Rise of Anarcho-capitalism on BOS (1 Viewer)

[Lentern]

you're either a complete and utter moron or a troll. If he former is true:

these shithole nations have had the same cycle of oppressive, ineffective governments for centuries, but oh noes if we end government interference and embrace free markets, it will cause poverty. Oh wait that's already the case.

poverty rates in India were slashed in the late twentieth century because they accepted free trade with western capitalist society (also it greatly decreased the number of men involved in gangs and drug trafficking, and the number of women involved in prostitution)

The fact is, capitalism has gotten more people out of poverty than any other economic system in history.
people need to be able to earn their own wealth in order to escape poverty.
Leftist governments who (claim to) aim to liberate the poor have only ever really destroyed wealth and made them more dependant upon the state, allowing them to be controlled and exploited

Do you have any examples to support your economic fiction that don't involve developing nations being freed from a negligent, self serving colonial ruler?

 

[ComingUpForAir]

Yeah? Are you saying that more government interference is required?

'Goverment interference' is a meaningless phrase, it can refer to a host of different activities, eg a dictatorship meddling for politcal purposes, or, an intellegently funded investment in public goods.

But, alas, your child mind gravitates towards the easily-regurgitated simpleton catch-phrase,
I actually pity the fact your little mind gets dazzled upon seeing some youtube 'goverments took our jubz' video, but if you're intellectually statisfied with that sort of material it's fine I guess, we'll always need unskilled meatworkers.

 

[Graney]

'Goverment interference' is a meaningless phrase, it can refer to a host of different activities, eg a dictatorship meddling for politcal purposes, or, an intellegently funded investment in public goods.

It obviously encompasses both those things, and all manner of other policies when they come backed by a state. Attempts at intervention in both those things have wrought devastation across the African continent.

Libertarian economists would argue there is no possibility of government intervention in public goods being done intelligently, at least in comparison to the market alternative.

 

[Planck]

Do you have any examples to support your economic fiction that don't involve developing nations being freed from a negligent, self serving colonial ruler?

C.f India's rise versus British controlled Africa.

Capitalism brings millions out of poverty. It's the greatest leveler on the planet.

 

[ComingUpForAir]

Libertarian economists would argue there is no possibility of government intervention in public goods being done intelligently, at least in comparison to the market alternative.

Woah your an uneducated redneck, the whole point of a public good is that it's underprovided by 'the market'.
I really shouldnt dignify this sort of babble with a response.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Woah your an uneducated redneck, the whole point of a public good is that it's underprovided by 'the market'.

Who is to be the judge of when a good is being "underprovided" and what is the correct level of provision?

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Do you have any examples to support your economic fiction that don't involve developing nations being freed from a negligent, self serving colonial ruler?

China. Although the government is still bad and oppressive it has opened up much freer trade and much greater private ownership of means of production since the 1980's. Since that time its economy has achieved exceptional growth, and hundreds of millions have been lifted out of poverty.

See also Estonia, Hong Kong, West Germany, South Korea, Singapore, Ireland and the USA. Economic freedom creates wealth.

 

[Graney]

Woah your an uneducated redneck, the whole point of a public good is that it's underprovided by 'the market'.
I really shouldnt dignify this sort of babble with a response.

Public goods don't require a government. Private organisations and the community can choose to act voluntarily and donate resources to a perceived area of need.

 

[SylviaB]

not only CAN they, but history has shown time and time again that they're better at doing it than government.

 

[spartan31234]

lol, you dunce, India was colonised by the british, and has a long history in terms of economic activity, I'm talking about real, extreme poverty, like that in tiny african villages, etc.
The fact is that these communities are not 'interfered' with by the govement, and are, in fact, 'capitalist' societies, they simply do not have the technology or capital (per capita) to set into motion meaningful economic growth (and thus have been static in terms of living standards for thousands of years).

Another total miss by the dogmatic, uneducated, over-opinionated 'anarcho-capitalist' clowns.
Clowns and thugs.

Did you know after world war 2, USA pressured all the old colonial powers to decolonise. USA is a capitalistic country, thus capitalistic forces saw the freedom of many countries, including India.

When you think about it colonialism is more left wing than right wing, it does not believe in free markets, everything belongs to a monarch and it captures other countries and steals there resources. Once a country is captured they cannot sell to other countries like the USA. So in order to trade with India you would have to trade though the England, in away this is protectionist and left wing.

It is true, free trade aggrements with African countries would do way more the reduce poverty. Socialist governments only want to tariffs to safe guard local industries and then they give a small cash hand out to african countries expecting them to develop when they have no one to trade with because of protectionist policies.

Open markets will result in reduction of global poverty ( generally) And thus globalisation ( a capitalistic policy) is important for combating global poverty.

 

[Lentern]

China. Although the government is still bad and oppressive it has opened up much freer trade and much greater private ownership of means of production since the 1980's. Since that time its economy has achieved exceptional growth, and hundreds of millions have been lifted out of poverty.

See also Estonia, Hong Kong, West Germany, South Korea, Singapore, Ireland and the USA. Economic freedom creates wealth.

Most of those were formally subject states, China is the best example but it has profited far more from the lifting of trade embargo's than any deregulation that might have occurred.

 

[Enteebee]

China. Although the government is still bad and oppressive it has opened up much freer trade and much greater private ownership of means of production since the 1980's. Since that time its economy has achieved exceptional growth, and hundreds of millions have been lifted out of poverty.

lol china has a very protected economy which has become 'freer' where they have strong competitive advantages.

See also Estonia, Hong Kong, West Germany, South Korea, Singapore, Ireland and the USA. Economic freedom creates wealth.

The vast majority of these also do, or did employ extremely protectionist policies - until such point as being a part of the 'free market' make good business sense.

Show me an example of a now flourishing, modern nation which doesn't either sit on a pile of oil or in the past used protectionist policies to build up their infant industries.

 

[volition]

Show me an example of a now flourishing, modern nation which doesn't either sit on a pile of oil or in the past used protectionist policies to build up their infant industries

Just because a nation used protectionist policies in the past does not mean that it did better because of it.

 

[badquinton304]

Just because a nation used protectionist policies in the past does not mean that it did better because of it.

He didnt say that. He said that successful countries either used resources or protectionism to become successful. Venn diagram.

 

[BlackDragon]

He didnt say that. He said that successful countries either used resources or protectionism to become successful. Venn diagram.

Yes. There aren't too many more things to use.

 

[Enteebee]

Just because a nation used protectionist policies in the past does not mean that it did better because of it.

Of course not, however if nations would have flourished better without such policies I wonder why there are basically.... No examples.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Of course not, however if nations would have flourished better without such policies I wonder why there are basically.... No examples.

There are many examples of protectionism being reigned in, and in almost every case it has been strongly correlated with economic growth, China is a perfect recent example, but you could just as easily look at the same process in Australia, Europe, The United States or the former USSR.

Furthermore, the primary concern of politicians is not the welfare of the nation, but rather the welfare of themselves and the powerful interest groups who fund them. Needless to say in every case powerful industries have indeed done very well out of protectionism.

 

[Enteebee]

There are many examples of protectionism being reigned in, and in almost every case it has been strongly correlated with economic growth, China is a perfect recent example, but you could just as easily look at the same process in Australia, Europe, The United States or the former USSR.

Furthermore, the primary concern of politicians is not the welfare of the nation, but rather the welfare of themselves and the powerful interest groups who fund them. Needless to say in every case powerful industries have indeed done very well out of protectionism.

Ugh... In ALL of your examples, Protectionism is reigned in ONLY WHERE THERE IS BENEFITS FOR THE COUNTRY REMOVING THE PROTECTIONS - WHICH IS NOT ALWAYS. Take for example, The United States: Tariffs in American history - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They had some of the absolute highest tariffs in the world, that was until after WW2 when they had so much dominance in manufacturing that 'free' trade was beneficial to them. It's obvious that opening up your markets to competition (always with the requirement that trading partners open theirs) when you're in a position of such advantage is wise...

On the flip side, you can see that as China is overtaking America's position in the world, America is tightening up their protections and subsidising the FUCK out of their industries.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Ugh... In ALL of your examples, Protectionism is reigned in ONLY WHERE THERE IS BENEFITS FOR THE COUNTRY REMOVING THE PROTECTIONS - WHICH IS NOT ALWAYS. Take for example, The United States: Tariffs in American history - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They had some of the absolute highest tariffs in the world, that was until after WW2 when they had so much dominance in manufacturing that 'free' trade was beneficial to them. It's obvious that opening up your markets to competition (always with the requirement that trading partners open theirs) when you're in a position of such advantage is wise...

On the flip side, you can see that as China is overtaking America's position in the world, America is tightening up their protections and subsidising the FUCK out of their industries.

Look at the free trade agreement between Australia and the USA then. The USA is by far the dominant nation, yet Australia agreed to the agreement and has benefited as a result. In fact, Australian growth has far surpassed US growth in recent years.

Protectionism is only a good idea for those in the protected industries. Everyone else in the country looses because they are forced to pay higher prices. How could it possibly be beneficial?

The idea is so absurd. If protectionism makes sense at the national level (which is arbitrary in the first place), why not at a state level? Or a regional level? Or a local level? The logical conclusion that protectionist logic leads to is that we should produce everything we use ourselves, because paying others to do it creates jobs for THEM (presumably at the expense of US).

 

[BlackDragon]

I'm not commenting on which is better, but certainly protectionism is that which has strongly defined the history of many economies and still exists in the presence of globalisation. It strongly linked to the dichotomy between the poorest nations and the richest. Western nations protecting their domestic agriculture and industries, which developing nations could do much more efficiently, for both social and economic reasons.