Back to the gold standard

P

payman84ce

New member
Read wealth of nations

Sorry this was my initial flippant reaction, as I wasn't sure if you are genuinely asking...

There are probably a few different descriptions of capitalism, for me

Capitalism is an economic system that is based on private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods or services for profit.

Suits fine, which branch of monetary policy.. for me its free market economic policy.
 
V

veronicaleigh

New member
Please read my edit, started editing as soon as I posted it was to flippant....... though if you have read it you wouldn't need to ask me.

"True"

I believe is as I described above, call it laissez faire if you please.

Off course there are different branches of Capitalism.
 
A

AndreaG

Member
No. Britain is not now, nor has it ever been a socialist state, not even close. There have been socialist policies, just as there have been socialist policies in the US (looking at you, Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, GI Bill).

No state runs a completely free market, not even the US. If the US health system was truly free market run, then costs would never have gotten so high, because new enterprises offering cheaper healthcare options would have come in to fill the niche. Instead, the big insurance companies pay politicians (of all stripes) to protect them by making it impossible for those potential competitors to enter the market.
 
A

autigersfan89

New member
Apart from my example ref free market economy: in Hong Kong, I agree 100% with your second paragraph. I wish others would appreciate what you said also there. The reason prices are the way the are is because government's meddle. Sometimes on behalf of business interests and sometimes genuinly because they think they are following a good policy.
Ok let me clarify..

Social democracy, with a social market economy would you agree with the following about Britain's economy?

A nominally free-market system where government intervention in price formation is kept to a minimum but the state provides significant social security, unemployment benefits and recognition of labor rights through national collective bargaining laws. The social market is based on private ownership of businesses."


Also my main point was never about Britain being socialist in political thinking or governance.
The quote I gave which is on the previous page of this topic from Milton Friedman is highlighting were Britain followed followed Socialist policy's i.e the welfare state. Now im sorry if some people don' want to class that as socialism.

It was and those on the left will easily claim credit for it,which is fine im not talking from a political stand point, I have mixed views on the welfare state not portrayed here, im talking economics.

Now getting back to the point, Milton Friedman highlights a point when Britain followed Socialist Market Economics and Hong Kong followed Free Market Economics.

I think it suofftopicrises us quite fairly.......
 
S

SummerSweetheartPreteen

New member
.

I base my opinions on experts who have a consistent record of getting things right.People like Marc Faber or Jim rogers , both of whom have high academic qualifications, one is a Doctor the other a professor, and both are very wealthy
Ben Bernanke though is consistently wrong, he failed over spotting the housing bubble and QE 1 and 2 and operation Twist have done nothing to aid the US economy.
I don't think that there can be a return to the gold standard, but I do believe the price of all commodities will rise due to the devaluation of paper currency
I think Britain and the US are more or less fascist countries whatever party is in power .The definition of fascism is the merger of state and corporate entities, you only have to look at somebody like tony blair, who is now working for one of the biggest banks and was once prime minister.
 
I

islecya

New member
So which means of production are owned by the state in the UK? Also is ownership by a multinational corporation "private" ownership?
 
C

ChelseyLeigh

New member
Originally meant a society or organisation bound around a strong leader. Took its name from the Fasces as pictured above. In Britain a similar symbol was a sheave of corn bound around a sickle.
 
T

TorridM

New member
Healthcare, Education.
There's 2 big ones, now you can say but there are private firms , which there are but no were near on the size of public funded.

Also look at companies which are bailed out by the government, including banks.

Raz
 
K

kerbyS

New member
At first I read Jim Simons, that's a different story altogether....

But, I had to look those people up. They're hacks.

I'll tell you how I know without reading a single thing they write:

They're telling everyone about it. Someone who has a strategy that is consistently profitable isn't going on the news or selling newsletters, they're trading it. If you have something that no longer makes money, or never made money you can squeeze out the last few quid by selling it to people.

From a quick view of the wikipedia page on Faber it looks like this (many people take this tack): You consistently go against the consensus, because if the consensus is correct you'll be lost in the crowd. But, if you get lucky you get to be the guy who 'predicted' it.

If you have something that makes money you get some capital and trade it yourself.

Jim Rodgers made money with Soros. Which one of those people is telling you about their next move? Is Buffet selling a newsletter with advice for which companies to invest in?

And all of these cases are different from steering an entire economy. It's a matter of size and timescale. The larger either get, the more difficult it is to predict. You can't learn the 'secret sauce' from books or PhD work, if it were that easy there'd be a lot more people making money. People who know what's in the sauce keep it to themselves and take 2 and 20. (Or 5 and 45 if you're a BSD like Simons, but his real fund can only handle 5B, which tells you about the time frame he operates on....)


EDIT:

As an example, I'm in a niche part of finance. However, every once in a while someone writes a book on it. I buy them just to keep tabs and because there's not so many, for some reason I feel like I should have them. They're laughable. I mean ridiculous. But, if you weren't in the industry you wouldn't know because it all sounds good on paper...
 
K

Keisha

Member
Look make a structured point , not just pointing out frivolous nuances.

Have you been to Hong Kong?

I never said Hong Kong was Heaven on Earth but what are you comparing it to?

And what about it are you comparing?

For the record I had a lovely time thank you, and I always have a lovely time.
 
J

JanilynT

New member
Yup, even been detained there

I am comparing it to most, as you call them, "socialist" states in Europe who have those horrible welfare states, social healthcare and big governments. I've been to the States too and I was disgusted at how the poor were treated.

The Bear.
 
D

Duane

Member
"Capitalism is an economic system that is based on private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods or services for profit. "

Housing industry, the government pays companies to build social housing.
Also contracts awared by the state for products and services.

Rail& transportation.

Any time a government venture or contract is awarded, bridges,schools.
The people who fu fill these contracts send orders to the producers for materials etc....



Raz
 
Z

zavia

New member
I think the most popular definition would be that the government stands ready to enforce private contracts and prevent fraud, but makes no regulations about what is a valid contract between informed and consenting parties.

The difficulty is in dealing with externalities. All arguments about 'limiting' capitalism or disallowing certain types of contracts are really about what causes externalities and what doesn't, or alternatively, how bad that externality is.

Depending on people's personal views, there's all kinds of arguments anyone could make - that's the tricky bit. For example, I can say that no one should be allowed to wear yellow because people who wear yellow will go to hell. Additionally, I believe that them wearing it will encourage others to as well. So my claim is that you choosing to wear yellow doesn't just impose a cost on you, so you can't say, 'Oh, well, I don't care if I'm going to hell - that's my choice' because I'm claiming that there's a cost bourn by others that you're not taking into account when you wear it.

So, perhaps, I lobby the government to impose a fine. I believe that a fine of £X will be sufficient disincentive for other people to follow your lead. Now you're fully internalizing that cost.

All economic arguments eventually can be understood in this framework; from abortion, to wealth redistribution, to banking regulation, to smoking, to prostitution, to parking tickets, etc...Even arguments against capitalism as a whole make use of the capitalistic framework in their arguments. I've never heard a communist say, 'Oh, I think we'll make a ton more stuff and be richer under communism.' They say, 'the worker is separated from his labor by those who control the means of production.' In other words, the current system isn't taking into account the full cost bourn by the capitalistic system.

Funny that, eh?

(EDIT: By the way, terms like 'means of production' aren't real things. These are Marxist concepts that exist in philosophy, but have no proven value or definition. Which is also interesting, because although they are Marxist terms, they presuppose the concept of ownership.)

(EDIT part deux: Sorry about using the term 'externality' as it's a specific economic specialist word, but I couldn't think of a simple corollary. I looked at the Wikipedia page and it's really good: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality . You probably get it, though, from the context in the 'yellow' example.)

(EDIT C: (Sorry) 'Service sector' is production as well. There's no difference between producing something that you can touch and something that's in your head. Wealth is created either way. The compensation people receive is relative to the reduction in entropy of the their local area. Read: If people want it, it's wealth.)
 
Top