conduct and behavior, then yes, I wholeheartedly agree to this point as well.
Regulation therefore needs to exist. It's inevitable. The only question that remains is what type of regulation is needed and what do we need it for. There are two main types of reasons why we need regulation:
- Efficiency
- Equity
These are often intertwined. One common mistake is in the argument that claims that there is necessarily a trade-off between both. This is a mistake. Although it's possible that any given policy leads to such a trade-off, it's naive to believe we're already at the possibilities frontier. It's safe to say that almost nobody believes that there aren't win-win changes in policy left. Yet you often hear that a equity based policy MUST have a cost in efficiency. Perhaps it does. But not necessarily so. I certainly don't have much faith in that previous regulation-makers were THAT good.
This leads us to the main issue. All of this presupposes there is an equity goal that is accepted by all. Is there? I doubt it. This is the main challenge here.
1) If there were no efficiency costs in redistribution, would we like to have a society were everyone had the same income and possibilities of choice? It's not as easy as it looks. In a first glance, one might say "Why not?" but, then again, is rewarding merit only a way to promote efficiency or do we think it's fair that merit is rewarded?
(Note: I'm not saying that profit=merit)
2 edits
Originally posted by PalynkaI agree with you that this one issue seems at the heart of the problem.
This leads us to the main issue. All of this presupposes there is an equity goal that is accepted by all. Is there? I doubt it. This is the main challenge here.
Personally I don't think that redistributing wealth will necessarily change anything longterm. I think while it may level society for a while, an inborn competitiveness will eventually assert itself again and it wouldn't be long before you would be back at square one again. The problem that I see is that due to the polarization of wealth and the disproportionate concentration of wealth into fewer and fewer hands has led to a society where we rather fight than manage
I am not sure if there is a better solution than outright capitalism. Capitalism rewards individuals commensurately with the interest shown in their labor. But its more than that. Capitalism runs deep in most western societies and it has become entwined with democracy and to some extent arguing for a change,, challenges many embedded views on the topic.
The thing that gets me, is that people would rather pay top dollar for military might if it will ensure them peace, than they would look at providing solutions to poverty and other social inequities that would guarantee them a smooth run of things.
It would seem a cheaper option without the horrific body count anyway, and I don't believe it would require a total leveling of society to achieve it.
Originally posted by kmax87The thing that gets me, is that people would rather pay top dollar for military might if it will ensure them peace, than they would look at providing solutions to poverty and other social inequities that would guarantee them a smooth run of things.
I agree with you that this one issue seems at the heart of the problem.
Personally I don't think that redistributing wealth will necessarily change anything longterm. I think while it may level society for a while, an inborn competitiveness will eventually assert itself again and it wouldn't be long before you would be back at square one again. The problem ...[text shortened]... ither inside, and I don't believe it would require a total leveling of society to achieve it.
There IS no solution to poverty!
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThere may be no complete solution to poverty, or disproportionate levels of relative wealth among layers in a society, but that should hardly signal a defeatist attitude on the subject. How can doing nothing about it be the better option?
[b]The thing that gets me, is that people would rather pay top dollar for military might if it will ensure them peace, than they would look at providing solutions to poverty and other social inequities that would guarantee them a smooth run of things.
There IS no solution to poverty![/b]
Originally posted by kmax87Who said anything about doing nothing? I'm simply pointing out that any plan that involves 'finding solutions to poverty' is based on an impossible premise and therefore a poor idea.
There may be no complete solution to poverty, or disproportionate levels of relative wealth among layers in a society, but that should hardly signal a defeatist attitude on the subject. How can doing nothing about it be the better option?
Actually, that's not true. Poverty might be solvable if we force birth control on people, but that's a dangerous road to go down. In any case if we solved poverty in the US, for example, we'd just get massive influxes of poor people from other countries (for example, Mexico). We'd need mandatory birth control and a fortress mentality to successfully remove poverty from this country. You'd probably need a single world government with mandatory birth control to remove it from the planet. If there are two or more rivals, one of them will allow free breeding, knowing that more men means more soldiers and more labor which would provide an advantage over the poverty free society.
Originally posted by Sam The ShamConsidering the current state of meltdown of the market, I wonder if those who still champion laissez faire capitalism, still believe that zero regulation is the best way to allow things to run?
kmax, your analogies never cease to amaze me. Please take a freshman logic course at your local community college.
"All men are mortal" "Socrates is mortal" "Therefore all men are Socrates"
Makes as much sense as comparing reactors to markets