It seems we've now been reduced to simply repeating ourselves over and over and not communicating anything useful or entertaining at all. I mean really, it seems that there isn't even any attempt to make the insults funny. So if it pleases the court, I'd like to jump ahead to the end. Our economic model is a hybrid of socialism and capitalism. IMO, anyone who either doesn't grasp this fundamental concept, or doesn't prefer a hybrid model over both in their pure form, is simply not worthy of the academic debate. So, is there anybody here who actually believes that pure socialism (or pure capitalism) is really the best way to go? Please announce yourselves that I may ridicule you mercilessly, (within the board's rules of etiquette of course). Otherwise, I bid this thread adieu.
A very basic error. Socialism and capitalism and mutually exclusive. You've probably gone for an inane corruption of the economic spectrum, something preferred by those using inane words like socialistic or 'pure capitalism'
Because, I am not stereotyping, since the end of the Cold War. How do you account for Hoover Dam and other public sector infrastructure?
Whoever put this idea into your head punk'd you like a pimp's wares. But I admire the confidence with which, in front of God and everyone, you put such nonsense on display. Please, do go on.
You're confusing the economic spectrum with socialist political economy; a poor error. Socialism refers to worker ownership and control of the means of production. Government interventionism does not achieve that. Indeed, such interventionism is typically about ensuring the reproduction of capitalist profit. We can refer to economic planning; but that's a standard feature in capitalism given market failure, the tendency towards economic crisis and the negative consequences of transaction costs for the allocative role of the market. Also note that the notion of the 'socialist planner' has been dismissed within socialist political economy for some time. The information demands are much too great. Not surprisingly, the Hayekian analysis used within the socialist calculation debate has led to innovations based on harnessing the power of the market (particularly in enabling growth and mitigating the effects of influence costs)
Notice how you didnt contradict a thing I said in the statement of mine YOU chose to quote and respond to.
Everything you said was wrong. Without mass unemployment, the expected external wage is not significantly lower. Again, your whole argument is based on ignorance of what the efficiency wage hypothesis entails
Tell me more about this Hayekian analysis and how it proves that completely eliminating the profit incentive improves the efficacy of our economic model. My brain is a sponge, ready to soak up your wisdom and book learn'n.
I am not sure I understand your line of reasoning. Isn't politics, mostly socialism; thus, mustn't a political-economy be mixed in its use of socialism and capitalism?
I know exactly what it is. Capitalism doesnt require a significantly lower external wage einstein. Here is a source that supports my assertion. Lets see you link to a source that supports yours. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficiency_wage
Political economy allows us to understand both different schools of economic thought and also the different economic paradigms. You've taken a very basic feature (i.e. an understanding that there will be differences in the levels of government interventionism) and assumed that can be used to understand the political economy used to understand these different paradigms. That is bogus. Whilst the extreme of laissez faire is a myth, every available point on the economic spectrum (all the way to command economy) is consistent with capitalism. Without worker ownership and control of the means of production, a socialist economy does not exist. - - - Updated - - - You haven't a clue dear chap! There is no discipline if the external wage is not significantly lower. Bleedin obvious really!
Did you know that non sequiturs are usually considered fallacies? It was about public sector means of production operated by the public sector, and that form of "ownership" of it, by the People.
Are you simply hoping to score points with what you believe to be an academic truth, or are you actually advocating worker ownership and control of the means of production as a superior alternative to "every available point on the economic spectrum" all of which are "consistent with capitalism?"
In my opinion, that view may be overly simplistic simply because our federal Congress is delegated the power to establish such needful buildings as may better obtain more perfect knowledge of our "plane of existence" and any economics systems that may be "invented". The private sector has no similar "profit" motive. In any case, how do you account for Government of the People, by the People, and for the People as form of socialism and not capitalism and its usually required, profit motive?
It is not worker ownership and control. It doesn't even compare with liberal democracy, given those economies tend to have much lower inequality levels. You're again simply abusing terms
Technically you're not in a position to judge as you don't understand socialism yourself (typically confusing it with state capitalism)
Someone that uses schoolyard prattle rather than economic argument? Unfortunately I'm again accurate. Why don't you put that right. Offer an economic argument that demonstrates the advantage of capitalism over socialism. Please make sure you use valid economic analysis, rather than rant
You both are clueless, for him, the US is not a socialist government and for you, we are a liberal democracy.
Economic analysis, to understand the nature of poverty and the welfare state, separates western economies into liberal democracy, social democracy and anglo-saxon. Goes back to analysis by the likes of Esping-Anderson
In other words, firms must rely on the socialism of States and statism if they want to ensure their security and domestic Tranquility.
