21 Oct 07
Originally posted by ZadadkaSaying "create a level playing field and free market forces work" is like saying that socialism can work provided some other unattainable goal is achieved. Level playing fields don't exist and simply finding a rich coal seem can tip that balance. That's why you need constant tinkering. Any theoretical system works provided certain things are true. In the real world though, there will always be a necessity for compromise between the two.
Create a level playing field, and [b]free market forces work...it is after all, the foundation that built all societies today.
Subjugate or interfere, siphon, influence or divert... and it won't.[/b]
Originally posted by agrysonGood post!
Saying "create a level playing field and free market forces work" is like saying that socialism can work provided some other unattainable goal is achieved. Level playing fields don't exist and simply finding a rich coal seem can tip that balance. That's why you need constant tinkering. Any theoretical system works provided certain things are true. In the real world though, there will always be a necessity for compromise between the two.
Originally posted by agrysonYes, true.
Saying "create a level playing field and free market forces work" is like saying that socialism can work provided some other unattainable goal is achieved. Level playing fields don't exist and simply finding a rich coal seem can tip that balance. That's why you need constant tinkering. Any theoretical system works provided certain things are true. In the real world though, there will always be a necessity for compromise between the two.
My thoughts as I posted were a little idealistic, and more about after the "unattainable goal is achieved" and the interference with what could work now were it not for despots, thieves and other villains.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterBut didn't both average workers salary and average GDP for the entire industrialised world grow more under the old school Keynsian economics than under trickledown/neo-liberal economics?
Despite decades of economic progress that have reduced unemployment levels to record lows and made America a magnet for opportunity-seeking immigrants, why do religious left leaders -- siding with organized labor -- blindly refuse to acknowledge the considerable academic research showing that market forces work?
Steven Malanga, "The Rise of th ...[text shortened]... ournal, October 16, 2007.
For text: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119249786852260187.html
I believe it did. I remember reading it in the International Monetary Fund's summing up of the past 50 years. In a sidebar. Away to the right. Where nobody could notice the prescription they've been pushing for the past 30 years actually does less good than that which it replaced....
Originally posted by PlebdazzleTrue, although 50 years of world peace was bound to grow the industrialized world's economy no matter WHOSE school was followed.
But didn't both average workers salary and average GDP for the entire industrialised world grow more under the old school Keynsian economics than under trickledown/neo-liberal economics?
I believe it did. I remember reading it in the International Monetary Fund's summing up of the past 50 years. In a sidebar. Away to the right. Where nobody could notic ...[text shortened]... ve been pushing for the past 30 years actually does less good than that which it replaced....
As for the developing, post-colonial world, I have heard the IMF does more harm than good. Although bad government in the form of dictators, endless coups and civil wars had a role as well.
Peace => Prosperity.