What's wrong with supply-side, darwinian economics

[Anoetos]

I used to think that markets just took care of themselves, that what has been called "tough *expletive deleted*" economics was the way to go.

I no longer believe this to be the case.

Without having actually become a socialist I have come to think that some state involvement in wealth distribution is necessary.

This is because the main problem with supply side, "let things take care of themselves" economics is that it is based on the assumption that those with the stuff will share it with those who don't, even if that sharing takes the form of creating jobs.

This is a massive assumption given the human tendency to gratify ones own appetites at the expense of others. And the conclusion that the market will make everything alright in the end seems rather pie in the sky...what is the price we pay while we wait?

[Solly]

I think part of the problem is that such a theory theorises humans and their behaviour into nothing more than rational atomistic individuals who make rational though fallible choices. Margaret Thatcher once infamously said, there is no such thing as society, only individuals and families. Once you have idealised human beings in such a way, then the concomitants of being human: pain, fear, suffering, friendships, ideals, etc also get forgotten, and you are left with a view of society that seems to be made of educated 18th century men of independant means - and docile wives, and plentiful servants - making their way in the world.
there is very little place for the vagaries of life, the accidents and inequalities of envirnoment and person, in such a view.

[Abigail]

Margaret Thatcher once infamously said, there is no such thing as society, only individuals and families.
Solly, I know Thatcher was much despised and maligned after this particular speech, but if you think of it in a way she was right because if each individual functions to the best of his ability and keeps the 'what am I doing' in mind the society will be the better for it. So, I do agree that we have to have the broader picture (society) firmly in mind, but the broader picture is only as good as the pixels

[Solly]

I can see the point you are making Abi, apart from the fact that Maggie really meant it: there is no such thing as 'society', only economies. That means I am not my brother's keeper; in fact I should get out of his life and let him take what is coming to him.
As far as society is concerned, it's concern is with the failing pixels, while encouraging all the other pixels to work together. I used to be an out and out libertarian, supported Maggie, etc, but it eventually ends up as the philosophy of the able haves who think they don't need to care about the have nots unless there is a profit in it. We can't all operate at our best; our best isn't always good enough, and so society takes up the strain, accommodates itself, so that the mentally handicapped can live in safety, the uneducatable can find a place of safety, those out of work for one reason or another, illness, pregnancy, etc are protected. The Libertarian view turns away from this, unless there is a profit, unless business in unimpeded in its actions. Who changed the health and safety laws for children and women workers in the 19th century, and sweat shops in the 20th? Business?

[Abigail]

I can see the point you are making Abi, apart from the fact that Maggie really meant it: there is no such thing as 'society', only economies. That means I am not my brother's keeper; in fact I should get out of his life and let him take what is coming to him. I am not arguing for Thatchers understanding, only that she had a kernel of truth even though she distorted it ie like let your light shine in the darkness...only their idea was to then make sure you reflected it back on yourself again to get you the maximum benefit instead of letting it go on to bring light to others
[/QUOTE]

[C. D. Ward]

I can see the point you are making Abi, apart from the fact that Maggie really meant it: there is no such thing as 'society', only economies. That means I am not my brother's keeper; in fact I should get out of his life and let him take what is coming to him.Ah, my evil twin...not being your brother's keeper (i.e., morally obligated to him) does not necessarily entail getting out of his life and letting him "take what is coming to him." There is a middle ground between denying that we have a moral obligation to others and accepting that we do: believing that it is morally good to help people while accepting that we are not obligated to do so. "Supererogation" is the term of art for it...
As far as society is concerned, it's concern is with the failing pixels, while encouraging all the other pixels to work together. I used to be an out and out libertarian, supported Maggie, etc, but it eventually ends up as the philosophy of the able haves who think they don't need to care about the have nots unless there is a profit in it. We can't all operate at our best; our best isn't always good enough, and so society takes up the strain, accommodates itself, so that the mentally handicapped can live in safety, the uneducatable can find a place of safety, those out of work for one reason or another, illness, pregnancy, etc are protected. The Libertarian view turns away from this, unless there is a profit, unless business in unimpeded in its actions. Who changed the health and safety laws for children and women workers in the 19th century, and sweat shops in the 20th? Business?I agree that in praxis, this is often the way of things, but I don't believe that it's a necessary outcome of political/economic liberalism. I think that Thatcher had the inklings of a legitimate point: there is no common good. If we want to work for a society in which justice truly prevails, we ought to work for one in which every individual is as free as possible to pursue what he/she feels is good for them. IMHO, this must include "safety nets" for the unable, so I don't think that it's necessary for liberals to eschew such things (in fact, I would argue the opposite: that liberals must support such things as being the surest way to guarantee their own happiness).

To the point in the OP, I would say that I still believe that laissez-faire capitalism as an ideal is the most moral of all economic systems yet developed. It is the only one that truly offers the promise of freedom to all participants. I say "as an ideal" because a fundamental assumption of the system is that all participants have access to perfect information and in reality, this is likely impossible to achieve. I therefore often find myself in agreement with "my brethren on the left" when they advocate stopgap measures and regulations designed to curb undue influence or power by individuals or corporations in positions that, due to the uneven flow of information in our society, grant them access to levels of power far above that of the ordinary citizen. I think that such is wholly in keeping with the spirit, if not the letter, of true political/economic liberalism.

IOW, to go back to the question posed in the thread title, what's wrong with supply-side "darwinian" economics, understanding "darwinian" in the sense of "natural selection", is that it's no longer "darwinian" in any real sense. Smith's "invisible hand" isn't invisible any longer; market forces are being turned and perverted by individuals/corporations whose access to and control of information places them above the market rather than part of it. However, and this is again my opinion, it's still possible to look toward the ideal and seek to remediate the difficulties rather than discarding it altogether.

[Zeluvia]

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44423

[CatholicSage]

Referencing the OP:

I used to think that markets just took care of themselves, that what has been called "tough *expletive deleted*" economics was the way to go.

I no longer believe this to be the case.

Without having actually become a socialist I have come to think that some state involvement in wealth distribution is necessary.

This is because the main problem with supply side, "let things take care of themselves" economics is that it is based on the assumption that those with the stuff will share it with those who don't, even if that sharing takes the form of creating jobs.

This is a massive assumption given the human tendency to gratify ones own appetites at the expense of others. And the conclusion that the market will make everything alright in the end seems rather pie in the sky...what is the price we pay while we wait?

Maybe I just can't read all of a sudden, but could you sum up what your main problem is with supply-side economics, preferably with some real-life situation to illustrate it?

I will of course admit that supply-side capitalism is not perfect, but I think it has proven to be a very capable economic system that brings, if not economic equality, economic prosperity to those involved. There are always unfortunate exceptions where some poor worker will get hosed because of the financial misdealings of his boss, but that is why I value such competetive capitalism as an economic system only; as far as the rest of society is concerned, I would hope that family and community would extend their arms to help the worker, rather than leaving him behind in a social darwinist system.

[Ryokan]

Supply side economics works as thus, in theory. This may not make any sense, since economics is easier to understand with formulas and graphs to help, but I'll do my best until a dlwesque person shows up. Keynesian economics says that if you cut everybodies taxes, demand will go up, and thus stimulate economy in a down turn. Then,once we are in good shape, you raise taxes to prevent inflation. Supply side economics says that you cut taxes on those who save, and encourage saving, and this will increase supply, giving the same amount of produced goos but no inflation. And you never raise the taxes again. Supply side economics is often recommended because of the idea that, eventually, the more you raise taxes the lower the your actual revenue is because taxes create a disincentive. Conservatives often think that this point is around 15 or 20% of your income. Studies suggest its really around 70%. So Supply side economics creates deficits that require spending cuts or you will lose the additional growth when you have to pay the taxes later, either via inflation or higher interest rates.

[Anoetos]

Ryo,

Wow, that's busy...

Heh...Good concise explanation though...

My approach is far less technical, I guess...and I have probably conflated a couple of common expressions without doing actual due diligence to their real meaning.

When I say "supply side, darwinian economics" I am using soundbyte code for laissez-faire economic theory, keynesian, smithian or otherwise ( I really don't know the difference and probably shouldn't be attending or initiating threads in a 300 level course selection on this subject but this category looked so lonely :P).

Anyhow, Lutheransage, what feeble criticism I bring to bear is against that, probably muddled, apprehension of the theory that I hold in my brain. It really doesn't seem to work. The simplest understanding I have of supply side economics per se is that it is an economic system geared to support production and capital; i.e. the supply side. We don't really do this though. We seem to actually do our living and breathing, buying and selling, in a hybrid environment of hysterical consumer protectionism held in delicate balance with some real efforts to manipulate market forces in favor of the producers.

So where is my criticism now? Is it against the "pure theory" of supply side economics? Yes, probably, as poorly as I understand it. Because again, if I couple this understanding of supply side theory with laissez-faire capitalism I seem to come up with an ideal (generally modified extremely in practice) that creates far too many opportunities for abuse on the parts of those the market is tweaked to favor.

I think I understand what, theoretically, is supposed to happen and Ryokan's excellent post confirms me in this, but my objection would be, and it seems to be his as well, that it doesn't really ever pan out the way it's supposed to.

Everyone isn't actually benefited. And I would suggest that the most basic reason for this is that, as Aquinas said "The only thing infinite about men are their appetites", and the idea that people will behave altruistically without some external incentive to do so is naive. Correspondingly, I am not sanguine about a "system" that claims to automate this general economic benefit.

And no, you haven't suddenly lost the ability to read, it's just that what you were reading was a broadside written by an idiot (which is, more or less, what my nick means, btw).

:<

[Hitch]

I used to think that markets just took care of themselves, that what has been called "tough *expletive deleted*" economics was the way to go.

I no longer believe this to be the case.

Without having actually become a socialist I have come to think that some state involvement in wealth distribution is necessary.

This is because the main problem with supply side, "let things take care of themselves" economics is that it is based on the assumption that those with the stuff will share it with those who don't, even if that sharing takes the form of creating jobs.

This is a massive assumption given the human tendency to gratify ones own appetites at the expense of others. And the conclusion that the market will make everything alright in the end seems rather pie in the sky...what is the price we pay while we wait?What will you cite from the Scriptures to allow, reqiure and or tolerate, the states involvment?

[Anoetos]

What will you cite from the Scriptures to allow, reqiure and or tolerate, the states involvment?

What would you cite to exclude it?

[Duder]

I used to think that markets just took care of themselves, that what has been called "tough *expletive deleted*" economics was the way to go.

I no longer believe this to be the case.

Without having actually become a socialist I have come to think that some state involvement in wealth distribution is necessary.

This is because the main problem with supply side, "let things take care of themselves" economics is that it is based on the assumption that those with the stuff will share it with those who don't, even if that sharing takes the form of creating jobs.

This is a massive assumption given the human tendency to gratify ones own appetites at the expense of others. And the conclusion that the market will make everything alright in the end seems rather pie in the sky...what is the price we pay while we wait?

Liberty, in the slogans of the strong, means freedom to oppress the weak."
- Will Durant


Anoetos -

My abiding dislike of laissez-faire economics is surely only the result of my temperment. Its results do make me "feel good". Beyond that, I cannot give much of a technical critique, having only sat through a couple required courses is economics and quickly forgotten much I learned.

In no particular order, here are some things that bother me:

"Let the buyer beware". For every consistent believer in laissez-faire, this attitude is implicit. The capitalist is free to make any kind of product he wishes, to offer it at any price he wishes, and to advertise it in any way he likes. If a consumer pays too much money for a product, or is harmed by a product, then it is the customer's own fault because he failed to be sufficiently wary, or he failed to be smart enough to detect the deceptions of the producer.

The practical upshot of "let the buyer beware" is that the producer has full licence to deceive the consumer. My personal temperment reacts poorly to this situation, as, I believe, will the personal temperment of every sincere religious person.

"Social Darwinism" is a close relaitive of "let the buyer beware", and the cornerstone of lassiez-faire thought. It says that the poor, the sick and the gullible who have little apptitude to beware, or no means to cut good econimc deals for themselves, should die. The theory operates like natual selection: if the maladjusted die off they will not raise maladjusted kids, and so on the whole the quality of the consumers will improve over time, to the greater good of society.

The theory came to the fore in the 19th century as Charles Darwin's approach to biological evolution gained acceptance. It is also an expression of 19th century physics which saw all reality as nothing more than the blind interplay of electric, gravitational, atomic and chemical forces. All things, including people, are just aggregates of atoms with no intelligent design and no God to hear their cries (such cries would be nothing more than sound waves - the accidental inadvertent perturbations of molecules in the air).

And if there is no meaning in human emotion, suffering, justice or morality, and no God who intervened in the evolution of humans, then it stands to reason that compassion, altruism and philanthropy are misguided and meaningless - and the "bad biological machines" should be allowed to fail without regret.

My mushy temperment will not allow me to renounce these feelings of compassion and morality. I think sincere religious people will agree.

There are some more technical problems I see with laissez-faire economics. It is an attitude that is deeply resentful of government or any authority that would limit its liberty to do as it pleases, and this attitude is so profound and absolute that it even hates to have its ability to infringe the liberty of others challenged. Thus, powerful capitalists set themselves up as the authority - and their responce when their authority is questioned is "who are YOU to limit my liberty to be as authoritarian as I wish?" Laisses-faire results in self-contradiction and a trend toward absolute tyrany in the form of fascism.

Now, any move you make to put limits on laissez-faire with legislation is by definition socialism. And if you disapprove of unrestrained laissez-faire, then you are to some degree a socialist.

[Hitch]

The premise that powers not granted the state by God requires that the responsibilities/priveleges ect as naturally existing are previously reserved for the private sector of individuals, families and groups. This allows citation of the Scriptures as a whole since private property rights are well established in hte ancient Scriptures and specificly included by our Lord in the Gospels as well.

[Hitch]

Let the buyer beware". For every consistent believer in laissez-faire, this attitude is implicit. The capitalist is free to make any kind of product he wishes, to offer it at any price he wishes, and to advertise it in any way he likes. If a consumer pays too much money for a product, or is harmed by a product, then it is the customer's own fault because he failed to be sufficiently wary, or he failed to be smart enough to detect the deceptions of the producer.

The practical upshot of "let the buyer beware" is that the producer has full licence to deceive the consumer. My personal temperment reacts poorly to this situation, as, I believe, will the personal temperment of every sincere religious person.


Finding Biblcal support for the first part is elemetary. Every sunday School boy should read the Proverbs. However I dont know where to find support for the lincense to deceive. So it seems you are promoting the notion that God's revealed system, as generally described in your opening ,is thoughtless ,inadequate and needful of State sponsored intervention.

The test will inevetibly reduce to whether God's restrictions and requirements are workable and righteous in and of themselves or no.


Take care


Hitch

[Duder]

Finding Biblcal support for the first part is elemetary. Every sunday School boy should read the Proverbs. However I dont know where to find support for the lincense to deceive. So it seems you are promoting the notion that God's revealed system, as generally described in your opening ,is thoughtless ,inadequate and needful of State sponsored intervention.

The test will inevetibly reduce to whether God's restrictions and requirements are workable and righteous in and of themselves or no.


Take care


Hitch

I have not been in the habit of approaching the Bible as a textbook in economic theory. Are you sure it is intended that way?

Moreover, if I found something in the Bible about economics that appeared to be obsolete in today's world, I would chalk it up to ancient thinking, like the references to the corners of the earth, and the pillars that hold up the sky, and so forth. I would not take it to mean that God is a registered Republican with neocon leanings, or that He endorses trickle-down economics. These literary artifacts were writen by ancient people in the beginning experimental stages of nation-building and we cannot expect that they will contain either perfect science or perfect economics. It is important to understand that that in itself in no way diminishes their religious and spiritual value.

[Hitch]

I have not been in the habit of approaching the Bible as a textbook in economic theory. Are you sure it is intended that way?

Moreover, if I found something in the Bible about economics that appeared to be obsolete in today's world, I would chalk it up to ancient thinking, like the references to the corners of the earth, and the pillars that hold up the sky, and so forth. I would not take it to mean that God is a registered Republican with neocon leanings, or that He endorses trickle-down economics. These literary artifacts were writen by ancient people in the beginning experimental stages of nation-building and we cannot expect that they will contain either perfect science or perfect economics. It is important to understand that that in itself in no way diminishes their religious and spiritual value.I have not been in the habit of approaching the Bible as a textbook in economic theory. Are you sure it is intended that way?

Yes.


Yeah ,,, the Bibles also says the sun rises,,,, The reality is that you have not considered it. These 'literary artifacts' are recognized holy canon and self described as 'God breathed'. Any 'spiritual value' comes only from heaven and testifies to accuracy and tranasendent quaitly of the Scriptures. To say on one had they are of 'spiritual value' and one the other they are mere 'literary artifacts' is as self serving as it is blasphemous.

Take care

Hitch

[Duder]

I have not been in the habit of approaching the Bible as a textbook in economic theory. Are you sure it is intended that way?

Yes.


Yeah ,,, the Bibles also says the sun rises,,,, The reality is that you have not considered it. These 'literary artifacts' are recognized holy canon and self described as 'God breathed'. Any 'spiritual value' comes only from heaven and testifies to accuracy and tranasendent quaitly of the Scriptures. To say one one had they are of 'spiritual value' and one the other they are mere 'literary artifacts' is as self serving as it is blasphemous.

Take care

Hitch

Once you call me a blasphemer, no further constructive conversation can happen.

Thank you for your interest.

[Hitch]

Suit yourself. Im used to dealings with folks thinking they are more apt that God to control the affairs of mankind.

[Arnold]

Forget the theory - let's look at the results. In the 1960's Canada had a higher standard of living than the US. Both were open free markets. Then socialism took hold in Canada and now forty years later the province with the highest standard of living (Alberta) has a lower standard of living than the state with the lowest (Arkansas). Germany, long touted as the shining light of democratic socialism has double-digit unemployment whereas the liberal left in the US complains about a 5.2% unemployment rate. In response to the employment numbers released last week Hillary Clinton actually intimated that the US economy was on the verge of collapse.


So Supply side economics creates deficits that require spending cuts or you will lose the additional growth when you have to pay the taxes later, either via inflation or higher interest rates.Your theory is based on Democratic talking points - it is simply not true. President Kennedy cut taxes in the early sixties and government revenue continued to grow each year. Ronald Reagan cut taxes in the early eighties and government revenues almost doubled by the end of the eighties. The deficit was caused by enormous spending increases, on the military by President Reagan to defeat the USSR, and by the Democrats on social programs (the trade-off Reagan made with them). The economy eventually grew out of the deficit in the mid nineties with help from the Contract with America. President Bush cut taxes early in his first term and government revenues have continued to increase each year even though Bush inherited a recession from the Clinton administration and the impact of 9/11 on the economy alone was almost two trillion dollars. Again spending on the war on terror and increases in entitlement spending account for the increase in the deficit. Growth through the impact of the tax cuts (without increased spending) would eliminate the deficit within a few years. Again however, increased spending on entitlement programs (new drug program) will hamper the reduction of the deficit.

[Duder]

Suit yourself. Im used to dealings with folks thinking they are more apt that God to control the affairs of mankind.

Then perhaps you well enjoy better success conversing with those folks instead of with me. Though I would still think calling them blasphemers will hinder rather than help those conversations.

Thanks again.

[Hitch]

Instead of whining forever make a case that refering to the ancient Scriptures as mere 'literary artifacts' is not blasphemous.

I will remind you that the name of this site is Theologyweb and though wide lattidude is granted it is a christian site and the Scriptures are revered not sneered at. Believers and non-believers alike are welcome to post realizing that the presuppostion of biblical authority is the norm.

You are fre to spaeak your mind wrt any subject, your view of the Scriptures ,Christ etc, I am free to comment on any public presentation.

H

[Duder]

Instead of whining forever make a case that refering to the ancient Scriptures as mere 'literary artifacts' is not blasphemous.

I will remind you that the name of this site is Theologyweb and though wide lattidude is granted it is a christian site and the Scriptures are revered not sneered at. Believers and non-believers alike are welcome to post realizing that the presuppostion of biblical authority is the norm.

You are fre to spaeak your mind wrt any subject, your view of the Scriptures ,Christ etc, I am free to comment on any public presentation.

H

I have no interest whatever in proving that calling Judeo-Christian scriptures "literary artifacts" is not blaspheme. The topic is not very interesting, and it is totally periferal to the issue at hand, which had something to do with economic theory, if I remember correctly.

If you think I made a factual error, you are welcome to refute the view that the scriptures are literary arifacts. I don't think you'll get very far. They are literary owing to the fact that they were written, whether by God or some people. They are artifacts by virtue of the fact that they are artificial (that is, they are not "natural" things like snowflakes and the veins in an oak leaf - rather, they were made on purpose by somebody (divine or human), and they did not form spontaniously as the result of a process of nature. That makes them artifacts, by definition. They are literary artifacts.

If it is your view that "literary artifacts" is a vocal sound displeasing to God, then you are entitled to the view, and I will not bother to tell you you're wrong. However, as I mentioned before, calling me a blasphemer signals to me that you do not mean to have a rational discussion with me about economics.

Now, really - that is all the effort I am willing to invest in this off topic digression. I'm sure you can find someone to argue the point with in "Theology" or "Apologetics"

[Hitch]

I have no interest whatever in proving that calling Judeo-Christian scriptures "literary artifacts" is not blaspheme. The topic is not very interesting, and it is totally periferal to the issue at hand, which had something to do with economic theory, if I remember correctly. Then why did you bring it up? And why havent you posted anything at all about economics?

I see it was much easier than I expected to reduce you to semantics. Im not suprized that it happened,,,just at how little it took.


In case someone is just now looking in I'll remind them of what you actually posted;

Moreover, if I found something in the Bible about economics that appeared to be obsolete in today's world, I would chalk it up to ancient thinking, like the references to the corners of the earth, and the pillars that hold up the sky, and so forth. I would not take it to mean that God is a registered Republican with neocon leanings, or that He endorses trickle-down economics. These literary artifacts were writen by ancient people in the beginning experimental stages of nation-building and we cannot expect that they will contain either perfect science or perfect economics. It is important to understand that that in itself in no way diminishes their religious and spiritual value.

[Duder]

I see it was much easier than I expected to reduce you to semantics. Im not suprized that it happened,,,just at how little it took.

In case someone is just now looking in I'll remind them of what you actually posted;

Moreover, if I found something in the Bible about economics that appeared to be obsolete in today's world, I would chalk it up to ancient thinking, like the references to the corners of the earth, and the pillars that hold up the sky, and so forth. I would not take it to mean that God is a registered Republican with neocon leanings, or that He endorses trickle-down economics. These literary artifacts were writen by ancient people in the beginning experimental stages of nation-building and we cannot expect that they will contain either perfect science or perfect economics. It is important to understand that that in itself in no way diminishes their religious and spiritual value.

Yes? Yes?

I said "literary artifacts", which apparently is a semantic hot-button for you, because you cried "blaspheme" about it. Then I demonstrated that the scriptures are in fact literary antifacts. Then you said I was playing semantics, because you could not dispute the fact that the scriptures are literary artifacts.

It's regrettable you got your panties in a wad over the words "literary artifacts". Go make a stink about it in the Locker Room, if you like - but I'm done messing up Anoetos' thread over it.

[Sheepdog]

IMO, the problem with laissez-faire Capitalism isn't that it is Capitalism, but that people lie, cheat, steal, and break the rules. then Big Brother comes in, takes over, and ... well you know how efficient beaurocracies make things. if everyone "played fair," it wouldn't be a too bad a system. after all, it is just a really complex variation of the "if you scratch my back i'll scratch yours" concept: you don't get wealth by hoarding what you have, you use it to serve others, and they in turn serve you by paying for your goods or services.

[Duder]

IMO, the problem with laissez-faire Capitalism isn't that it is Capitalism, but that people lie, cheat, steal, and break the rules. then Big Brother comes in, takes over, and ... well you know how efficient beaurocracies make things. if everyone "played fair," it wouldn't be a too bad a system. after all, it is just a really complex variation of the "if you scratch my back i'll scratch yours" concept: you don't get wealth by hoarding what you have, you use it to serve others, and they in turn serve you by paying for your goods or services.

That's a very good insight. In fact, if everyone played fair we'd have no concept of laissez-faire capitalism. Laissez-faire says "government, don't try to fix things. Keep your hands off." But if everyone played fair, there would be no impulse to say that, because there would be nothing to fix.

Many well-intentioned people have championed laissez-faire capitalism - trusting in the common sense and common decency of their fellow men to make it work. But if you think that human nature is corrupt at the root, and that common decency always fails (which is, I think, a basic tenet of atonement theology), then you will have to conclude that laissez-faire capitalism cannot work as avertised because of its optimistic view of human nature.

[Ryokan]

That's a very good insight. In fact, if everyone played fair we'd have no concept of laissez-faire capitalism. Laissez-faire says "government, don't try to fix things. Keep your hands off." But if everyone played fair, there would be no impulse to say that, because there would be nothing to fix.

Many well-intentioned people have championed laissez-faire capitalism - trusting in the common sense and common decency of their fellow men to make it work. But if you think that human nature is corrupt at the root, and that common decency always fails (which is, I think, a basic tenet of atonement theology), then you will have to conclude that laissez-faire capitalism cannot work as avertised because of its optimistic view of human nature.
It depends on what you mean by laissez faire capitalism. Adam Smith acknowledge that the government was required to keep businesses honest in a number of ways, and he created modern economic theory. Ultra-pure laissez faire capitalism works fine (fine being you maximize utility) as long as everyone is completely self interested, there is perfect knowledge, and people don't collude to gain price control. Unfortunately, some people do a variety of nice things for each other like set up charities, buy American, etc that screw that up, we rarely have knowledge, and people love to collude to rip of other people. So government is necessary.
What everyone here seems to really be talking about is what is the appropriate degree of income redistribution, and what is the best way to go about it. And I don't think there is one answer to that.

[Duder]

It depends on what you mean by laissez faire capitalism. Adam Smith acknowledge that the government was required to keep businesses honest in a number of ways, and he created modern economic theory. Ultra-pure laissez faire capitalism works fine (fine being you maximize utility) as long as everyone is completely self interested, there is perfect knowledge, and people don't collude to gain price control. Unfortunately, some people do a variety of nice things for each other like set up charities, buy American, etc that screw that up, we rarely have knowledge, and people love to collude to rip of other people. So government is necessary.
What everyone here seems to really be talking about is what is the appropriate degree of income redistribution, and what is the best way to go about it. And I don't think there is one answer to that.

I guess I'm talking about pure-dee laissez-faire which is French for "leave it alone" - expressing the sentiment that the government should keep its hands off and refrain from meddling in what producers do.

Once you conclude that some government interventions are needed, you've departed from the spirit of laissez-faire.

[Sheepdog]

That's a very good insight. In fact, if everyone played fair we'd have no concept of laissez-faire capitalism. Laissez-faire says "government, don't try to fix things. Keep your hands off." But if everyone played fair, there would be no impulse to say that, because there would be nothing to fix.

Many well-intentioned people have championed laissez-faire capitalism - trusting in the common sense and common decency of their fellow men to make it work. But if you think that human nature is corrupt at the root, and that common decency always fails (which is, I think, a basic tenet of atonement theology), then you will have to conclude that laissez-faire capitalism cannot work as avertised because of its optimistic view of human nature.

yup, very good point. which is why i am an interventionist to an extent. (interventionism, if you are not familiar with the term, is simply a middle ground between libertarianism/capitalism and socialism).

i guess the reason why i brought it up is that sometimes well-intentioned people make the same mistake in the opposite direction: they see capitalism as the epitome of all evil, and thus socialism is the great cure to the 20th century's economic disease. and really in principle socialism could work, much like capitalism could work in principle. however, in reality socialism is no less prone to corruption than capitalism. and in fact, a good argument can be made that socialism is more prone to corruption, since it puts the economic decisions in the hands of a few politicians rather than many entrepreneurs.

[Hitch]

I said "literary artifacts", which apparently is a semantic hot-button for you, because you cried "blaspheme" about it. Then I demonstrated that the scriptures are in fact literary antifacts. Then you said I was playing semantics, because you could not dispute the fact that the scriptures are literary artifacts.



Yes yes

. And to puposefully confuse Scripture with mere literary artifacts is blasphemy. A packing slip is a literary artifact.

[abrahams seed]

Hitch,
Can you please give us the references for a God ordained economic system. Some things in Scripture are not necessarily apliccable ie. paul telling timothy to bring the cloak , books and parchments. So unless you can show where this God breathed system is commanded, duders point possibly has some credibility to it.

[C. D. Ward]

I guess I'm talking about pure-dee laissez-faire which is French for "leave it alone" - expressing the sentiment that the government should keep its hands off and refrain from meddling in what producers do.

Once you conclude that some government interventions are needed, you've departed from the spirit of laissez-faire.
I think it rather depends upon what you mean by "interventions". Neither Smith nor any other Capitalist theorist with which I am familiar takes "interventions" to mean "laws governing the behavior of market players", but rather "interference in the market itself." For example, laissez-faire is not violated by a law requiring accurate product labeling and providing for remedy and punitive damages for failure to do so, but it is violated by the subsidy of production levels or tariffs that seek to promote or restrict trade.

I can't think of any proponent of laissez-faire who would agree that the ideal requires states to refrain from preventing fraud, deceit, and corruption. Indeed, the ones of which I am aware (Friedmann, Hayek, Mises, Rand) would argue quite the opposite...

[Ryokan]

I think it rather depends upon what you mean by "interventions". Neither Smith nor any other Capitalist theorist with which I am familiar takes "interventions" to mean "laws governing the behavior of market players", but rather "interference in the market itself." For example, laissez-faire is not violated by a law requiring accurate product labeling and providing for remedy and punitive damages for failure to do so, but it is violated by the subsidy of production levels or tariffs that seek to promote or restrict trade.

I can't think of any proponent of laissez-faire who would agree that the ideal requires states to refrain from preventing fraud, deceit, and corruption. Indeed, the ones of which I am aware (Friedmann, Hayek, Mises, Rand) would argue quite the opposite...
Exactly. Laissez Faire means not giving subsidies to, say, boeing, or Joe Farmer. Not, say, allowing a company to maintain a monopoly or lie to its investors. Preventing those kinds of things is the governments purpose.