Ironic that you accuse me of using blanket terms, which I did not, as corporatism is a well defined economic system accepted by most scholars, while you yourself apply untrue labels to my arguments that are, by all definitions, blanket terms.
Firstly, I am not a "realist", the majority of the contentions that I am making fall under the neoobjectivist umbrella. Secondly, my contention is that US hegemonic power is directly related to the individual business entities, not of the abilities of massively subsidized c-corps. One of the major advantages to an unplanned economy is the decentralization of tax revenue, and by allowing massive corporations to continue to balloon is size artificially via bailouts simply perpetuates the root issues.
Well yes, but the regulations needed to be in place by the early 2000's, because that's when the housing bubble first started iirc. So basically, the duration of Bush's presidency. Huh, go figure. Another legacy to chock up on the ol' Bush family tree. Mission accomplished: completely **** America over.
If the goverment actually regulated the so called "free" market they could have prevented the crash easily. But they didnt and the whole world paid the price.
Uh.. the Feds did not precipitate the 2008 recession. Unless you are talking about the lack of regulation due to the Bush presidency, but the causes go back much further than that, arguably to Bill Clinton's budget adjustments in the early 90's.
Blame game aside, you'd be wrong to assume the crash was preventable by the government, and you're even more wrong to believe that the bailout wasn't absolutely essential for maintaining US hegemonic power.
Also corporatism is a really blanket term that I think you should probably avoid using, since it generalizes your concept more than I think you want it to.
The worldwide economy was only allowed to crash because the usfg moved towards corporatism. Bailing out huge multinationals that contribute little and will just be bailed out again next collapse is not the solution.
I never argued for socialism. I was stating that in a proper competitive market, mutual gains are made and thereby do we find mutual cooperation through recognition of competency in the opposing body. If competencies are not met, we absorb and assimilate (read: historically, conquer and colonize). As the world economy grows and continues to expand in its inclusive nature, we are more and more reliant on each other as efficient producers.
I agree with your contentions on individual desires and why we act in the first place. However, to take it back to game theory for a second, the world economy is in a state which dictates optimal play to be mutual cooperation. Is this without conflict or contest? Of course not, but the best outcome depends upon coexistence, or more accurately, cohesion.
You realists are living in the past if you think otherwise. As for calling current market regulations mercantile, you must be joking. We are living in a neoliberal international community based upon the US hegemony. The whole thing has its roots in government, if you really want to argue IR theory.
Dig deeper, friend. You haven't quite got to the root of it all yet, I'm afraid. I'll keep giving you the signals, though.
Pottedstuff you do realize that the fed had to bailout the companies or the worldwide economy would crash harder than it actually did? You clearly dont know jackshit about economy and should go back to school insted of typing wall of psuedo intellectual that is mostly strung together with your overly simplified idiotic conclusions of complex issues.
You fail to realize that we live in a world where finite resources are allocatable, so yes, it can be said that existence itself is competitive. The majority of your posts were merely ad hominem; they fail to hit the heart of the issue. While you may claim that fates are tied, objective analysis (especially in a neoaristotelian sense, excluding the epistemological of course) tells otherwise, as does the nature of what can be inferred about life itself: those whom are capable deserve survival; in economics or as you phrased it, "opportunities or less advantages" alike.
'Humanity' is not a collectively evolved singular organism, nor will it ever be. Collectivism results in failure and loss of life when initiated, as humans are individuals within personal relative perceptions. Nature orders that the strongest must survive, and that is the case with governance as well: your proposed collectivism is the gun upon which you hold to your own head.
The issue that I have with socialists, marxists, and postmodernists in general is that they assume that their social contract, ironically a construct itself, is universally accepted, whereas private property and the corresponding notion of ownership proportional to the amount of efficient reallocation, or production, of resources are dismissed as luxuries or as harmful to the collective, which completely negates the fact that the individual is incentivised only by the individual notion of personal progression.
As for mercantile market controls, that is laughable, as unregulated markets produce more innovation in an arms race of sorts. The Fed has completely ignored these contentions that the United States was founded upon, namely Smith's capitalism (which was a blend of "borrowed" ideas from Hutcheson and others), and has instead embraced corporatism. If the Fed ceased bailouts and instituted increased economic freedom, most of the contentions that have been made would be effectively solved.
I think that's a whole separate conversation, but communication is one of the foundations of human civilization. My argument is that it is very likely the internet and the current world economy have already assimilated us into one grand society, whether we like it or not.
Should the weak and less capable have less opportunities or less advantages? Should the lazy suffer for their sin? Perhaps the inept should be purged, in fact?
There's valid points in there, surely. Yes, perhaps proportionally, they should not receive as much as others who are stronger, more capable, or more productive. That all makes good sense. However, the system we currently have is stretching those proportions into disproportionate measures, creating massive economic inequalities globally while also creating great opportunities, new jobs, and new growth elsewhere. However, the positive externalities are far outweighed by the negative externalities, and it's really just a matter of time before the collective **** hits the fan. The global MNCs are negligent not out of spite but out of assumed necessity, and that necessity exists because of a lack of proper regulations - regulations that would ease us towards an equilibrium that has a sense of mutual progress. Without some form of a unified collective governing the free market, we are doomed to literal apocalypse at the hands of the very resources we seek to manipulate.
Republicans have been blinded by this ideal of being somehow above other human beings. I'm here to tell you that no matter how smart, how rich, or how lucky you are, you will always be a human, just like every other person on this planet. That means we share a common goal: self-preservation.
The issue is that you've been blinded into thinking it's a competition, with room for victors and losers, but the reality is that either we join together or we die. As humans continue to connect and become part of a singular society, we become more and more reliant on each other, something that should be inherently true if you follow technological growth of human civilization.
We have evolved from hunter-gatherers to a mutual collective of sophisticated beings. The sooner you realize it, the more you will begin to understand how inextricably tied together all our fates are.
Why are certain economic principles overlooked? Because corporations are designed by humans, with self-preservation and economic survival at their core, rather than optimization of an industry or market.
So, how does this apply to what we're talking about? What is the function of a sovereign state government? Why have we spent centuries of human existence designing agencies to facilitate social, political, and economic regulations? Could it be to transform basic survival instincts into more effective means of mutual commensurate gains?
And so, what it boils down to is this: are you interested in self-preservation, or are you interested in the preservation of this world, the human race, and the collective fate of those now in the grip of a greedy global corporate oligarchy?
The question is truthfully a false dichotomy: if you answer in favor of self-preservation, you've lost in the LR but gained in the SR, just like a firm might think in order to maximize profits.
The reality is that there's only one answer moving forward: we need careful, practical, and humane regulations for businesses and enterprises. We need to look towards the long-term progress of humanity. More access to college via affordability is not a far-fetched goal, and neither is a job market that secures minimum basic income.
Pottedstuff and MeetTerry share the sentimentality of a college student who has recently entered the corporate world and believes they have made it.
Let me know how that career ladder is working out for you in 10 years.
And no, making college free (which is an impossible idea in the current economy, technically) would not push the standard to a graduate degree. There is a lack of technical capability already seen in undergraduate candidates, and a graduate degree has ALREADY become a prerequisite in the upper echelons of international business.
Basically, if you don't have a Master's, you can rest assured you will encounter a glass ceiling, at least in your salary, in the typical American business firm.
Let's be clear: we're not discussing opening colleges to a new tidal wave of undergraduate students; there are application processes for precisely those reasons. The discussion is how to subsidize the market properly, and the issue stems from the lack of regulation between federal loans and college tuitions.
First, Terry, you blamed the government for providing these loans. Later, you stated that there was nothing the government could do to stop the abuse on the university's side, since it is mostly a privatized industry anyway.
In truth, you are making excuses for an inadequate system, just as in the case with the job market.
Capitalism is an economic system that creates commensurate growth when and only when the markets are proportionally allocated to do so. An individual firm is not functionally capable of optimal allocation for the market it operates in, hence we have conglomerates and larger economies of scale to help intervene and adjust, best exemplified in the financial markets. The problem, however, is that even in the largest conglomerate, basic economic realities are overlooked, leading to large shocks in the supply and demand (i.e. booms and busts).
I believe that you are excusing laziness and lack of productivity. The economy serves to, in an enlightenment or classical liberal sense, produce progress in terms of efficiency of resources available. To do such, capitalism rewards those whom are capable, not those who are incapable but put in more effort.
It is easy to get a job out of college. If you are capable, it is very simple to take out a loan and start a business as well; yet few do it because they feel entitled to the products produced by other's hard labor. College is not for everyone, and if you go to college, you should expect to be a capable individual, not someone who feels entitled to a job. If you lack a job, then you simply need to work harder. There is no shortage of jobs for capable individuals, and many do not even require college degrees.
Socialistic economies are significantly more inefficient, which results in a falling behind in innovation, scientific findings, and resource allocation in the long run. Economic equality is not a right, those who produce more or are more valuable naturally deserve more than someone who does nothing for humanity save for squander resources.
okay, i think that we just fundamentally disagree and are therefore going in circles. i think that it is not easy or even feasible for most people to get well-paying jobs out of college, and you say that it definitely is. your view of the job market/education system is essentially that it functions fairly and simply, and that with hard work you can get out of any situation, when i just don't think it's true!
i think that the amount of debt students get into is absurd, but you think that if students weren't lazy, it wouldn't be an issue. there's no actual way to argue without going back and forth and saying "no, you!" so i'm gonna withdraw from this conversation.
No. The vast majority who work hard get good jobs. This is how it works. Employers can quickly sift through applicants who are good and who aren't good.
Usually I despise Reddit but /r/personalfinance helps explain how to best pay off education loans in the most effective ways. Being financially literate is also necessary.
Except, that is how it works. Better applicants are taken over inferior ones.
So tell me how you're going to make college less expensive. Just go to college boards and tell them "hey stop charging $xxxxx"?
Reminder that we have far more private colleges in the US than public colleges, that are in no way related to the government. The government cannot do ANYTHING to change how much these colleges charge. Students' fault for choosing an expensive college in the first place.
Making undergrad super accessible to everyone will just cause employers to start looking for students out of grad school.
College doesn't have to be free nor should it be.
People who are paying outrageous costs for education have themselves to blame for not working harder to get scholarships and grants. There's no way to try and deny this.
There are people who simply don't have the means to college and as sad as it is, they are not reason enough to make college free and extremely accessible.
that's great, but i'm sure you also know a lot of people who worked hard and ended up struggling to get a well-paying job. i certainly do! i know a lot of hard-working people who were unemployed/underemployed for a very long time. pretending that it's black and white "if you work hard, you can pay off all of your debt and get a good-paying job quickly" is just straight up not true. that's my issue with what you're saying.
and no, it's not possible for a ton of people because of the way that the job market works.
and yes, college is expensive, so it makes sense to make it not quite as expensive so that students don't have to take out a ton of loans. i don't get why you disagree with that idea.
