No, but unlike yourself I like to consider what the other person is saying, or trying to say, before "shooting from the hip" with the first thought that comes into my head. It's impossible to have a discussion with you because there are so many holes in your reasoning, where do I start? But you're good at bluster, I'll give you that.
Well, there is truth in this, but especially so because the amount of red tape in place today makes it so hard to get into a new business In particular how expensive it is hire new staff, in terms of the taxes you pay on top of salary, the time commitment to satisfying health and safety requirements, pension obligations, the list goes on.. When you get the financial crisis we just had, how many new entrants do you see entering the banking business? If I decided to set up a new bank business tomorrow, how much capital would I need to start? Ok, there has to be a few hurdles to get over, but it's gone beyond a joke. So I don't see anything resembling capitalism in today's major economies..."too big to fail", what's that all about? How can that be good economics, creating the government backstop for a failed business once it reaches a certain size? This is STATE CORPORATISM, not capitalism! What a joke. The government share of the economies is more than half in a lot of the major economies today. And they wonder why the economies are not roaring ahead! Maybe others have a different view of what "capitalism" entails, but to me capitalism means if you fail, you're outta business, end of story... All I see a mountain of debt because they've taken the "economizing" out of economics...cosy tie ups between big business and government...going back to Friedman he was never in favour of big corporations. He was in favour of COMPETITION, which certainly doesn't equate to oligopolies. There is a role for state, an important one, in many areas, such as breaking up oligopolies, making it easier for new entrants, but I see the opposite happening...and when your government spending plans are so dependent on the tax revenues from big business, the last thing you want is competition! So unfortunately big business and government's interests are aligned to prevent new entrants. When you increase the share of the economy taken up by the government (and the massive tax burden that comes with it), you also massively reduce the incentives for new entrants to enter new ventures and compete. Why bother if the government is going to take more than half anyway to pay for someone else's bills?
Yes this is a valid point, I am probably a little loose in mixing the two, but of course both things mean different things to different people I don't personally recognize what we have in today's major economies as anything resembling pure capitalism, by any stretch...as I detail in my other post, it's what I would call "State Corporatism"...somehow we have progressed to something akin to a quasi-centrally planned economy and no-one noticed.
I can assure you i have listen too more economic thoughts from all sides then you have.you however seem to be stuck on one particular idealog no matter what the evidence is I have given historical examples of every point i made this is the opposite of shooting from the hip. taking "temporary advantage" and trying to use it to talk our way into something that seems logical in your mind and not providing historical examples is shooting from the hip . it's Orwellian, war is peace, historical research is shooting from the hip another Orwellian statement if there are holes then it should be easy to refute. start with the first hole. but provide real word accounts not your interpretation of how the world should work. I'm not good i just have a boring life and take to books for excitement.
You gave us the unconvincing example of Africa, but ducked the issue of why every single Eastern European nation, almost without exception, performed so piss poorly for 45 years. It's not as if they didn't given central planning a fair crack of the whip, is it? Perhaps you could share your thoughts on the post war performance of Eastern Europe relative to Western Europe? And why do you duck the issue of North Korea, relative to South Korea? Just face it, central planning sounds great in theory, but doesn't work in practice, unless you're at war facing extinction, or you're pointing a bullet at the head of your own people. Don't try and swerve the issue bullshitting about Africa. Tell us about Eastern Europe and North Korea. Maybe then, I'll tip my hat to you, Sir. and whilst I'll probably beg to differ, I'll call it a truce and move on.
The problem is rather akin to "whac-a-mole"... As soon as I fill in one hole, another six holes sprout up in your reply. It is a losing proposition on my part...there is no way to finish the conversation without leaving many unfilled holes Sometimes you just need to accept that people see things differently. So long as the government powers are kept in check, we still have that liberty, the freedom to disagree...at least for now...I think if you are a fan of George Orwell, perhaps it is you who needs to re-read his 1984 masterpiece. I found it too depressing and had to give up reading half way, there was so much to see in today's world. Don't take it personally, you have forced me to consider some different perspectives, and for that you deserve credit.
first you confusing central planing with what i advocate ( I don't dare use the word protectionist any more you seem to confuse it withe central planing) second I never implied communism or socialism is the answer. were in my post did i say that? your'e trying to lump everything else opposed to your viewpoint as the same thing. If you take countries and put them on a scale from open to closed markets you'll find mixed economies perform the best. Soviet Russia is a good example After communism failed Russia undertook one of the most liberalized (under the direction of your favorite school of thought) markets to date. Now they are a nation of oligarchs and I already discussed North/South Korea but maybe you missed it are you suggesting that post WWII western Europe was a free market on the lines of what Miltion thinks. As stated before just because a market is more free than something you choose to compare it too. doesn't mean it's a free market in the essence of the theory. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=217973&perpage=6&pagenumber=4 shows there will always be planning the question is who's going to do it. the people or the Oligarchs
Let's take "protected" in its broader sense. Would you agree that it's reasonable to "protect" an economy militarily, against external attack?
And for you, the "people" equals "government", and that is where you miss the point. Re-read George Orwell's 1984. You just don't get it. Socialism is already here... This is my final contribution to this thread, you can continue on your own if you wish, or maybe others will chip in, but I'm outta here. Thanks for the contribution, and no hard feelings on my part.