|
|  |
| |
|
| | The Innovation Network Network is not currently active and cannot accept new posts | | The Future of Market Capitalism. | Views: 659 | | Jun 17, 2009 6:10 am | | The Future of Market Capitalism. | # | 
John Stephen Veitch | | Prof. Michael Porter leads a discussion about The Future of Market Capitalism.
http://www.hbs.edu/centennial/businesssummit/market-capitalism/the-future-of-market-capitalism-panel.html
The video 50 minutes is worth the effort. They talk openly about things I entirely agree with, which some people here would call socialism.
Here is the text from the web site.
"Overview
Today, the world faces an agonizing dilemma: Wealth creation comes from market capitalism, yet the market system has been hard for many parts of society, resulting in insecurities and inequalities. Under political pressure to make changes, the business world and the public sector must devise strategies and policies for revamping the capitalist system.
Possible solutions include applying business principles to societal problems through social entrepreneurship, and seeking profits in ways that also make a broader contribution to society.
Context
This panel discussed shortcomings of the capitalist system and ways the business community can better serve broader societal interests. Topics included social entrepreneurship, the role of public policy, and the development of a stronger safety net for workers.
Key Takeaways
There is a growing sense that capitalism is failing.
For years, society equated capitalism with a better future. People wanted to generate wealth for themselves and create a better life for their children. Progressive societies recognized that only businesses can create wealth.
However, there are many negative consequences resulting from a market system, such as fears, insecurities, and inequalities. People feel that the capitalist system is failing.
There are real questions about the legitimacy and integrity of a system where executives make, on average, 350 times more than the lowest-paid workers. Making hundreds of millions of dollars seems immoral in a society where people are living in poverty. Today, in a time when governments are becoming so involved in the financial world, there is increased push-back on high executive pay.
Another reason for the perception of failure is that in many countries, when citizens pay taxes, the money is used to pay off the country's debt. It is not used to invest in the well-being of its citizens by building schools or improving the health care system.
In Sir Ronald Cohen's view, market capitalism will ultimately be judged by the reaction of the business sector and public sector to the human problems caused by today's crisis. If steps are not quickly taken to improve the social consequences that affect huge portions of the population, the backlash against capitalism will be serious.
The capitalist system must change and help to support a safety net for workers.
All of the problems associated with capitalism have worsened with globalization. American workers now compete with workers all over the world. In this environment of job insecurity, the safety net for the working class is nonexistent in the United States.
It is Professor Summers's assertion that executives typically get about a year or more of severance pay if they are let go from a job. Non-executives, such as secretaries, drivers, and janitors, typically get just a few weeks of severance. There is no process to help individuals through a job loss. The training system is incapable of providing any meaningful support.
Moving forward, if the capitalist system is going to exist, many aspects will have to change. This includes insurance, pensions, and training. These are all areas where the business community has an important voice and can make a difference.
Social entrepreneurship is coming of age, but must be developed into a formal profession.
Business entrepreneurship is the most powerful way of creating wealth for the population. Using the same principles, social entrepreneurship provides a fresh approach to addressing some of society's greatest problems.
There is a close correlation between economic prosperity and social cohesion. Investments are never made in poor areas. As a result, there are few opportunities. Studies show that when less than 5% of the people in an area are positive role models, the area spirals down into crime and violence. It is crucial to provide opportunity to these areas and to do so in intelligent ways, using replicable, sustainable, and scalable models.
The time has come to develop social entrepreneurship into a formal profession and to create institutions to support social entrepreneurship. Social venture funds could become a significant element of private equity investment and entrepreneurial finance. Sir Ronald Cohen has asked the British government to contribute 300 million pounds from unclaimed bank assets to an organization focused on social finance. This organization will act as a wholesaler of capital to the social sector. For these sorts of institutions to succeed, talent needs to be attracted into the social entrepreneurship arena.
Social investment is the way for people with business backgrounds to show that business principles can serve as a multiplier for philanthropy. Applying the analytical skills and methods taught at Harvard Business School to the solution of social enterprise is absolutely fundamental to this effort.
In addition to social entrepreneurship, broad-reaching public policies are needed.
While social entrepreneurship is important, in Professor Summers's view, the small-scale successes of social entrepreneurship will not on their own have a large enough impact on society. In addition to the efforts of social entrepreneurship, broad-reaching public policy is needed to make society's fundamental systems, like education and health care, work more effectively. (When people discuss policies and reforms, they often focus on the poor. Professor Summers encouraged focusing on the middle class. This group doesn't want handouts; it simply wants the opportunity to compete.)
However, one of the barriers to the implementation of public policies to address the negative consequences of market capitalism is that such policies are often not widely supported by the business community. Too often, members of the business community are narrowly focused on advancing the specific issues relevant to their own short-term interests. They push to lower taxes, pursue specific tax breaks, or lobby for a particular issue. In these ways, business actually makes it more difficult to address society's larger, long-term interests.
The business community and business leaders must acknowledge the need for public policy to address the issues that threaten the future of capitalism. Businesses must look beyond their narrow, short-term interests toward what is good for society and for their businesses in the longer term.
There are many ways businesses can address social problems, while still satisfying their own self-interest.
Businesses should seek profit opportunities in places that also make a broad societal contribution. By employing a lens that focuses on doing well (financially) by doing good (for society), many attractive opportunities are likely to be discovered. Specific examples include:
– Employing the disadvantaged. Businesses are uniquely positioned to create independence for people through jobs. When the government provides unemployment benefits, it creates dependency instead of giving people a chance. Some companies have elected to locate in economically troubled areas. In many cases, they find workers who are better and lower-cost than if the business were located in a "fashionable" place to live.
– Environmental initiatives. Some of Harvard's highest-return investments have been stimulated by looking at environmental issues like better insulating a building. These types of projects had a three-year payback period, while also benefiting the environment.
John Stephen Veitch
Open Future Limited - http://www.openfuture.biz/
Innovation Network - http://veech-network.ryze.com/
Building an Open Future - http://openfuture-network.ryze.com/Private Reply to John Stephen Veitch | | Jun 17, 2009 3:46 pm | | re: The Future of Market Capitalism. | # | 
Thomas Holford | | Let me say first off, that I have more than an average familiarity with Harvard Business School. (Check out my Ryze profile page).
That being said, I think it is necessary to take this analysis with a great deal of skepticism and a huge grain of salt.
Harvard Business School is NOT the bastion of pure market capitalism that people commonly imgagine it to be (and which image Harvard is gladly willing to cultivate).
Harvard Businss School is very much the academic center of CORPORATE capitalism, which in this day and age is getting further and further removed from market capitalism. Harvard's type of "capitalism" is based on making money off of the government rather than providing goods and services valued by consumers in a competitive market place.
One might go so far as to say that "making money off of the government" IS what is meant by "social entrepreneurship".
To really understand how badly Harvard has misunderstood and perverted the reality of market capitalism, reread your copy of Ludwig von Mises' "Human Action".
Von Mises does a magnificent job of explaining from the ground up the philosphy, logic and working of a market economy where the actors in the economy freely make transactions that mutually, be intependently reduce each parties level of "discomfort", (the fundamental objective in a market economy).
What Harvard is talking about in its "social entrepreneurship" is academic solipsism. It describes what is going on inside of the heads of narcicisstic academics, corporate bigwigs, politicians, and social do-gooders. It has next to nothing to do with real market capitalism.
T. HolfordPrivate Reply to Thomas Holford | | Jun 19, 2009 3:52 pm | | re: re: The Future of Market Capitalism. | # | 
Lamar Morgan 954-603-7901 | | Question: Is social entrepreneurship simply a term to describe "Big Brother Government?" It looks like the USA's federal government is getting into the banking and auto industry. We are mortgaging the lives of people who are not even born, yet. Who would ever think the day would come when the United States would be in debt to China? And, that is the way it is RIGHT NOW!
And, why are we in this mess? Is it because the free market system of capitalism does not work? Nope. We are in this mess because people in the banking and investment banking system broke the rules established to keep the system running efficiently.
If you put a rotten apple in a barrel of apples on Monday at noon and at 1 p.m. take that rotten apple out of the barrel, that barrel of apples will not be adversely affected. But, if you leave that rotten apple in the barrel, indefinitely, the entire barrel of apples will be contaminated.
If you physically robbed a bank anywhere in the world, the police would hunt you down and send you to jail. But, in America, if you happen to securitize bad bank loans into mortgage-back securities and in turn sell them on the open market over-and-over again - the equivalent of counterfeit money - you might just qualify for bail-out money from the federal government.
If the history of the world is any indication, the federal government will NOT be the one to thank for getting this nation out of its financial mess, I doubt the federal government will be the one to thank. No, it will be the innovation of private enterprise that makes that happen.
Just take a look at India. There the government is planning to introduce $10 laptop computers for the people of its nation. But, is the government planning to build those laptops? Certainly not. The nation has made arrangements with private enterprise to build those computers. It has always been private enterprise that comes to the rescue - if there is to be a rescue - in some fashion.
Lamar Morgan
CDMM - Synergistic Business Marketing
707-709-8605
Need PR?...Call Lamar! Private Reply to Lamar Morgan 954-603-7901 | | Jun 19, 2009 5:45 pm | | re: re: The Future of Market Capitalism. | # | 
Scott Wolpow | | They call it "Moscow on the Charles" for a reason. Private Reply to Scott Wolpow | | Jun 19, 2009 5:57 pm | | re: re: re: The Future of Market Capitalism. | # |
Thomas Holford | | Lamar sayeth:
> Question: Is social entrepreneurship simply a term to describe "Big Brother Government?"
"social entrepreneurship" is one of those cunningly ambiguous terms that the left is always coming up with, but which really has no definitive, commonly understood meaning. It means whatever politicians want it to mean an any given context.
Other cunningly ambiguous, politically plastic terms include:
"social justice"
"economic democracy"
"fairness"
"the environment"
"climate change"
etc., etc.
"social entrepreneurship" is a "neologism". It is a "coined" word which means what the coiner wants it to mean.
People do not want to appear dumb, so they generally act as if they know what unfamiliar words mean.
Cunning and malicious people take advantage of this human trait by coining novel words and imposing dishonest or invidious meanings on them which people are tacitly made to agree with.
If you don't object, for example, that "taxing the rich" results in "fairness", then you are implicitly agreeing with a big dollop of Marxist-Leninist analysis.
T. G. HolfordPrivate Reply to Thomas Holford | | Jun 20, 2009 3:50 am | | re: re: re: re: The Future of Market Capitalism. | # |
Lamar Morgan 954-603-7901 | | Thomas,
Scott Wolpow introduced me to something known as "prisoner's dilemma" or "game theory." This theory looks at human nature and the choices people make - primarily for their own self-interest.
My perspective here is that the choice does not always have to be one side loses so the other side wins. Life does not need to be played like a football game.
You see, I think a free-market economy works - provided everybody plays by the established rules. What happened in the USA was that certain people thought they could get by with breaking those rules. Cheaters who made short-term profits off of counterfeit mortgage-back securities deserve to go to jail. They don't deserve to be given bailout money. But, that seems to be what is happening. And, I am sick over it. But, what can I do? I am no politician.
Honesty and integrity is the way to go - even for faithless heathens. The world's economic stability deserves nothing less.
Lamar Morgan
CDMM - Synergistic Business Marketing
707-709-8605
Need PR?...Call Lamar! Private Reply to Lamar Morgan 954-603-7901 | | Jun 20, 2009 8:06 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: The Future of Market Capitalism. | # |
Thomas Holford | | Lamar sayeth:
> You see, I think a free-market economy works - provided everybody plays by the established rules. What happened in the USA was that certain people thought they could get by with breaking those rules. Cheaters who made short-term profits off of counterfeit mortgage-back securities deserve to go to jail. They don't deserve to be given bailout money. But, that seems to be what is happening. And, I am sick over it.
I agree.
> But, what can I do? I am no politician.
This may sound like an obscure and very subtle answer, but here's my thought.
People who understand the workings and benefits of a free-market economy and freedom in general have a very different "reality paradigm" from those who belileve in various big government, centralized, "do-it-my-way" utopias.
Free marketeers believe that there is an external objective reality populated with other beings that have free will and who are willing and able to enter into mutually beneficial transactions.
Utopians are inherently "solipsists"; they are people who live inside of their own heads and utimately believe that they are the smartest intelligence (and oftentimes, the ONLY intelligence) in the universe.
In your day to day business, try to recognize whether you are dealing with solipsists, or with people who recognize external objective reality.
If you are dealing with solipsists, recognize that you really don't affect their reality and nothing you say or do is going to change them. Have as little to do with them as possible. Don't buy their books, don't read their newspapers, don't watch their TV programs, don't shop at their stores, don't vote for their politicians, etc. etc.
If you are dealing with free market/free will/externalists, cultivate relationships with them and participate in building broader networks and stronger communities. Shop at their stores, buy their books, read their columns, participate in their events, contribute to their communities, build their institutions and infrastructure, vote for their politicians, etc. etc.
Most of us never have an opportunity to do the big things that are going to move the society or culture a noticeable amount in any direction. The utopians always fantasize that they are single handedly moving society.
But we DO have the opportunity to administer many little nudges and shoves in the direction that we would like to see our society move in, and we should take advantage of those opportunities to the maximum.
My two cents worth.
T. Holford
Private Reply to Thomas Holford | | Jun 20, 2009 8:29 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: re: The Future of Market Capitalism. | # |
Scott Wolpow | | Free market works until a certain point. What is ideal is what we do have. An unrestricted market. No matter what you do, humans will game the system. It is waht allowed one minor species to dominate teh palnet and resources. Our ancestors gamed hunting game. We used spears. We have gamed everything.
Once you get chaos theory you realize answers only work as long as the problem remains the same.Private Reply to Scott Wolpow | | Jun 20, 2009 9:07 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: The Future of Market Capitalism. | # |
Thomas Holford | | So, an ideal free market system won't work?
But ideal humans will?
We're doomed.
T. G. HolfordPrivate Reply to Thomas Holford | | Jun 20, 2009 9:37 pm | | The Future of Market Capitalism. | # |
Scott Wolpow | | Ideal freemarket is like Ideal Communism [Marx version] Human nature interferes.
Ironically the original Russian version of Communism is more like an ESOP.
The workers lived in a common house with the business owners. They all shared in profits based on how much tehy contributed. Medical care and food was included. And I have the photos [somehwere] from 1900 to illustrate a hat company that did exactly that, in Russia.Private Reply to Scott Wolpow | | Jun 21, 2009 5:05 am | | re: The Future of Market Capitalism. | # |
Thomas Holford | | Scott sayeth:
> Ideal freemarket is like Ideal Communism [Marx version] Human nature interferes.
Ideal freemarket takes advantage of natural human nature and behavior.
Ideal Communism attempts to impose on human behavior an unworkable theoretical paradigm invented inside of someone's head.
Under an ideal freemarket, human motives are transparent. I know exactly why someone wants to give me food, housing or medical care. They want to make a profit. I know what strings to pull to induce them to provide me with food, housing, and medical care.
Utopians believe that the motives of the market place are somehow inferior to their high-minded, but ultimately ambigous, dubious, conflicted, self-congratulatory, and in many cases, downright bogus and fraudulent motives.
Utopians believe they have to "regulate" the market and human behavior to ensure that no one makes a profit that is "unfair". The worst sin in the Obamunists theology is that someone would make a "profit" providing something required by their notion of "social justice".
Under utopian Obamunism, I am required to believe that Obama wants to give me food, housing, and medical care because he is a nice guy AND he likes me. I don't think Obama is a nice guy, and I have no reason to think that he would gave a flying flip about my well-being or happiness.
Although I AM very likable, what is preposterous to me is that many, if not most, or the people Obama wants to give food, housing, and medical care to are in fact NOT likable. Many of them are outright asses and jerks.
T. G. HolfordPrivate Reply to Thomas Holford | | Jun 22, 2009 12:05 am | | re: re: The Future of Market Capitalism. | # |
John Stephen Veitch | | Sorry guys, but I'm very disappointed with the quality of this debate. And that in a nutshell is what's wrong, wrong with the political system in the USA, and wrong with the American economy.
The Harvard Professors, hinted at rather than said what needs to be done. Their hints were all in the right direction, but why didn't they take a more open position and put the cards on the table. Why? Because of self censorship.
Now that's fine, self censorship exists for a reason, it keeps us socially connected to other people. It limits the most extreme ideas we might have, to something we think other people might be willing to accept. Thinking inside the box is what we all do, and in fact, is what we should ALL do.
There is no agreement among those who have written here about the causes of the world financial meltdown. Lamar's version that a few bad apples caused the problem, doesn't stand up to a reality check. Nothing written in this thread so far explains the situation. (If you want to discuss that please start a new thread.)
Thomas Holford in typical style misleads everyone because he's too sure of himself, and too lazy to try and understand the meaning of the term "social entrepreneurship". Social entrepreneurship has nothing to do with government, nor with the views of politicians. It is a bottom up approach to business. Thomas Holford probably thinks that's socialist. I think it's real democracy in action, proving it's value.
Lamar Morgan is a learning man. He's had some tough times in the last few years. Many of his favourite ideas have been tested, and found wanting. Rather than examine the faulty principle, Lamar prefers to blame "a few bad apples". Lamar says that they "deserve to go to jail". That's a good step forward. Scott Wolpow, is closer to the truth of the real world. Scott understands that trying to get a conviction in court is going to be highly difficult except in the most blatant cases of abuse.
I like what Thomas Holford says about the existence of an "external objective reality". Yes that's right, and each of us needs to come as close as we can to making our personal "model of the world" congruent with that "objective reality". To the extent we can do that, our personal decisions will be better grounded and likely to yield better results. I'm encouraged by Peter Senge who says that businesses around the world need "A Necessary Revolution" if they are going to exist in a global world.
The "necessary revolution" is a learning revolution that enlarges the "box". It involves every individual and every company and every community. It's social, and environmental, and political but also market focused. It's about how we choose to govern ourselves, and creating a sustainable world.
If we are going to have a sustainable world, almost everything discussed in this thread needs to be reconsidered. Some of the principles offered with such passion might indeed be correct, but in the absence of the appropriate social and political environment, they might also be highly destructive.
This is the "Innovation Network". Let's use this discussion to expand our knowledge and to learn some useful things, as I like to put it to "enlarge our boxes". Many of the people who are silent members of this network are not Americans. I'd like to hear more voices. Because this is a big complex topic, feel free to start new threads if you have a point of view to discuss.
Let us make a real effort to lift the quality of the discussion beyond "waving a flag for capitalism" and talk about that world with an "external objective reality" which so interests Thomas?
First, can we have three or four new voices here?
John Stephen Veitch
Open Future Limited - http://www.openfuture.biz/
Innovation Network - http://veech-network.ryze.com/
Building an Open Future - http://openfuture-network.ryze.com/Private Reply to John Stephen Veitch | | Jun 22, 2009 2:13 am | | re: re: re: The Future of Market Capitalism. | # |
Thomas Holford | | John sayeth:
> Let us make a real effort to lift the quality of the discussion beyond "waving a flag for capitalism" and talk about that world with an "external objective reality" which so interests Thomas?
> First, can we have three or four new voices here?
Or, on other words, Holford should sit down and shut up.
I have to admit that I am well acqauinted with and rather jaded by the Left's myriad "silencing techniques". They never seem to run out of creative ways of saying "you're not allowed to say that", or "what you say is offensive", or "since a Harvard professor thinks this, and you disagree, you must be an idiot."
Here's an innovative idea for the "Innovation" forum: if "waving a flag for capitalism" doesn't "lift the quality of discussion", why not just declare that only big government socialism or statism are truly innovative and every point of view that doesn't pay homage to this external reality should be confined to forums on "Social Darwinism" or "Oppressing the Working Class".
Thomas HolfordPrivate Reply to Thomas Holford | | Jun 22, 2009 4:21 am | | re: re: The Future of Market Capitalism. | # | 
James Booth | | .
This topic is well worthy of serious discussion, and I will perhaps find time to address it further.
In the meantime, I am disappointed too – first that the audio was so poor on the video, and I am still trying to hear what all is said there; second, that what has so far passed for discussion seems to be bogged down in so much polarized thinking.
I believe it possible to address almost any topic without scattering motives, whether real or imagined, spending so much time worrying about who is doing what to someone else, or why, or what it will lead to.
I think if a person is dedicated to guiding others in some desired direction, then focus on the substance and lead.
Moaning about some "wrongheaded" behaviour seems to lead nowhere but into a deeper hole, becomes depressing, even boring.
However "solipsist" *social entrepreneurship* may be, if it is at all, there are forms of capitalism which do not devour the planet we depend on for our sustenance, and do not cannibalize the customer, or future generations.
There is also no good reason I can see why any society need be monolithic when it comes to what economic forms are beneficial to the people of that society; no good reason why capitalism and socialism, communism or other "isms" cannot work together, co-exist and build synergy, allowing those who need one or another to use them to best advantage as long as necessary, and allowing people to change their minds when their needs change.
The truth is that most Western countries already operate with combination of capitalism, socilism, and communism - just that not everyone is able to see they co-exist.
I do not see any mass movement to end Social Security in the United States, so ?
Why do people who spend so much time bellowing about the evils of socialism continue to support the Social Security Ponzi scheme, The Federal Reserve (a private corporation), and / or other *corporate socialist entities* which seem to dominate the U. S. today, expecting "taxpayers" to keep them in business with times get "rough" ?
We do not plant a garden to grow only one vegetable or fruit, but to enjoy the bounty of varieties that climate allows to grow.
Why not apply a more natural approach to economics and stop living in fear ?
JB
Private Reply to James Booth | | Jun 22, 2009 4:46 am | | re: re: The Future of Market Capitalism. | # |
abbeboulah | | This subject being one that many people seem to want me (and everybody) to worry about, I thought I'd read the posts carefully, hoping to perhaps learn something useful, some real rasons about whether capitalism is really failing and why, and if so, what alternatives we should embrace, and why, or whether it is not failing (and the crisis bein referred to was really caused by something else), and why.
The claims that were made, calling for social entrepreneurship, change in capitalism, esp. regarding insurance, pensions, training; change (or abandonment?) of globalism, social venture and investment, for business to quit calling for lower taxes, and its principles to start serving as multipliers for philanthropy, employ the disadvantaged, and for environmental initiatives, all raised more questions -- what they mean, specifically, how they were to be applied, whether, for example, supporting philanthropy is not an admission that problems addressed by philanthropy may be caused and at least not remedied by private enterprise, and so on.
The response, calling for chunks of salt about this analysis therefore sounded plausible enough, supported as it was with an authoritative claim of familiarity with Harvard Business School. But, now, the first explanation, that what that school stands for is not really capitalism -- the true scot market capitalism -- but Corporate Capitalism, thrown in with social entrepreneurship as making money from government, it raised even more questions. For example: How did free market capitalism (if there ever was such a pure thing) degenerate into the corporate capitalism -- if that is what caused the crisis? And how can we get back to this true form of capitalism, and keep it from sliding down into corporate capitalism again? Other suggestions seemed to suggest that it had something to do with some corporate capitalists breaking 'the rules' (not specified) -- those rules that business folks (the free market kind or the corporate kind?) keep complaining about?
Unfortunately, there were no such specific answers. And the lessons I hoped for got more confusing. Let me see if I can summarize: We can dismiss all the suggested alternatives, such as social entrepreneurship, together with fairness, social justice, the envrironment, climate change, etc, because they are 'cunningly ambiguous terms without commonly understood meaning, neologisms or coined words' contrived to confuse people with their political plasticity, by solipsistic utopianists with unworkable theoretical paradigms invented in somebody's head, -- while 'free market', 'reality paradigm', 'utopian Obamunism' and 'Obamunist theology', of course are not. They do not come out of anybody's head, right? Free market 'takes advantage of ... human nature and behavior'. (Reminds me of the old difference taught to children behind the iron curtain: "In capitalism, people exploit people; In communism, it is the other way around".) So am I forced to conclude that free marketers believe that the motives of other people such as utopianist Obamunists are somehow inferior to their own high-minded but ultimately ambiguous, dubious, conflicted, self-congratulatory, and in many cases, downright bogus and fraudulent motives? And that most of them are outright asses and jerks. Wait, did I get that right ? aw shucks.
I somehow wish, given the seriousness of the matter, that there had been some real arguments here. Perhaps even some innovative ones? Am I in the wrong compartment? (Sorry John, I wrote this before I saw your last post)Private Reply to abbeboulah | | Jun 22, 2009 5:21 pm | | re: re: re: The Future of Market Capitalism. | # |
Thomas Holford | | Thorbjoern sayeth:
> I somehow wish, given the seriousness of the matter, that there had been some real arguments here.
Whether the good of society is best achieved through Statism or capitalism and free markets is a serious matter.
Many, many serious books and treatises have been written on the benefits and flaws of each approach.
Contributors to this forum have offered a few thumbnail synopses of the attributes of one or other of the approaches which highlight some of the "real arguments".
The "real arguments" are available for your consideration in great depth and detail. Obviously, my meager efforts to explain the free market have fallen short in your case.
As a practical matter, it is probably more efficient for you to access whatever treatise that articulates the "real arguments" in the form and context that are most understandable for you.
Some resources I would recommend are:
"Human Action", by Ludwig von Mises
"Economics in One Lesson", by Henry Hazlitt
Free market economics is fundamental to and intrinsically interrelated with the "civil society". For a discussion of the importance of a "civil society", I recommend:
"Liberty and Tyrrany", by Mark Levin
Thomas Holford
Private Reply to Thomas Holford | | Jun 23, 2009 7:04 am | | re: re: re: The Future of Market Capitalism. | # |
John Stephen Veitch | | Hello Thomas,
I'm very well acquainted with free market economic principles. I do have a training in Economics.
I'm not familiar with
"Economics in One Lesson", by Henry Hazlitt
or "Liberty and Tyranny", by Mark Levin
I've spent three hours today trying to get informed about them. While it wasn't exactly a waste of time, I was disappointed. These two illustrate exactly what I've often said about the poor quality of thought that is behind the political and economic debate in the USA.
Henry Hazlitt makes a very brief and perfectly correct argument. Essentially that the rules of economics are that everything has a PRICE. You can try and dodge that price every which way, but at best you only delay payment, and in almost every case you only make the matters worse. Hazlitt states if differently; "That the long term consequence of every decision is the real cost".
Then he sets up a series of straw men that he easily knocks over. Not very interesting really.
Mark Levin is a fake, the sort of fake only the USA seems to make. He tries to take a pure personal liberty and free market position, and says the everyone who doesn't accept his point of view favours state control. That argument is nonsense. Only in the USA could someone be so narrow and stupid in public, and have his view given any credibility. His book isn't worth reading.
The topic is "The Future of Market Capitalism". That future is not to return to 1870's in both politics and economics. I've read commentary that some conservatives see the Middle Ages, as a desirable political and economic situation. You can SEE the problem with the Middle Ages confronting modern democracy when you look at Iran today. Hopefully, that is not America's future.
America's future, I hope, is to join the modern world and become a working democracy. That will require considerable change in the way business and government behave. This is what Peter Senge calls "Necessary Change". That's where the future of market capitalism lies. On the other side considerable economic and political upheaval. That;s the EASY BIT.
The hard part is allowing democracy to do it's work, to promote change in an ordered and negotiated way through the political process. That's much easier in small countries like NZ, and Norway and Sweden and Denmark. Very difficult in big countries, and maybe almost impossible in a big country like the USA which thinks of itself as "successful". The curse of Great Britain in 1945, was the knowledge that "we won the war". "We won" was an excuse not to change in a world that demanded change. That's where the USA stands stood 20 years ago. Right now, the EMPIRE is flowing away and there is nothing the USA can do about that.
What the USA can do, is get it's house in order. But it can't; because the two major political parties pretend there is no problem. No problem, nothing to fix. Business as usual. SO, I'm afraid as Henry Hazlitt, says, the real price will be paid PLUS the penalty price for not doing what was essential in the first place.
John Stephen Veitch
Open Future Limited - http://www.openfuture.biz/
Innovation Network - http://veech-network.ryze.com/
Building an Open Future - http://openfuture-network.ryze.com/Private Reply to John Stephen Veitch | | |
| |
| |
