Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
(05-09-2017, 03:01 PM)Galen Wrote: The two of you are missing the point as usual. The general rise in living standards of the nineteenth-century that lasted well into the twentieth century was a consequence of laisse-faire economics. Now that we have pretty much had crony capitalism, a consequence of big government, for about the last thirty years it seems that living standards are decreasing. You might want to spend some time contemplating the economic freedom index and the effects of the loss of economic freedom.
No, that is part and parcel of the issue, but only part. Yes, laisse faire allowed the few to prosper to an exceeding degree, and the byproduct of that was economic development. So? The vast majority suffered for it, and, by your standards, should never have expected to receive any recompense for using their bodies as industrial fodder to create the industries you cite. Life can never be all take and no give (or the opposite for the less fortunate many). If it is, what's the purpose of the society that this kind of thinking creates?
Remember, we had slavery at one time, and it allowed the South to prosper too. Prior to the end of that evil practice the South was the economic engine of the nation. Is that justification for continuing slavery? After all, everyone of consequence was free to pursue his goals.   
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Posts: 1,131
Threads: 6
Joined: May 2016
(05-09-2017, 03:08 PM)David Horn Wrote: (05-09-2017, 11:40 AM)The Wonkette Wrote: (05-09-2017, 10:06 AM)David Horn Wrote: (05-09-2017, 03:44 AM)Galen Wrote: You do realize that life in the nineteenth century was far better than that in earlier eras...
Better for some, bad to crushing for others. As usual, the powerful did extremely well and those who served the powerful did OK. The rest were either living on the frontier or being beaten down on a regular basis. Most of the frontier dwellers were homesteaders, with very high failure rates and early deaths, or the few success stories. Not a brilliant story, but better than earlier periods. Also, not a model for modernity.
Even for the rich and well-connected, the 19th century medical tool set had definite drawbacks. Compare two assassination attempts, 100 years apart, James Garfield versus Ronald Reagan. Although Garfield's injury was far less serious, he eventually succumbed to it because of the limits of medical treatment in 1881; Reagan came close to death but with late 20th century technology, fully recovered and served out the remaining 7 years 10 months of his term, living ultimately to the ripe age of 94.
Good point. There are so many ways modernity is preferable, that longing for the past seems foolish on its face.
You are still missing the point. I am pretty certain that is deliberate at this point. Most of the precursors for an Industrial Revolution were present in China by the sixteenth century but it and the rise in living standards did not take place there as it did in the west. Hint: China never has had anything resembling a free market. Think about why the standard of living got much better through the nineteenth century and on into the twentieth century.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken
If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action. -- Ludwig von Mises
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
Economic freedom has meaning only if there is no concentration of economic power. When that concentration exists. 'economic freedom' is debased to extreme inequality.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 1,131
Threads: 6
Joined: May 2016
(05-10-2017, 12:10 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Economic freedom has meaning only if there is no concentration of economic power. When that concentration exists. 'economic freedom' is debased to extreme inequality.
Do you ever stop to consider the role of regulatory capture not to mention bailouts of failing entities in causing exactly that? Expecting the government, which is fostering crony capitalism, to save you from it makes utterly no sense.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken
If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action. -- Ludwig von Mises
Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
(05-09-2017, 03:59 PM)Galen Wrote: ... Most of the precursors for an Industrial Revolution were present in China by the sixteenth century but it and the rise in living standards did not take place there as it did in the west. Hint: China never has had anything resembling a free market. Think about why the standard of living got much better through the nineteenth century and on into the twentieth century.
It's interesting that you pick a book review as your source, but never mind. Take a few minutes to read the Comments section for other readings of the period in question. The strongest alternative, and the one that makes the most sense, is the difference in the Europe of the times and the other dynastic empires, including China. Only Europe had ongoing strife to contend with that mandated every advantage to survive. This has nothing to do with markets and everything to do with self defense. Other arguments include the lack of an easily used alphabet, the lack of scientific inquiry and even the complacency of being who they were. One cited the Gutenberg press. In other words, its complicated, but citing free markets seems lame.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
(05-10-2017, 02:02 AM)Galen Wrote: (05-10-2017, 12:10 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Economic freedom has meaning only if there is no concentration of economic power. When that concentration exists. 'economic freedom' is debased to extreme inequality.
Do you ever stop to consider the role of regulatory capture not to mention bailouts of failing entities in causing exactly that? Expecting the government, which is fostering crony capitalism, to save you from it makes utterly no sense.
The Trump Administration sponsors crony capitalism in its purest. All that can save us is its ineptitude.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
(05-10-2017, 02:02 AM)Galen Wrote: (05-10-2017, 12:10 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Economic freedom has meaning only if there is no concentration of economic power. When that concentration exists. 'economic freedom' is debased to extreme inequality.
Do you ever stop to consider the role of regulatory capture not to mention bailouts of failing entities in causing exactly that? Expecting the government, which is fostering crony capitalism, to save you from it makes utterly no sense.
Do you ever consider the dynamic tension between public and private power that creates cycles of technological advance followed by periods of social advance? Crony capitalism is a social ill that resides first and foremost in the private sector ... as it does today. Private entities always try to capture the use of public power for their own ends. Given the absence of public power, they will create it. Nothing serves than as well. Personally, I prefer a form of public power less answerable to private power, which is both hard and rare. At the moment, private power is winning. Thank Reagan and Clinton for making that possible, They let those private power players accumulate the wealth it takes to make capture possible.
Take off the blinders and look at reality as it is.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
|
