What does /pol/ think about pure laissez-faire capitalism?
Would it work today?
Yes. Daily reminder that the only reason business have gotten this big is by using government regulations as a business tool to crush competition and make it Impossible to start a competing business.
kike garbage. Merchants are cancer worshiping gold as a false idol.
It's the only thing that works.
>>56545024
Is it not why the banks have gotten as powerful as they are now? And allows child labor?
>pure
No, apparently nobody remembers the monopolies from history class. Nothing pure works in economics.
>>56545464
Nice questions.
Did you just learn of the phrase laissez-faire capitalism 10 minutes ago?
>>56543873
The "free market" is a utopian ideal, it's never existed.
Every time "free market" Capitalism is attempted, the result is Corporatism.
>>56545754
When was it attempted?
>>56545826
Starting in the early '80s, Neoliberals began free market experiments in Africa under the guise of "development"; these were called "Structural Adjustment Programmes". They were an abject failure.
All economies that have liberalized have increased economic dynamism, the highs have been much higher, but the lows have been crushing.
Neoliberals are keen to take the credit for the economic highs, but blame the lows on "Government", of course. They're simply playing a game of "heads I win, tails you lose"...
>>56545582
No, but I never had a serious look into it until I saw libertarians saying it worked. Are you going to answer or shitpost?
>>56545576
Monopolies happen regardless of which economic system you adhere to, the only difference being government involvement can protect and sustain them.
>>56543873
If you got heavy anti-monopoly and environmental preservation laws (and were able to enforce them without accepting bribes, which is impossible), it would work.
>>56545826
20th Century right before the great depression
>>56546262
I have a monopoly on products made by myself.
Muh monopolies is the worst argument ever for anything, if only because it is always possible to describe a product so that a company becomes a monopoly.
The only sensible (though I don't agree with it) argument against the infamous monopolies of the free market is that there is no competition. Which is weird because the muh monopoly is usually brought up by people that don't like competition much when the argument is about the free market not being about competition enough.
The harmful monopolies are always cases of protection from competition granted directly by the government or through bureaucratic and legal measures (including working conditions requirements) giving considerable advantage for big business.
The fact that some products have inelastic prices is simply due to the preferences of people.
>>56545754
Someone is jelly of my Switzerland.
>Posting from France I know
>inb4 small countries don't count and related bullshit
>>56546206
>the lows have been crushing.
Confirmed for never living in a free country.
Posting the picture of a flaming faggot that thought the regime of the Ayatollah Khomeini was wonderful doesn't make your post better.
Laissez faire capitalism means open labor markets. Are you guys fine with millions of immigrants coming into your country to compete with native workers?
>>56546494
Never happened.
The federal reserve was created just before the great depression, and the national bank existed before that.
The central banking system and money printing caused the great depression.
>>56546206
They didn't work because they didn't bring free markets to Africa.
The lows are caused and or exaggerated by government intervention, though the freer market economies have less crushing lows than the less free, who usually suffer famine.
>>56547502
The federal reserve is private owned
>>56547502
>The lows are caused and or exaggerated by government intervention
No.
The lows are a normal functioning of the market. Markets are not stable; that much we have leaned from hard empirical economic evidence.
>though the freer market economies have less crushing lows
The freer the markets, the greater the volatility.
>>56547459
The worst scum would have less incentives if there was no gibsmedat.
Second, even if some third wolders came to work, that doesn't mean at all they should have any way towards citizenship.
Third, look at the way people react to diversity when they spend their money themselves. Look at housing prices. The reason prices drop when niggs are moving in town is simply that people don't want to be around them. A "free market" society would probably look like housing prices there.
>>56543873
Hong Kong has had consistently free market policies with low taxes, open ports, and little regulation. They have rapid expansion and growth.
http://www.newgeography.com/files/cox-hongkong-3.png
http://www.newgeography.com/files/cox-pie-4.png
Hong Kong grows faster than even the US and China as shown in the first pic.
>>56547748
> The federal reserve is private owned
And the government gives this private bank monopoly rights and legal tender laws, so it acts as a branch of government, essentially.
> The lows are a normal functioning of the market. Markets are not stable; that much we have leaned from hard empirical economic evidence.
The lows that happen in a market are smaller, and corrected once they appear, as they are visible, terrible investment does not become a ballooning subsidized bubbles.
> The freer the markets, the greater the volatility.
False. Unless you mean that if you have a completely non-free country you just have permanent and consistent poverty.
>>56548083
I'm not doubting the power of a free market, just a complete one absent of any intervention
>>56548083
Hong Kong is the creation of a Colonial Government. It only exist because it was contained by a hostile Government in a constricted territory.
If China had a "free market", Hong Kong wouldn't exist..
>>56547748
Which doesn't change anything.
The Federal Reserve Act is not the setup of a private company. It is a government decree.
The President does choose the chairman. The administration chooses all the key members of the Fed.
The owners of the Fed are banks that are in the Federal Reserve system, created and regulated by the government.
>>56548356
isn't hong kong detrimental to the inferior races ploy that colonists ruined them for eternity?
>>56548654
East Asians have higher IQs than "whites".
>>56545128
underrated post, too bee hoe nest, familia
>>56548152
Does that not legitimize the claim that laissez faire leads to corporatism?
>>56548478
>The owners of the Fed are banks that are in the Federal Reserve system, created and regulated by the government.
We actually don't know who owns Fed stock, it's a secret. No one knows. Even though Fed officials are picked by elected officials, their actions are not subject to any effective checks, balances, or monitoring.
>>56548356
Almost all nations are the result of conquest, colonialism, or violence of some kind. That doesn't mean invalidate free market policies they implement.
>>56543873
no. it never has and never will. neither will gommunism. unfortunately, they have the same failing... human behaviour.
>>56546245
What's wrong with child labor?
They are not forced.
They get paid.
And usually if your culture is not primitive, if it is not necessary to sustain overpopulation, it simply does not occure.
Further more, in a capitalistic society children would have property rights and therefore no one would have a right to initiate force on them for no reason at all.
Considering problems that could arise most businesses would probably not accept workers below a certain age.
And sorry bud but at 12, I could have worked. made money and not beg for my parents to buy a PS2.
Thinking of it, that would raise the bar on the quality of parenting because bribery might just vanish.
>>56548234
Do you mean you're against minarchism or anarchism?
My position is a state where the government does strict immigration control + strong military defense. The state would have:
>a single tax: low income tax
>open ports for trade
>simple business startup process
>minimal regulations
I think this would work well because business from other countries with high taxes and lots of regulations will move to this hypothetical free market country for an advantage.
>>56549923
Well, it's not an all or nothing thing. More economic freedom leads to greater prosperity.
>>56550060
>minimal regulations
what does that mean?
>>56550307
What does lots of regulations mean?
>>56550360
idk. It should be:
>a single tax
>ports for trade
>business startup process
>regulations
>>56546245
>>56549993
Consent is the basis of libertarianism so children present a problem since they cannot consent.
Despite this, one can justify child labor on practical grounds instead of moral ones. If you prevent a poor third world child from working because it makes you feel sad inside, that child won't become any less poor. Letting them work will give them money they may be able to use to get out of poverty.
>>56549993
Fair enough, but lets look at other things that weren't regulated like humane working conditions. What about the progressive era (inb4 liberal, I'm not)? People still needed to work and had no choice but to work at places that weren't safe, not to mention they had to compete woth immigrants who didn't care as much.
>>56550636
>Consent is the basis of libertarianism so children present a problem since they cannot consent.
completely disagree.
In action, children can consent(say yes).
But who exactly legitimises this?
Usually if a conflict arises, it's a judge in courts.
These court would cover certain norms. It could be that this particular court would not accept the concent of a child on a normative Basis but there property would be secure.
If a person abuses a child, they do it in full knowledge that the child is unable to give CLEAR consent.
>If you prevent a poor third world child from working because it makes you feel sad inside, that child won't become any less poor. Letting them work will give them money they may be able to use to get out of poverty.
I actually erased a text of wall explaining this and why it occures(children stop dying early so the society ends up with a bunch of them.)
farming<factory
>>56543873
> pure
Even Austrian economics hero Friedrich Hayek disagrees with that premise in regards to the field of finance and banking.
>>56550307
By that I mean typical minarchist type regulation.
So long as no violence is taking place (based on lack of consent or fraud), the govt doesn't intervene.
Things like cloning, surrogate pregnancy, incest, prostitution, monopolies, discrimination in hiring/pay, hate speech, etc are all "immoral", but there is no breach of consent or violence. The gov't won't intervene there.
The government will intervene in false advertising, pollution, and other things that involve fraud, violence, or breach of property rights.
In Brazil we have over 600 state-owned companies, the most closed economy among the G20 and look at our wrecked economy.
If anyone wants do debunk soft-socialism or keynesianism, study the brazilian economy.
The last time we had anything close to pro-free market actions from the government was in the 90's, when the Brazilian Social Democratic Party (PSDB) -wich is considered to be right wing here - openned a little bit the telecommunication marked. Now we have 4 companies hahah
>>56551051
>no choice but to work at places that weren't safe,
Well in relative terms, the nobility had everything but they were constantly dying in wars and conflict.
Nothing was actually really safe.
And safety goes with technology too. Most workers in factories were kind of dumb, foremans included. I don't think they could actually conceive anything about safety.
But regardless through time innovation and sound money some places did meet these standards.
The progressive era pretty much hijacked the whole thing. They even cracked down on legitimate unions.
And another thing.
Many Many socialist societies were formed in the U.S. they all failed.
People would party is burn everything and the kids would flee too large cities aka to capitalism and trade.
>>56543873
>Would it work today?
We know it works
>>56543873
What would go wrong? The reason there is such income inequality is because of the inflation tax, pretty much every tax deduction, and regulations that make small business difficult.
>>56551197
>>56551197
Interesting point I sympathize with. Although you must concede as you go younger and younger, you get to a point where the child is too young to consent right? A baby cannot consent of course, but an adult can, so where does the change happen?
Many people would say a 14 year old can consent to work, but not to have sex. Yet, either a person is capable of consent or not. Is consent to two different acts different?
These are issues libertarians disagree on.
>>56552063
>Is consent to two different acts different?
Yes, you idiot.
>>56543873
What is pure laissez-faire captialism? You mean anarcho-capitalism or you mean classical liberalism?
I don't know much about Adam Smith-- I didn't directly read his books-- but I never heard anyone claiming he was anarcho-capitalist. He was a classical liberal-- a supporter of small government, reasonable regulation and sound banking.
Anarcho capitalism almost certainly work and wouldn't be desireable. Collective action theorists like Ostrom and Harding talk a lot about coordination problems and tragedy of the commons problems.
Think about defense and public goods. It's a holdout problem on a worldwide level. No one has the incentive to give up a large state government first because you'll run into all sorts of national security issues.
If you just mean "would small government work?" Then yes.
>>56551578
>pollution
I would prefere if you'd ecourage your population to sue companies instead.
>>56552063
Typically it ultimately boils down to the parents decision concerning grey areas.
>>56543873
Yes, Adam Smith's ideas are timeless and correct.
>>56546206
>the lows have been crushing
Then why are Bangladeshis the people second most supportive of free market capitalism after the Vietnamese?
http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/10/09/emerging-and-developing-economies-much-more-optimistic-than-rich-countries-about-the-future/inequality-01/
Also, anyone who uses the term "neoliberal" is a complete faggot who uses a contradictory and meaningless term to describe the ideal economic system:
http://personal.lse.ac.uk/venugopr/venugopal2014augneoliberalism.pdf
>>56552115
How so? Either a person is capable of rational decision making or not. They are capable of forming an agreement or not. Why is what they are agreeing to relevant at all?
>pure capitalism
No one wants that shit.
>>56552184
>Yes, Adam Smith's ideas are timeless and correct.
Adam Smith pointed out deep moral issues he took issue with in that system. You can't just leave that out when discussing his opinion on whether it would work because even he was critical.
It always works and socialism sometimes works so I go with capitalism
>>56552121
I honestly don't know. When I made the thread I referred to pure laissez faire as a system where government wouldn't interfere in the economy at all.
I already believe in small government with minimal regulations, but libertarians saying regulation isn't neccessary at all made me ask. I guess they're closer to anarcho capitalists but think a government should exist for law and defense.
>>56552063
>Although you must concede as you go younger and younger, you get to a point where the child is too young to consent right?
Well following my past point some courts might have criteria's more accurate to identify the capability to concent.
Like, there are many older people who cannot concent too.
Age is inaccurate. Some women get there puberty ages appart and all.
muh 18 and muh 14 years old is stupid.
>These are issues libertarians disagree on.
yes but considering political times, we hardly can take time to resolve these things.
I mean people really are asking us to paint the society of freedom prior to freedom it's so insane
>>56543873
>What does /pol/ think about pure laissez-faire capitalism?
Brought us slavery, genocide, land stealing, resource stealing, child labor, women as property, etc.
Yeah, tried and failed. Take classical liberalism and shove it up your ass. :)
>>56552517
> anarcho-capitalism
> implying capitalism can exist in anarchy
> being this retarded
>>56552590
>age is inaccurate
Agreed, hopefully some new brain scanning tech or neurology research will resolve this issue in the future.
>>56552169
Some courts might ask the parents to assume the responsibility of a childs act.
The same way that a poor person(I mean dirty stupid poor, not disabled or wtv) might have to relieve himself temporarily of his economic independence to learn how to not be poor again.
>>56552517
>I honestly don't know. When I made the thread I referred to pure laissez faire as a system where government wouldn't interfere in the economy at all
That is what the OP asked and you have agreement from both Keynes and Austrian economists (which is rare) that zero interference would have a bad outcome
>>56552602
>brought us slavery, genocide, land stealing, resource stealing, child labor, women as property
so it does work
>>56552602
>implying
>>56552406
Well in Wealth of Nations, it's mostly observations of what he saw people doing.
But were 1780 scots mostly virtuous?
>>56552741
Work on your reading comprehension Jamal. I never said anarcho capitalism worked, I pointed out that they're somewhat similar to libertarians
>>56552517
Regulation not being necessary at all seems to me to not be very achievable. Once you have law enforcement you have regulations on behavior. We can argue about those regulations, but you have them. Then it becomes difficult to write just one or two laws that are broad and simple, because what people consider to be right and wrong often turn on the particular.
This isn't just about crime, but also say, regulating the environment. Who is going to deal with water run-off and water reclamation in a city when it comes time to build a large mall? This stuff matters and it is complicated. As much as I'd like it to be a libertarian paradise, you run into so many issues competing land rights you need government to sort out the collective action problems.
>>56553009
>I pointed out that they're somewhat similar to libertarians
no they're not. they're not remotely similar. libertarianism was born out of anarchism when france authorities banned the use of anarchist... thus, libertarianism was born. anarchism/libertarianism is rooted in anti-capitalism... it has nothing to do with the rich white fucks from the 1970s who decided to usurp/steal a label and sprinkle on capitalism.
>>56543873
No system is going to work properly so long as Jews have influence over it.
>>56543873
In short, no.
Those with high IQ's are breeding with other people with high IQ's. It has been proven that intelligence is inheritable to a large degree and these couples are not having many children. Thus, in developed countries the elite are becoming smaller and more removed from less intelligent. Pure laissez-faire capitalism would soon fall into an oligarchy (much like we have now) where markets consist of who can spend the least to pull one over on the less intelligent.
I'm no lefty. I believe in capitalism to a large degree but with the way society is advancing pure laissez-faire capitalism would not benefit most people.
Markets need to be free-ish to allow competition and drive prices down for the consumer, but unfortunately most goods and services are going to become so technical that it would be impossible for your average person to bust into the design and production aspects of capitalism without already being tied to the cognitive elite I mentioned earlier.
>>56552741
>implying capitalism can exist in anarchy
>speaker:ok guys no more states no more property we freedom naow
>sally:Fuck jimmy stop picking on ray carrots
>jimmy:nope
>speaker:fuck you jimmy we all say you to stop.Muh democracy
>jimmy:nope
>rick:...fuck how to stop that?
>Ron:oh I know guys, lets say that we all have each a place where no one can do anything to us and breaching this would justify retribution
>Speaker:yeah thats nice! how do we name it
>Ron Swanson:property rights
>Speaker:fuck
>>56553283
>Ron Swanson:property rights
That's not anarchism, silly. And Ron Swanson is a parody of right wing libertarianism. Perhaps studying the origins of anarchism and libertarianism would do you good. It has nothing to do with right wing/American "libertarianism" that sprouted in the 1970s.... it's been around much longer than that, and was anti-capitalist to boot. Propertarians =/= libertarians.
>>56553138
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy
>>56553256
I agree with this anon
>>56543873
Don't post Adam Smith's portrait when talking about laissez-faire, he was not a proponent of it. He was for natural liberty for sure, but he was not a dogmatic believer in laissez-faire.
>>56548478
actually it changes EVERYTHING
a real bank is held by private interests, and their loans are funded by depositors who recieve interest for their monies on deposit
when a priovate bank's loan goes sour, the bank takes the collateral, if the collateral is worth less than the default, the bank takes it in the shorts, so they have incentive to make good loans with good security
when govt runs the bank the bank doesnt need depositors, can make crazy stupid risky loans cuz if the debtor defaults the govt prints more money to restore the bank's losses.
govt run banking systems DESTROY the market and rob the tax payer to protect banks who make risky gambles, and the defaulting debtor ALWAYS gets fucked, but when govt is footing the bill the debtor can never get relief from govt.
govt should back up debtors who had bad luck or got fucked by govt policy, it should not supports lenders who make bad choices and lose a huge sack of cash on a long shot.
banks are just gambling, putting all OUR money on the roulette wheel, but they got a "system", the system is, when they lose they get refunded, and we get the bill
capthca: pick all the business names
MFW Bank of the West corproate headquarters sign
THEY KNOW!!!!
>>56553536
thanks brudda
>>56553423
You really can't into humour do you?
What I did was a cultural reference.
The point is that when you say property rights in your head, it's in Ron Swansons voice
>>56553431
>rather than its current meaning or context.
Perhaps you should look outside the idiocy of America... that's not how it's seen outside your little pathetic world. Majority do not coincide with America's propertarians who latch on to the lable libertarianism.
>>56553009
"anarcho-capitalism" doesnt just "not work" it DOESNT EXIST
anyone who uses the term is a retard
kinda like "secular moslems", "libertarian socialists" or "marxist economics"
the predicate completely nullifies the suffix.
>>56553693
I don't gove a shit, that's the definition and context used on /pol/ you pedantic fuck.
>>56553138
welcome to fantasyland
libertarianism is NOT anti-capitalism.
libertarianism is the modern extension of classical liberalism, espousing maximum liberty, and minimum government control.
youre retarded too.
Didn't the free market contribute to the Great Depression?
>>56553928
>I don't gove a shit, that's the definition and context used on /pol/ you pedantic fuck.
I just proved the contrary.
>>56553222
moar retardation
your pathological hate and fear of jews is comical.
>>56553283
teh fux???
are you having a stroke?
somebody call canada an ambulance
Time Lost Is Brain Lost.
>>56553423
> implying you can have liberty without the right to own your own shit
in your crypto-marxist daydreams, nobody will build ANYTHING since the next lazy dickhead who wanders by can simply squat on it.
nobody will clear land, plow feilds, or plant crops, since they cant stop shiftless faggots like you from walking in and taking what they worked to create.
dont try to claim socialism=liberty because socialism requires an AUTHORITARIAN STATE to make sure no dirty capitalism goes on
dont try to claim youre advocating utopian communism either, because that is absolutely retarded and can never work.
>>56553423
actually I would dispute this. Classically the term was "Libertain/e". That's french. What they represent is the continental theory of freedom. A more collectivist definition based on democratic decision making.
In Briton and the British America's it was totally different. Anarchists in america were more sympthetic with property. British people had a more individualistic way of interpreting freedom. It's based on responsibility and the respect for property rights.
>was anti-capitalist to boot
Yeah well idea's can change.
Property rights were defined diferently throught the ages and improved.
Democracy went through the same process. And there is a reason I do believe why most of ancients lauhged and cringed at the original propositions of anarchism.
Now it seems like people are trying to have statism and property rights. And look at the fucking mess.
>>56554474
Marxist Logic
owning property = oppression
state owns everything and controls your life = freedom
collectivism = liberty
self-reliance = statism
words with actual meanings = repression
words that can mean anything to either the reader or the author = intellectual brilliance
another shitpost demonstrating canada's educational system is africa-tier
>>56554730
I don't disagree with you but not all collectivists are marxists
>>56555234
sure, come collectivists adhere to even more retarded notions, like islamo-fascism, evangelical psuedo-chrisitan rapturist faggots, people who ware so utterly ignorant that they dont even realize they are spouting marxism because the svengali who controls them says he is a "democratic socialists" liike bernie sanders fags
A real free market will rise from the ashes of what America was.
Our currency will be bottle caps and pre-war money.
But really, once the charade ends, free markets will thrive.
Suck it, Marx, you faggot.
