# Don't tell me communism is good,



## Big Don (Mar 3, 2011)

It let this poor guy live 55 years without an anus...

*A happy ending to farmer's anus woes *

[20:27 February 27 2011] Global Times EXCERPT: 			 				A farmer from Jiayu county of Hubei Province has lived 55 years  without an anus, after being born with congenital anal atresia in the  Wuhan Union Hospital. But now doctors have reshaped a new fundament for  him in January.
<<<SNIP>>>As his economic situation improved, Wu went to the Wuhan Hospital at  the end of last year, where Dr Li Zhibiao examined him and framed  operation plans. Wu accepted an artificial anus, and three days later,  could excrete like normal people.
END EXCERPT
As his economic situation improved? I thought communism was about everyone being equal?


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 3, 2011)

Were you under the impression that China was a communist country?

Besides, almost no one thinks communism is a good idea.


----------



## granfire (Mar 3, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Were you under the impression that China was a communist country?
> 
> Besides, almost no one thinks communism is a good idea.




Well, the theory is good. Too bad that it involves people...


----------



## elder999 (Mar 3, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Were you under the impression that China was a communist country?
> 
> Besides, almost no one thinks communism is a good idea.


 
Communism is pretty much *dead*.


----------



## Big Don (Mar 3, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Were you under the impression that China was a communist country?


 conventional long form: People's Republic of China 
                                           conventional short form:                                  China
                                               local long form:                                  Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo
                                               local short form:                                  Zhongguo
                                               abbreviation:                                  PRC

 Government type:                        


 Communist state


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 3, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Communism is pretty much *dead*.


It was never alive to begin with. No one has ever practiced communism; they have used the word, but human nature over-rides the idea.
Sean


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 3, 2011)

Big Don said:


> It let this poor guy live 55 years without an anus...
> 
> A happy ending to farmer's anus woes


 
Regardless of what I may or may not believe you got to know as soon as you throw down the gauntlet like that and say 

Don't tell me communism is good&#8230;I&#8217;m going to say ok then&#8230;.it&#8217;s good

Just as if you said Don't tell me communism is bad... I would say...ok then&#8230;it is bad

What can I say&#8230; I also don&#8217;t hold the railings on an escalator either... just because they tell me I have to. 

But back to China and communism. There are no truly communist nations on the planet if you go by the definition as to what communism is. However there are Communist political parties that are much closer to Socialism than Communism.


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 3, 2011)

Big Don said:


> conventional long form: People's Republic of China
> conventional short form:                                  China
> local long form:                                  Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo
> local short form:                                  Zhongguo
> ...



Do you know anything about how life is practiced in China?  They are communist in name only.  If you bothered to look at anything beyond your narrow ideology, you would know that clearly.  Even a cursory glance at China shows runaway capitalism, complete with asset bubbles (housing right now), extreme disparities in wealth particularly between the western countryside and eastern cities, heavy growth, a small class of extremely wealthy owners getting rich off this massive buildup, and so forth.  There is no government regulation of incomes.  No government provision of much in the way of services, and certainly not incomes.  Only a third of industry is still government controlled, mostly concentrated in defense and utilities, and there has been an intensive campaign of privatization over the last few decades.  Bah, such hackery.


----------



## Ramirez (Mar 3, 2011)

You are arguing about communism being good? 1962 would like it's issue back.


----------



## elder999 (Mar 3, 2011)

Ramirez said:


> You are arguing about communism being good? 1962 would like it's issue back.


 

None Dare Call It Treason!

(1964, but who's counting? :lfao: )


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 3, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Do you know anything about how life is practiced in China? They are communist in name only. If you bothered to look at anything beyond your narrow ideology, you would know that clearly. Even a cursory glance at China shows runaway capitalism, complete with asset bubbles (housing right now), extreme disparities in wealth particularly between the western countryside and eastern cities, heavy growth, a small class of extremely wealthy owners getting rich off this massive buildup, and so forth. There is no government regulation of incomes. No government provision of much in the way of services, and certainly not incomes. Only a third of industry is still government controlled, mostly concentrated in defense and utilities, and there has been an intensive campaign of privatization over the last few decades. Bah, such hackery.


 
First Im not arguing I agree with what you said I just wanted to add

That there actually are some regulations on some thingsthere just not enforced unless they transgressions are seen. Which translates to they are not seen unless the government is looking or made aware and generally they are not looking so just dont make them aware. If they find out you can get into big trouble, jail to death. However this does not mean that you cant buy your way out with enough money, if we are talking lower level officials. Try and buy your way out with the higher levels and you will be put down. 

What China seems to be these days is a combination of Socialism and the worst parts of unregulated Capitalism. Go to a construction site and see what it is like without OSHA and see what it is like when you are not from the city you are working in and have to live in make shift housing near the site because the developer, the one making all the money may or may not pay you this month.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Mar 3, 2011)

Great, that's all the world need, another *** hole....


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 3, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> That there actually are some regulations on some thingsthere just not enforced unless they transgressions are seen. Which translates to they are not seen unless the government is looking or made aware and generally they are not looking so just dont make them aware. If they find out you can get into big trouble, jail to death. However this does not mean that you cant buy your way out with enough money, if we are talking lower level officials. Try and buy your way out with the higher levels and you will be put down.



Indeed.  They put Zheng Xiaoyu to death for taking bribes in relation to the 2007 recalls.  Just a facade of course.  One man pays to show they are "doing something", while the problem as a whole remains completely unaddressed.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 3, 2011)

I shouldn't but :chuckles:. I suppose someone had to say it, Ken! .

Mind you, for the poor fellow in question, I would guess it would be the first case of something described by such an epithet being welcome!


----------



## Nomad (Mar 3, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Were you under the impression that China was a communist country?
> 
> Besides, almost no one thinks communism is a good idea.



On the contrary.  I think communism is a great _*idea.*_ 

The problem is in the implementation.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 3, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Indeed. They put Zheng Xiaoyu to death for taking bribes in relation to the 2007 recalls. Just a facade of course. One man pays to show they are "doing something", while the problem as a whole remains completely unaddressed.


 
A bit of a side story on the no OSHA bits

I will never forget driving by a sky scraper that was almost finished. There were guys sitting on what appeared to be a 2x6 with big heavy rope ties to the ends, hanginf of the sides of the building doing finish work.

About 3 stories apart, sticking out of the sides of the building, at a slight upwards angle, only at the corners were 4 things I can only describe as telephone poles and on those was hooked cargo net. It was the only safety type thing these guys had f the fell and, like I said, they were 3 stories apart and only on the corners.

And this was a damn tall building


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 3, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> About 3 stories apart, sticking out of the sides of the building, at a slight upwards angle, only at the corners were 4 things I can only describe as telephone poles and on those was hooked cargo net. It was the only safety type thing these guys had f the fell and, like I said, they were 3 stories apart and only on the corners.



Yep.


----------



## Big Don (Mar 3, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> I shouldn't but :chuckles:. I suppose someone had to say it, Ken! .
> 
> Mind you, for the poor fellow in question, I would guess it would be the first case of something described by such an epithet being welcome!


At least he didn't say they ripped him a new one, they cut and sewed...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 3, 2011)

Speaking of which...

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/659/why-do-so-many-native-americans-work-on-skyscrapers

When I was a boy, I often heard it said (by adults who supposedly knew everything) that _"white men don't work above the 27th floor."_  Which I thought was kind of weird.  Would a fall from the 26th floor not kill you just as dead?

Whatever.  I will admit to not much liking driving over bridges, let alone climbing high steel.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 3, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Yep.


 
Yes, kind of like that, but with wood instead of steel and hanging precariously from the side of the building by a rope instead of sitting on a beam.. but at least I do not think it was quite that high up 

By the way...I am NOT doing either one :anic:


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Mar 3, 2011)

Communism is a system based on how we wish people behaved.

Capitalism is a system based on how people actually behave.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 3, 2011)

Add the caveat "in numbers greater than those wherein everyone knows everyone else or inter-dependance is not personally obvious" and that's not a bad thumbnail aphorism, Bushido.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Mar 3, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> Add the caveat "in numbers greater than those wherein everyone knows everyone else or inter-dependance is not personally obvious" and that's not a bad thumbnail aphorism, Bushido.



A fair point. Even as a kid, I found it amusing that the core unit of the USA - the nuclear family - is essentially a communist cell.

I can't recall off the top, but there was even research into the largest possible size of a successful communal group. It was in the mid 100s, I think.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Mar 3, 2011)

I wouldn't want to live in the pure form of capitalist or communist, both are not good. In theory, both assume way too much about people.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 3, 2011)

Which is why mixing the best of both is the most productive way forward.  Encourage the go-getters without having to stack the bodies too high in the back alleys.


----------



## billc (Mar 3, 2011)

I don't know, the Borg collective seems to work pretty well with large numbers.  They kick the federations butt just about everytime they mix it up.


----------



## Steve (Mar 3, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> A fair point. Even as a kid, I found it amusing that the core unit of the USA - the nuclear family - is essentially a communist cell.
> 
> I can't recall off the top, but there was even research into the largest possible size of a successful communal group. It was in the mid 100s, I think.


In the American military, each contributes according to ability and receives according to need.  An e-5 cook makes the same amount of money as an e-5 radioman or an e-5 loadmaster.  It's always been the best example I can think of.


----------



## billc (Mar 3, 2011)

Actually, free market capitalism is the best example, from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.  I have mentioned this in other posts, and it goes like this.  Some people have the skills of a Donal Trump or Bill Gates or Oprah, others have skills that lead them to working for the post office.  A free market system let's each of these people excel at what they do.  Some people like living in a studio apartment in the city, others like to have 3 or four mansions in the States and in foriegn countries.  Once again, the free market allows each to try to get what they feel "they" need.  The communal living arrangements that some people prefer to think are superior can also be experienced in the free market capitalist country.  But it is harder for free enterprise to exist in a communal country.

In a socialist or communist country, this is not true.  Some government bureaucrat or politician will look at an Oprah or a Warren buffet and think, they have more than they need, lets take it from them.  That is why from each according to their ability, to each according to their need doesn't work under socialism and its final stage communism, because the problem is always going to be, WHO DECIDES WHAT IS ONES ABILITY, AND WHAT IS ONES NEED, while capitalism allows people to work that out on their own.


----------



## billc (Mar 3, 2011)

Having been in the military myself, it may be an example of everyone recieving the same reward for different skills, but that just reveals how bad that can actually be.  The military is successful as a government operation only because when the people in the military screw up, you get immediate feed back.  People die.  Then their loved ones go to congressman and senators and start to complain.  Even then, it takes a long time to get things marginally improved.  Otherwise, the military is no better at doing its job than any other government agency.  They spend way to much for inferior equipment in most situations, they are inefficient and are full of waste, corruption and poor performing people.  The "people die" part is the only thing that keeps them the most successful of all the government organizations.

I admire the men and women fighting and dying for our country.  I know that exceptional people are doing their best to keep our country safe.  What I am saying, before people accuse me of attacking the military, is that the military is a government organization, and because of this it too suffers all the problems of any other government organization.  The fact that so many exceptional people, especially right now, who volunteer at a time where they know they will be going into combat, is about the only thing that makes the military as successful as it is.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Mar 4, 2011)

billcihak said:


> In a socialist or communist country, this is not true.  Some government bureaucrat or politician will look at an Oprah or a Warren buffet and think, they have more than they need, lets take it from them.  That is why from each according to their ability, to each according to their need doesn't work under socialism and its final stage communism, because the problem is always going to be, WHO DECIDES WHAT IS ONES ABILITY, AND WHAT IS ONES NEED, while capitalism allows people to work that out on their own.



No they don't.

Many western european countries are socialist or partially socialist.
And contrary to what you imply, there are plenty of rich people, making even more money year after year. Seriously. What sort of warped reasoning did it take for you to conclude that we look at other people and decide that they don't deserve more than we do? Do you even care for the correctness of your argument or are you just here to spew prejudice and misconceptions?

While you're at it, you also might want to disband the EPA which hinders the industrialists from making even more money. The FDA for being pedantic about regulations and patient safety, standing in the way of the capitalists and the 'free market' where it is up to patients to decide if they take the risk or not. The board of medicine for ensuring that doctors have a license. The FAA for standing in the way of startup cowboys. The SEC for not allowing free trade by board members, etc etc. All those agencies who operate 'for the good of all' You will no doubt also want to quit subsidizing Boeing (and hand over the world market to Airbus as a consequence). Quit using public roads, stop using tap water, the sewer system, the electricity grid, and all other public services that you are using, lift import restrictions on cheap sugar.

If unfettered capitalism was so great, then all those agencies would not be needed to insure that rich people / industry don't take advantage of poor people / consumers. As it is, no 'pure' system is a good solution. A mix of ideologies seems to work out best for both the individuals and society as a whole.


----------



## Ramirez (Mar 4, 2011)

Bill, I guess you missed the entire financial crisis, whereby the wealthy on Wall Street gambled with other people's money , drove the economy into the worst crisis since the depression and had their losses underwritten by the US taxpayer, yeah the guy working in the post office.


Seems to me what you call free market capitalism works like this, privatize the profits and socialize the losses, they just can't lose can they?


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Mar 4, 2011)

Ramirez said:


> Bill, I guess you missed the entire financial crisis, whereby the wealthy on Wall Street gambled with other people's money , drove the economy into the worst crisis since the depression and *had their losses underwritten by the US taxpayer, yeah the guy working in the post office.*
> 
> 
> Seems to me what you call free market capitalism works like this, privatize the profits and socialize the losses, they just can't lose can they?


 
This statement, by it's very inclusion in your argument, shows that what we have in the U.S. is not free market capitalism.

It is interesting that we admittedly live in a mixed economy, but people will decry the tax payer bailouts, among other things, as an example of how the "free market" screwed the common man.  Not only that, but it was the very regulations that the government put in place that allowed the financial crisis to occur in the first place.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 4, 2011)

The *theory* of communism differs from the practice.  The theory holds that all property is held in common.  It stems from a theory that advances in technology lead to abundance of material wealth, which can and should be distributed in a need-based system.  It was described as the natural goal of all economic systems. Socialism, by the way, was described as a step along that route, the last one before communism.  This is why many decry socialism as 'communism' or communism lite.

The *practice* of communism has tended to be an authoritarian centralized government in which economic and social activity is controlled by that government.  This was originally devised as a transitional manner of ensuring that states transitioned from capitalism to communism smoothly, as it was anticipated that capitalists would not willingly part with their wealth.  However, it turned out in realistic terms to be the permanent nature of states which declared themselves to be communist, such as the USSR and the PRC.

There is so much more to understand about communism than the old quote _"from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."_  That does not encapsulate the communist concept adequately.  It is more important to understand that the underlying philosophy is that in a communist state, the state recognizes the working class is the main producer of wealth, and the capitalist class exploits (unfairly) the working class in order to take control of the wealth the working class produces.  The ideal communist model would seek to turn that order upside-down; the workers who produce the wealth would be the ruling class, and those who exploit the fruits of their labor would be relegated to second-class status.

One may note that this is the basis for labor unions.  Originally, the union movement in the USA was closely affiliated with the communist movement.  Communists, in many senses, built the unions in the USA.

http://depts.washington.edu/labhist/cpproject/grijalva.shtml

After it was no longer fashionable to be identified as a communist in the USA, the unions divorced themselves from communist labels, but they never stopped adhering to the basic notion that the working class produces wealth, and the capitalist class exploits them.  By adhering to the dictum that the workers do indeed control the means of production, they were able to collectively demand more control over their working conditions, workplace safety, health care, and pay.

Unions today are closer models of communism than most other currently-existing so-called 'communist' governments, including China and Cuba and other allegedly communist nations.

Communism in its pure form never really came to pass.  The 'transitional model' of an authoritarian government that owned all property and set economic and social policy did in several places, but in recent years has been either removed and replaced with a form of capitalism, or it has been slowly and quietly invaded by capitalism.

I would like to note that personally, I find the theory of communism invalid.  Although if one looks to an agrarian model, the workers do indeed produce the wealth, in an industrial-age or information-age society, the workers produce it, yes, but only after capitalist investment, information worker engineering and design, and it only has value after being marketed - and so on.  In other words, it takes all of us to produce a widget.  The guy who pulls the lever that stamps the widget out isn't the noble creator having his hard work stolen from him.  He's one (important) step in the chain.

Where I work, I maintain tools that engineers use to create embedded circuits that control how certain mechanical objects function.  Without me, they could not create the circuits.  Without the circuits, the objects would not function.  The guy who sticks the circuit in the device that it runs is just the last step in the chain.  He is completely necessary, of course, but he is hardly the author of the product he makes, nor is he any more entitled to the wealth produced by said object than I am.

The theory of communism was essentially doomed by the industrial age.  It works in an agrarian society in my opinion.  It works for a nation of farmers, hunters, and craftsmen.  It does not work for a society of engineers and marketing specialists.


----------



## Ramirez (Mar 4, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> This statement, by it's very inclusion in your argument, shows that what we have in the U.S. is not free market capitalism.
> 
> It is interesting that we admittedly live in a mixed economy, but people will decry the tax payer bailouts, among other things, as an example of how the "free market" screwed the common man. Not only that, but it was the very regulations that the government put in place that allowed the financial crisis to occur in the first place.


 
Much like what Bill Mattocks said about communism, the theory of free market capitalism and the practice of it are two different things. 
Sure pure free market capitalism would be great, but you sound as if you know how it works, a large part of the economy works like this, the financial sector is capitalized through taxpayer money by either the Treasury discount window or bond sales or in the current scheme, borrowing from the discount window at almost 0% then buying long term bonds paying 3 or 4%.

Suck it up that is the way it works, governments always find ways to use taxpayer money to capitalize the financial sector in a free market economy. And the government will always bail out the financial sector because to do anything less would cause greater chaos.

You can talk about "free market capitalism" all you like but like the unicorn it doesn't exist.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 4, 2011)

This is not directed at anyone poster just to the thread in general



Let me say this one more time, just a bit differently

There are no Communist Countries.

There is no country that is following the communist system based on the definition of communism.

There are however countries with Communist Political parties that are a one party system the communist party is a political organization much like our Democratic Party or Republican Party.

We are allegedly a Democracy but that has little or nothing to do with the fact the President is a Democrat. We are a Capitalist system too but there is no capitalist party. 

There are Communist political parties but not one true communist state.

Thank You I will go now


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 4, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Some people have the skills of a *Donal Trump* or Bill Gates or Oprah, others have skills that lead them to working for the post office.



You mean the skill to lose money on nearly every real estate venture?  Should have stuck with Bill Gates and Oprah.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Mar 4, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> You mean the skill to lose money on nearly every real estate venture?  Should have stuck with Bill Gates and Oprah.



To be fair, Trump has an amazing talent for fundraising and media spin - which is worth a lot in modern society.


----------



## granfire (Mar 4, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> You mean the skill to lose money on nearly every real estate venture?  Should have stuck with Bill Gates and Oprah.



LOL!

I don't see The Donald (blech) hurting for cash tho....


But gaawd he makes me want to throw up tho....:barf:


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 4, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> You mean the skill to lose money on nearly every real estate venture? Should have stuck with Bill Gates and Oprah.


 
You know what Donald would say don't you.....

*You're FIRED*

**


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 4, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> To be fair, Trump has an amazing talent for fundraising and media spin - which is worth a lot in modern society.



Very true.  Trump's main successful product is Trump.  It certainly isn't his winning business sense, although for some reason people keep looking to him as a real estate authority.


----------



## CoryKS (Mar 4, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> Add the caveat "in numbers greater than those wherein everyone knows everyone else or inter-dependance is not personally obvious" and that's not a bad thumbnail aphorism, Bushido.


 
Or as Eric S Reynolds so perfectly stated it:  "Love doesn't scale."


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Mar 4, 2011)

Found a synopsis of the article

http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2004/03/the_dunbar_numb.html


----------



## Blade96 (Mar 4, 2011)

Big Don said:


> It let this poor guy live 55 years without an anus...
> 
> *A happy ending to farmer's anus woes *
> 
> ...



They're not communists ya Don


----------



## CoryKS (Mar 4, 2011)

Big Don said:


> It let this poor guy live 55 years without an anus...


 
Yup, communism nearly rectum.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 4, 2011)

CoryKS said:


> Yup, communism nearly rectum.


 
You didn't....... nope... you did


----------



## CoryKS (Mar 4, 2011)

Xue Sheng said:


> You didn't....... nope... you did


 
Gimme a break, it's Friday afternoon.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 4, 2011)

CoryKS said:


> Gimme a break, it's Friday afternoon.


 
I already did, just imagine what I would have done it it where Monday


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Mar 5, 2011)

Ramirez said:


> Much like what Bill Mattocks said about communism, the theory of free market capitalism and the practice of it are two different things.
> Sure pure free market capitalism would be great, but you sound as if you know how it works, a large part of the economy works like this, the financial sector is capitalized through taxpayer money by either the Treasury discount window or bond sales or in the current scheme, borrowing from the discount window at almost 0% then buying long term bonds paying 3 or 4%.
> 
> Suck it up that is the way it works, governments always find ways to use taxpayer money to capitalize the financial sector in a free market economy. And the government will always bail out the financial sector because to do anything less would cause greater chaos.
> ...


 
Not sure what you are railiing against me about when you say "suck it up."  I just find it funny that you keep saying that in a free market, governments bail out corporations, then claim that free markets don't exist.  But you will use the fact that people like Bill prop up the ideal of a free market, and use the bailouts (something most free marketers don't like) as an example of what the free market does, even though that is the antithesis of what a free market is, and then you say, yet again, that the free market doesn't actually exist.  

In other words, you want to have it both ways.


----------



## Ramirez (Mar 5, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Not sure what you are railiing against me about when you say "suck it up."  I just find it funny that you keep saying that in a free market, governments bail out corporations, then claim that free markets don't exist.  But you will use the fact that people like Bill prop up the ideal of a free market, and use the bailouts (something most free marketers don't like) as an example of what the free market does, even though that is the antithesis of what a free market is, and then you say, yet again, that the free market doesn't actually exist.
> 
> In other words, you want to have it both ways.



The suck it up wasn't against you actually,  it was just a general comment against those who are against bailouts but would idealize a free market,  my point is that a totally free market sounds great but it doesn't exist, much like communism which sounds ideal but in reality will never exist. 

 The "free market" that Bill champions is an ideal, the "free market" that deregulation and guys like Greenspan tried to implement lead to the bailouts.


 Even Greenspan admits that his free market ideology didn't take into account reality.


----------



## crushing (Mar 5, 2011)

Ramirez said:


> Even Greenspan admits that his free market ideology didn't take into account reality.



That reminds me of various comments that communism and fascism are mutually incompatible.  Well, maybe on paper they are.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Mar 5, 2011)

Ramirez said:


> The suck it up wasn't against you actually, it was just a general comment against those who are against bailouts but would idealize a free market, my point is that a totally free market sounds great but it doesn't exist, much like communism which sounds ideal but in reality will never exist.
> 
> The "free market" that Bill champions is an ideal, the "free market" that deregulation and guys like Greenspan tried to implement lead to the bailouts.
> 
> ...


 
Fair enough.  I just can't be one to call the even half-assed "deregulation" (even though there are thousands of them still there) as a free market.]

I just don't think that you can use the concept of a free market against someone who believes in it based on mere (slight) deregulation of the U.S. economy as showing how bad the free market is.  

As you say, the free market does not exist.


----------



## Ramirez (Mar 5, 2011)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Fair enough.  I just can't be one to call the even half-assed "deregulation" (even though there are thousands of them still there) as a free market.]
> 
> I just don't think that you can use the concept of a free market against someone who believes in it based on mere (slight) deregulation of the U.S. economy as showing how bad the free market is.
> 
> As you say, the free market does not exist.



 And I would say that if you completely deregulate there would be complete chaos. Here is an example, using insurance because insurance is the sector I work in.

  Every insurance company has to hold capital requirements,  a minimum required amount to cover their liabilities, so do banks to cover their risk.   As part of the regulation this amount is less if held in the safe investments of government bonds (makes sense, you don't want the firm investing in the lottery to cover its liabilities).

 The reason AIG almost failed is that the regulators didn't realize their interest rate swaps were an insurance and they didn't have to hold any capital requirments for it (this hits the bottom line).

  So you may say fine, AIG should just fail, meaning millions of pension plans,  the investment banks that had the counter party risks (Goldman for eg.) etc. would have failed.

  Can you imagine the chaos after that?

  As long as financial firms depend of the bond market,  you will always have government intervention...and bonds are a debt owed to you, the US taxpayer.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Mar 5, 2011)

Ramirez said:


> And I would say that if you completely deregulate there would be complete chaos. Here is an example, using insurance because insurance is the sector I work in.


 
I will address this part, because I think it is the most pertinent.

I would agree with you that de-regulation will not work.  The system has evolved to such a beast that mere de-regulation will not solve the problem, and would only make it worse.

Unless, I believe, if that de-regulation was done so incrementally that it would become a free market in at least the amount of time it took to create what we have now, which for the U.S. would be about 150 years.  

But it will never happen.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 5, 2011)

Ordinarily a subject I'd be quite keen to put my relevant expertise to work on ... but past experience here has taught me that I wouldn't make much impact (which given the general reputation of economists these days I don't actually much mind anymore ).

However, there has never been, is not and never will be a free market.  Indeed, free markets are inherently unstable and destructive even in modelled form.  

Laissez Faire economics was pretty close to operating one, at least in terms of trade but that too ended 'badly' (tho' the Empire did okay out of it for a while at the expense of other nations).


----------

