That seems at least plausible. Walmart as an economic solvent in essence dissolving individual town economies to the benefit of the county? regional? economy.
Well I'm no expert on W-mart, I prefer Target myself, but far as I recall they situate themselves mostly outside of community limits and purchase their lots for themselves usually from a farmer though of course the generalizations are general.
The part about low Walmart wages preventing small business formation, sorry to be harsh, sounds like pure bunkum. Gonna have to ask for a cite for that.
You won't get arguements from me Nob. I'm no market fetishist. I'll go with the revised Churchill position: Market economies are the worst economic system known to man... except for all the other systems that have been tried.
I do believe that non-market entities (governments, NGO's etc) are necessary to patch the areas where markets fail (externalities, commons) and to prevent the market loosers from falling too low (and yes I accept the cost; that means the market winners can't go as high). All that said we know that the natural inclination of human organizations and bureaucracies are to grow and self perpetuate. That means that when dealing with entities that are not controlled by market forces (AKA they can’t go bankrupt) our inclination should probably be skeptically set to strive always for a minimizing or reduction of those entities to counteract their natural inclination to grow lest they grow kudzu like over our economy and jam the works up like some of our cousins have Europe appear to be suffering.
Small pockets? Mike we're talking about all of Northern Europe here. Also you're leaving out that their economy is actually significantly less regulated than ours is. Just more heavily taxed.
I guess I follow David but I think I disagree. Doing well or doing badly is a relative term. Are we as humans in these economies doing well? Doing badly? Compared to when? Compared to who?
Maybe I'm being too literal here but I'm seeing comparative flourishing; less people starving; less people dying. Perhaps people say they're unhappy but aren't people always going to find ways to be unhappy in the midst of plenty? Facebook drama makes some people unhappy. Does that mean that facebook makes us flourish less? Or am I looking at this from too much of a macro perspective and we're comparing welfare from say this year to last year?
Hmm so reads as a Dutch Hitchens or something? I guess I'm still missing the point. The Dutch have political arguements over social and economic issues? Are the militiamen proof that the US is on the verge of financial collapse and dangerously close to some absolutist government?
Mike, you're lumping the Scandinavians in with the Gauls, Spanish, Greeks and Italians which strikes me as unfair since the Scandinavian European social welfare states appear to be flourishing with neither economic collapse nor tyranny threatening.
That's very interesting and to be honest a couple of your words, eudamoniacally for instance, flew right over my head. That said I believe I can say with confidence that by virtually any metric of social welfare the markets are doing well.
Falling back to Maslow's Hierarchy I'd say that the market societies have more/a higher % of people working on the social acceptance and even self actualization levels of the hierarchy and fewer working on the basic needs levels than in any other organized society of comparable size.
Okay how about a different metric then? Fewer of our children die early, more of our elderers live longer and more happily, more of our adults live more comfortably and painlessly.
Wow, it's dramatic all right. My brain stopped for a second after I read it.
I assume we'd have somewhere else that the former goods of inheritance would be going? Do you mean like essentially an estate tax of 100% and no minimum estate size?
Certainly that would produce an enormous amount of revenue.
How would we prevent living people from moving their assets out of the country or prevent them from simply giving all their assets to their heirs before they died?
Assuming it worked, what would we be spending all this revenue on?
Or unless we're willing to embrace governments and regulations that are bigger than strictly local?
Iceland, for instance, has strictly and successfully regulated their commons and their fish stocks are being harvested sustainably. In my own youthful home turf the shellfish and lobster fisheries have been strictly regulate by provincial and federal (statist) intervention and are not in danger of extermination.
Meanwhile the fisheries that exist in deep international waters like tuna for instance which cannot be regulated by any one government (essentially a libertarian ideal) teeter on the brink of commercial extinction (with actual extinction powdering her nose in the wings). The response of the unfettered markets; some kinds of tuna flesh are worth an absolute fortune now assuring that even though the amount that can be harvested is decreasing that decreased amount is still worth extracting.
I take no joy in this at all. In economics I hew in the libertarian direction more often than not. But there are some fields where statist intervention seems to be not merely unavoidable but desperately necessary.
Goldberg is smart, and funny. The problem is that he's a rock solid advocate of republican party "conservatism" so he throws out some absolute knee slapper tropes.
But that doesn't mean he can't be smart or funny.
As to the actual meat of your post, yes I agree. I suppose you could say that the Communism vs Capitalism war is over (Communism lost) but the Socialism-Libertarian debate is ongoing.
Well what is it that you propose Freddie? What is the third way? The man(woman) who finds a way to break our economic system out of the prison of the Command Economy-Market Economy spectrum will be a giant, lauded in history and society for all time. What is the third way?
I don't disagree Mike but we have also seen CRA's become captive to large clients with the same result but no government interference. Arthur Anderson for instance.
I suppose that's true Freddie, though it does bear noting that if someone invented a new system of distribution, Capitalism, Communism and then something new, Newism lets call it, the world would beat a path to his door. Fame, fortune and acclaim would be theirs for the taking. Why hasn't someone done this yet? What is the third way?
On “Wealth and moral character”
That seems at least plausible. Walmart as an economic solvent in essence dissolving individual town economies to the benefit of the county? regional? economy.
"
Well I'm no expert on W-mart, I prefer Target myself, but far as I recall they situate themselves mostly outside of community limits and purchase their lots for themselves usually from a farmer though of course the generalizations are general.
The part about low Walmart wages preventing small business formation, sorry to be harsh, sounds like pure bunkum. Gonna have to ask for a cite for that.
"
You won't get arguements from me Nob. I'm no market fetishist. I'll go with the revised Churchill position: Market economies are the worst economic system known to man... except for all the other systems that have been tried.
I do believe that non-market entities (governments, NGO's etc) are necessary to patch the areas where markets fail (externalities, commons) and to prevent the market loosers from falling too low (and yes I accept the cost; that means the market winners can't go as high). All that said we know that the natural inclination of human organizations and bureaucracies are to grow and self perpetuate. That means that when dealing with entities that are not controlled by market forces (AKA they can’t go bankrupt) our inclination should probably be skeptically set to strive always for a minimizing or reduction of those entities to counteract their natural inclination to grow lest they grow kudzu like over our economy and jam the works up like some of our cousins have Europe appear to be suffering.
"
Fair enuff Jay.
On “The Weekly Standard pulls a Cully Stimson”
Well heck, why try them at all? Just hang the lot of em right?
On “Hayworth FAIL”
Maybe he's hoping he can land some hot Nav'i chick?
On “The Weekly Standard pulls a Cully Stimson”
Bite your tongue man! Bite. Your. Tongue.
(Or in this media would it be more apropos to say bite your fingers? Doesn't have the same ring...)
On “Wealth and moral character”
Small pockets? Mike we're talking about all of Northern Europe here. Also you're leaving out that their economy is actually significantly less regulated than ours is. Just more heavily taxed.
"
I guess I follow David but I think I disagree. Doing well or doing badly is a relative term. Are we as humans in these economies doing well? Doing badly? Compared to when? Compared to who?
Maybe I'm being too literal here but I'm seeing comparative flourishing; less people starving; less people dying. Perhaps people say they're unhappy but aren't people always going to find ways to be unhappy in the midst of plenty? Facebook drama makes some people unhappy. Does that mean that facebook makes us flourish less? Or am I looking at this from too much of a macro perspective and we're comparing welfare from say this year to last year?
"
Well so is the GOP collectively loosing their minds but I'm not predicting the end of the country based on it.
On “The Weekly Standard pulls a Cully Stimson”
The Weekly Standard publish moronic right wing screeds with little to no basis in reality or law? That's unpossible!!
On “Wealth and moral character”
Hmm so reads as a Dutch Hitchens or something? I guess I'm still missing the point. The Dutch have political arguements over social and economic issues? Are the militiamen proof that the US is on the verge of financial collapse and dangerously close to some absolutist government?
"
Geert?
"
Mike, you're lumping the Scandinavians in with the Gauls, Spanish, Greeks and Italians which strikes me as unfair since the Scandinavian European social welfare states appear to be flourishing with neither economic collapse nor tyranny threatening.
"
That's very interesting and to be honest a couple of your words, eudamoniacally for instance, flew right over my head. That said I believe I can say with confidence that by virtually any metric of social welfare the markets are doing well.
Falling back to Maslow's Hierarchy I'd say that the market societies have more/a higher % of people working on the social acceptance and even self actualization levels of the hierarchy and fewer working on the basic needs levels than in any other organized society of comparable size.
On “Markets in everything ctd.”
Civility Gentlemen
On “Wealth and moral character”
Okay how about a different metric then? Fewer of our children die early, more of our elderers live longer and more happily, more of our adults live more comfortably and painlessly.
On “Markets in everything ctd.”
Wow, it's dramatic all right. My brain stopped for a second after I read it.
I assume we'd have somewhere else that the former goods of inheritance would be going? Do you mean like essentially an estate tax of 100% and no minimum estate size?
Certainly that would produce an enormous amount of revenue.
How would we prevent living people from moving their assets out of the country or prevent them from simply giving all their assets to their heirs before they died?
Assuming it worked, what would we be spending all this revenue on?
On “Before Resorting to Markets”
Or unless we're willing to embrace governments and regulations that are bigger than strictly local?
Iceland, for instance, has strictly and successfully regulated their commons and their fish stocks are being harvested sustainably. In my own youthful home turf the shellfish and lobster fisheries have been strictly regulate by provincial and federal (statist) intervention and are not in danger of extermination.
Meanwhile the fisheries that exist in deep international waters like tuna for instance which cannot be regulated by any one government (essentially a libertarian ideal) teeter on the brink of commercial extinction (with actual extinction powdering her nose in the wings). The response of the unfettered markets; some kinds of tuna flesh are worth an absolute fortune now assuring that even though the amount that can be harvested is decreasing that decreased amount is still worth extracting.
I take no joy in this at all. In economics I hew in the libertarian direction more often than not. But there are some fields where statist intervention seems to be not merely unavoidable but desperately necessary.
On “Wealth and moral character”
Goldberg is smart, and funny. The problem is that he's a rock solid advocate of republican party "conservatism" so he throws out some absolute knee slapper tropes.
But that doesn't mean he can't be smart or funny.
As to the actual meat of your post, yes I agree. I suppose you could say that the Communism vs Capitalism war is over (Communism lost) but the Socialism-Libertarian debate is ongoing.
On “Markets in everything ctd.”
Well what is it that you propose Freddie? What is the third way? The man(woman) who finds a way to break our economic system out of the prison of the Command Economy-Market Economy spectrum will be a giant, lauded in history and society for all time. What is the third way?
On “Before Resorting to Markets”
I was thinking more like entire life insurance salesmen but bones can work.
"
I don't disagree Mike but we have also seen CRA's become captive to large clients with the same result but no government interference. Arthur Anderson for instance.
"
So Nob you're saying... local governments are the libertarian solution to the commons?
"
I suppose that's true Freddie, though it does bear noting that if someone invented a new system of distribution, Capitalism, Communism and then something new, Newism lets call it, the world would beat a path to his door. Fame, fortune and acclaim would be theirs for the taking. Why hasn't someone done this yet? What is the third way?