pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 11 replies \ @CliffBadger 7 Nov \ parent \ on: Econ October Recap econ
I understand perfectly what you mean by mixed economy. It means sometimes you beat up people for money, and sometimes you leave them alone so they can make money that you can hustle from them later. Every state is a mixed economy because if everyone was dead there would be nothing left to steal, so of course you have to mix in some peaceful capitalism with whatever statist scheme you want to play.
There's no such thing as collective ownership of wealth. Any given fraction of wealth can only be owned by one person at a time. If the government takes money from me, that makes them richer and it makes me poorer. Nothing they do or what I would have done with the money is relevant to the rights violation taking place at that moment.
America's decline proves my point anyway because it's entirely the fault of FDR and his party's economic interventionism. America got rich while it was being corrupted with socialism, coincidentally, because of geographic luck and historical timing. A mixed economy isn't what caused it to be rich. It caused it to be poorer than it otherwise would have been.
Gang violence doesn't make a country rich. One big gang monopolizing all the violence also does not make the country rich. The whole industry of involuntary theft is always a net negative unless you're in on the racket or too stupid to know it's a racket.
It is true a mixed economy does not inevitably result in wealth for a nation (it has to be done with skill and integrity) but it is also true that a nation NEVER grew wealthy without the intricate involvement of the government working with and supporting business.
Without such good government business does not have the legal framework and security to invest and build wealth.
Look at history and this is evident.
reply
it is also true that a nation NEVER grew wealthy without the intricate involvement of the government working with and supporting business
Of course they did. The wealth is built first. Government meddling comes after. The "legal framework and security" is formed from a negotiation between external gangs. It doesn't exist as a benefit for the businesses doing the work. Bitcoin offers enough of a framework without statist harassment.
(it has to be done with skill and integrity)
This is ridiculous. The state's entire use case is to attack, rob, and kill the people who have skills other than violence. Succeeding in the extortion industry means you have the least integrity of anyone.
reply
Give some examples of a wealthy nation/economy where the government was not instrumental in the creation of wealth?
Even one?
SILENCE!
Without government ensuring consistent rule of law you cannot easily build any business let alone a prosperous economy.
Bitcoin does not provide any security of wealth except within its own system and even that would struggle to operate without the sophisticated networks of electricity, internet and computing made possible by nation states and their legal and governance frameworks.
reply
Really? Sophisticated networks of electricity? The PRC's sole ally is a black hole.
Governments didn't invent the internet. The internet is a private sector invention (as are all inventions) and governments have done nothing but attack it since its inception.
reply
reply
You conceded that a thing does not need a government subsidy in order to exist. Everything that exists without government commanding it to exist is the example.
reply
Sure some things can exist without any need for government involvement- but many cannot- for example strategic supply chains of rare earths!
Only a skilled and strategic government will invest in such vital supply chains knowing they are fundamental to international competitiveness.
Without rare earths the US industrial military combine is fucked and so Trump must Beg Xi for them.
Xi has given Trump 6-12 months of strictly limited and conditional (no supply to military end users) supply while China perfects its 3nm microchip production lines!
So you demonstrate you still do not understand (or ignore) how the mixed economy creates a more powerful competitive system to one entirely driven by free market competition.
For example the Chinese strategy of building and providing electricity to Chinese producers at the lowest possible cost using scale and government direction of capital which in turn gives Chinese manufacturers a huge advantage over all competing manufacturers in other nations where private generators demand profits from the supply of electricity.
And you cannot give any example ever in human history of any nation or economy where the government has not been a fundamental factor in the wealth and success of that economy- because there are none!
reply
And you cannot give any example ever in human history of any nation or economy where the government has not been a fundamental factor in the wealth and success of that economy- because there are none!
I don't think you've shown me an example where government has contributed to economic success. Your chart shows China is about 50 years behind where it would be if Mao hadn't spent decades wasting everyone's time with government regulations.
reply
I have given multiple examples including the rare earths and Chinese electricity supply being built at 1/4 the cost of US nuclear.
Yes Mao did not advance the Chinese economy because he did not operate a mixed economy- he operated a very strict Communist command economy because the requirement then was to resist the threats from the west to remove the CCP by force or subterfuge.
Only since Mao, and the US recognition of PRC in 1971 was Deng able to apply the mixed economy which has led to China now enjoying global domination in manufacturing and commodities markets.
So you still cannot give a single example of any successful economy EVER ANYWHERE which developed without significant involvement of government working with industry.
Without rare earths your crony capitalist US Imperialist empire is Fucked.
Look at the incredible low cost of building nuclear in China by using enhanced designs and strategically developed supply chains within China.
With such huge cheap electricity supply China enjoys a huge strategic advantage in the development of AI, and every other electricity dependent modern product.
reply
You act like Mao had any kind of strategy besides killing everyone. He did the same thing every government does when there's no separation of economy and state.
the requirement then was to resist the threats from the west to remove the CCP by force or subterfuge
It's not a threat. It's an offer to help. Allying with the communists is a choice.