SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Hawkmoon who wrote (108502)2/19/2010 2:21:09 AM
From: Little Joe2 Recommendations  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 116555
 
Lets go back to my original post.

""Or was it founded to preserve the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity?" <quoting you>

If the answer to that question is yes, how could it be done without capitalism?

Your answer appears to raise a different question. If you want an economic system that dovetails with the interests of the sovereign countries in which they operate, you do not want an economic system that "preserves the blessing of liberty". I would suggest you want fascism, or some other ism.

If you are equating democracy with liberty, I think you are wrong.

lj



To: Hawkmoon who wrote (108502)2/19/2010 3:29:26 AM
From: axial2 Recommendations  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 116555
 
"Somewhere there has to exists a middle ground where labor and corporations can co-exist for the benefit of both parties, as well as our overall economy."

---

Pretty much defines the problem. What we find is that the meaning of "the economy" differs from one jurisdiction to another.

Not only that, but alone among all countries in the world, the US is constitutionally based on the rights of the individual. Everywhere else, the state comes first.

Nevertheless, in places like Denmark (for instance) they repose considerable trust in the state. Taxation is high, but education and health care are free. Generally speaking, values in social democracies differ from most (but not all) US values, but government runs well, and people are happy.

Are they capitalist? Democratic? Most would say so. Are they in good economic health? Pretty much.

Are they "efficient"? Well, it seems they're quite willing to exchange some "efficiency" for stability, and other values they prize highly. Unionization is prevalent. They certainly don't appear to be suffering from their supposed economic inferiority. They don't gravitate to extremes - they're economically cautious. True, they made some concessions to deregulation - but there's no Reagonomics, Thatcherism, Ayn Rand, or trickle-down theories driving their economy. Public servants are generally respected, as are their leaders (to the extent that politicians are ever respected.) Corruption is everywhere, but they're horrified by the extent of capture and corruption in US elites, and Wall Street's "Casino Capitalism", as they call it.

No nations exist without problems, but Euro social democracies are relatively healthy, happy, and prosperous. Of course, they lack the huge divide between rich and poor. Watching that divide expand and deepen in the US, one has to wonder just what values are the driving this madness, and to whom do the values belong?

The purpose of the comparison lies in the answer to this question: "To what end should people design their economy? The happiness and prosperity of the inhabitants, or some other metric?"

Because it's pretty clear that no matter what the intention was, the American people - and the elites entrusted by them - are watching happiness and prosperity slip away.

Jim