The Capitalist System Is Decaying Because Of Its Own Contradictions

Capitalism, supply side, and austerity don't fail, libsocialism does. Ask the 120 million who slowly starved to death. Ever heard of East/West Germany?

 

Fascism can be command economy (wile maintaining capitalist ownership). Socialism can be consistent with Austrian Economics (see the analysis on post-Hayekian market socialism). The economic spectrum cannot be used to indicate capitalism or socialism. Anyone suggesting otherwise is just ignorant of the economic spectrum.

I'm not a liberal. I'm a socialist. I just happen to also know the political economy. Your position is not based on rational comment. We know that as you have referred to economic texts inappropriately. None of them refer to mixed economies as a mix of capitalism and socialism.

Were the British Tories socialist when they nationalised Rolls Royce? Of course not. Were the British government socialist when they nationalised banks after the financial crisis? Of course not. You confuse government with socialism. This is a very common error in people who do no understand Economics 101

 

I'm happy for you to try and defend that. Can you refer to one credible economic publication that supports austerity? Try to make sure its published in peer reviewed academic journal, rather than an article on Fox News

 

as I said austerity and supply side mean capitalism. capitalism just eliminated 40% of the planets poverty when China switched to it from socialism

 

I didn't ask for your opinion. I asked you to defend your comment on austerity. Here it is again, in case you've forgotten: Can you refer to one credible economic publication that supports austerity? Try to make sure its published in peer reviewed academic journal, rather than an article on Fox News

 

capitalism means private ownership and control. Liberalism or fascism means govt control.

 

Austerity means capitalism. Ever heard of East/West Germany, Hong Kong/China, Cuba /Florida ?

 

This is a falsehood. You're suggesting that capitalism necessarily means laissez faire. It doesn't. Laissez faire is neither achievable or desirable. Capitalism has always relied on government interventionism. See, for example, the analysis by Chang on trade development.

 

We both know you are incapable of defending your argument on austerity. A sensible response would acknowledge that, or at least try and provide a relevant reference. Have you been educated in Econ 101 at all?

 

would the silly liberal like to see 752,000 other references?

Laissez Faire Capitalism. "Laissez Faire" is French for "leave alone" which meansthat the government leaves the people alone regarding all economic activities. It is the separation of economy and state. There are two ways that a government typically is tempted to interfere with the economy.
Laissez Faire Capitalism - Importance Of Philosophy
www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Politics_LaissezFaire.html

 

if you think capitalism or austerity is indefensible why so afraid to say why?

 

You quote without any understanding. Joe Public will know what laissez faire means. We also know that it is irrelevant to the development of capitalism. Take Britain, the original celebrant of free markets. Their economy developed because of government interventionism. We see something similar with the 'tiger economies', who have widely applied industrial policies

 

Capitalism can be defended. Austerity cannot. That you think they are the same beast only informs me that your understanding of economics is negligible.

 

do you want to see 752,000 quotes relating capitalism and "Laissez Faire"

 

so why not tell us the conflict between capitalism and austerity??

 

sorry to rock your world.


MF economists put 'neoliberalism' under the spotlight - Financial Times
https://www.ft.com/content/4b98c052-238a-11e6-9d4d-c11776a5124d?mhq5j=e7
May 26, 2016 - ... countries around the world to open their markets and adopt fiscal austerity. ... economics advocated by Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman.

 

If you have evidence of that I will pay you $10,000. Bet?

 

I know you can Goggle. You can't, however, google effectively. You will not find any credible source that says 'capitalism = laissez faire'. We have also seen you are incapable of finding any economic text that agrees with your nonsensical 'mixed economy = capitalism + socialism'. The problem is that you don't understand economics. Learn yourself some and then come back to us

 

Austerity is an example of how right wingers use ideology to derive economic irrational outcome. Its a perfect comment for your position. Your argument is based on right wing ideology without any genuine reference to relevant political economy.

 

That's the best you have? Friedman failed. Monetarism was a crock. Hayek certainly was more influential. In policy terms, he was very destructive. See, for example, how his thought encouraged the Thatcherite economic disaster. In economic terms, he actually added to socialism understanding through his application of distributed knowledge (which led to an alternative socialist analysis, distinct from anarchism, but also alien to increased government control)

 

for 4th time why so afraid to tell us difference?? What do you learn from your fear?

 

why so afraid to tell us why austerity is irrational???

 

Try to make sense. I've alreasy told you that laissez faire is neither achievable or desirable (e.g. public good provision). I've also informed you that the apparently 'free market' advocates have always applied government interventionism (the British industrial revolution, for example, was reliant on it)

 

??? Bernanke said "you were right" about Great Depression and used Friedmans wisdom to prevent housing recession from turning onto world wide Depression. Sorry to rock your world.

 

?? did I say it was achievable? Would you like to bet $10,000? Do you know what a straw man is?