What is your opinion of the UN, as a public sector, being ethically, legally, and morally bound to promote the provisions of its social contract? Simply building roads and aqueducts for anarchy reduction purposes in less developed countries could have an impact on migrant labor whenever there is any public sector venture of sufficient scale.

Our current warfare-state economic model, and its promotion of the common Offense (in the US), has no basis in our constitution. A Welfare-state economic model is specifically enumerated in Article 1, section 8. "... and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States ..."

In a pure sense, of course not. There is no real any-type of economy. They are all mixtures, usually described by the predominant chracteristic. But the concept of an economy with fascist tendencies is alive and well. The US economy has fascist traits.

Actually, I am saying they are all doomed. Not right away, but they will all fail in time. Nothing lasts forever. All governments have a finite lifetime.

Let me put it this way. If you start with a government that decides how things are supposed to work, there is a limit to just how free an economy can be. That limit will vary within a range, but there is definitely a limit to just how much control a government is willing to cede back to the people. In order to achieve a market economy, you need to start from the principle of freedom. That principle is not compatible with government mandates.

Yes, our human institutions have a finite lifetime, but that still seems a departure from what you said before. You said that a market economy is impossible if the transition to it starts in the presence of government regulation. Does it matter how much regulation exists, in your mind, or is the primary concern that regulation exists at all?

Please elaborate on this: "In order to achieve a market economy, you need to start from the principle of freedom." What does this principle imply politically and economically? And how does Pinochet's Chile relate to this principle?

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne

I agree with a more active UN as an international political institution that could parallel the international economic order, on the condition of reform. If it is going to be a public institution more closely affecting the people of the world, then I think steps should be taken to make their voices more able to shape the institution's policies. For such a system though, there'd have to be change at the national level as well.

Overall, I think minimal regulation and intervention in the form of social safety-nets is the best way to offset the harmful consequences of business--the problem is that no institutions exist to play that role in the context of the global economy. Perhaps the probable replacement of the nation-state with a sort of continent-state (if continental-unions follow that path) will make cooperation toward such a global agenda more possible.

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne

It's not the existance of regulation. It's whether the government is responsible for making the initial decisions. What I consider to be a market economy isn't possible if the government is the impetus for it. There's too much regulation and too little freedom.

It is indeed true that Russia currently sucks. Given a choice between living here in the good ole US, or living in Russia, I take the US any day. However, let's look at some data and a little history.

Gorbachev resigned in Christmas 1991, ending the Soviet Union. This is where Russia become a seperate country again. Boris Yeltsin becomes the President and quickly ushers in an age of market economies. State owned industries were sold, many regulations lifted, and, tragicly people suffered. That's right, people suffered in a market economy- I can admit it. But this suffering can be accounted for with two ideas.

First, we have the idea that the Russian economy was very messed up for about 70 years. This "messed-upness" isn't going to disappear in a few years. Most of the people living at the time had grown up under communism: capitalism was very new to them. They had to learn how to accumulate capital, save, etc.

Second, the Yeltsin economic policies could not be pushed through in whole. Many labor regulations still existed, and taxes were still sort of high. Also, inflation was soaring. The Russian government was printing money left and right and causing many problems. Many people living off pensions were in trouble. It is no wonder that the commies retained one third of the popular vote.

Through most of the 1990's, under Yeltsin, Russia experienced annual declines in GDP. This decline began in 1990- when Russia was still under Soviet rule. At first, this might seem to be an indictment of free markets. However, there is more to the story.

As I mentioned, it is very hard to go from a command economy to a market ecnomy. It is much easier to go from a poor market economy to a rich market economy, however. So, Yeltsin has gotten Russia to the poor market economy. Enter: Putin. Putin takes over in 1999. He does a much better job of reforming the economy. He instituted a flat 13% income tax, promised to be friendly to business, reigned in the anti-market attitudes of provincial governments. Because of this, tax revenues were raised, budgets reduced, deficits reduced and surplusses created. Putin has remained popular ever since.

But, as I said, Russia sucks now. The Russian percapita GNP is about $2,000; contrast this to America's $38,000. So what gives? Well, let's look at some more data. Russian had a GDP growth rate of 5.1% and 7.7% in 1999 and 2000 respectivly. Contrast this to America's rates of 4.1% and 4.4% in the same years. Russia has had continued growth since then. According to the CIA World Factbook, Russia has had 8 straight years of growth- coresponding to the years of Putin, that is, the free market years. Russian GDP grew 6.7% in 2006. There have been increases in real personal incomes: 12% per year for the last 8 years. The Russian budget has ran surplusses since 2001. The Russian public debt is 8% while the US's is over 64%.

So, yes, Russia sucks- NOW. It is growing much faster than the US- 8 straight years of GDP growth which coresponds to 8 years of Putin (free market) leadership. Give Russia some time, and they will be doin' just fine.

__________________
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
-Thomas Jefferson in his first inauguration address

First, you attributed the quote wrong. Second, we had been debating that, but you stopped the debate with your nitpick (you know, when you told me that I said "first sentence" instead of "second sentence) instead of using common sense debating my other points.

So, you think only a fool will want anarchy, but you havn't responed to my last argument, so...

__________________
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
-Thomas Jefferson in his first inauguration address

This is complete and utter bullshit. Have you never read The Wealth of Nations? Smith never argues for the complete elimination of a governmental role in economies. Hell, our Constitution (that was largely inspired by a lot of what Smith had to say) sure does talk a lot about trade, etc. for the Founding Father's vision not to have desired somewhat of a role for government regulated economies.

Here's one for you regarding monopolies: "The monopolists, by keeping the market constantly understocked, by never fully supplying the effectual demand, sell their commodities much above the natural price."

Think about the last time we had great consolidation of wealth & power in an industry. Standard Oil comes to mind. So does Ma Bell. Hell, the dishonest power brokers in Bush Inc.'s cabinet ALL come from the energy industry, so it should be no surprise that price gouging such as that which occurs under a monopoly is now occuring throughout all segments of America's energy industries.

More specifically, think about this Smith quote:

"To widen the market and to narrow the competition is always the interest of the dealers ... The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted, till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."

Think about this. Smith flat-out warns about the lobbyist class (read: Fred Thompson). He warns about allowing businessmen to write the laws. You openly seem to advocate it with your asinine, unstudied, ignorant posts.

You corporate libertarians would crack me up if your hairbrained ideas weren't so dangerous in practice. And your willingness to be "deceived and oppressed" by these dishonest shitheads might be the most alarming thing I've ever read here at USPOL. I'd highly suggest a crash-course in economic theory before posting anymore of Rush's rantings or Hannity's insanities here.

__________________


"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket."

Thomas Jefferson

Please don't include me in this list of "corporate libertarians." I don't want businessmen writting laws- I don't want anyone writting laws. We are all motivated by selfish interests. Most of us satisfy ourselves honestly, those that don't turn to government. Many laws that are suposed to prevent monopolies actual encourage them. This was covered in the book, Triumph of Conservatism by Kolko. Kolko is a socialist historian, but he comes to the conclusion that anti-trust laws actualy encourage monopolies.

__________________
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
-Thomas Jefferson in his first inauguration address

God, I do love when I open the trap door & the prey falls right in.

Other countries ended their flirtations with communism at roughly the same time at Russia. They also began instituting market economies. Yet, they also instilled a bit of common-sense into the system by regulating their new capitalist economy.

And you talk of economic growth in Russia as if it were somehow uniform. Concentrating a great deal of wealth into the hands of a few does not a fluorishing economy make. Take the good ol' USA, for instance. Your beloved University of Chicago economic theorists currently making policy in the District are quickly making ours an economy more on-par with Russia. Yes, we still have fantastic growth, the stock market continues to surge, interest-rates remain relatively low, etc. Yet, the gap between rich & poor widens exponentially every day. Middle-class Americans are an endangered species. One need look no further than America's own Gilded Age (or study the intricacies of great men like Herbert Hoover) to understand the course that is being charted for the great many of us. Unless you're lucky enough to be a Walton or a Hilton or a Bush or a Cheney (or one of their lackies at the country club), you're screwed.

For a good overview of transition economies, read Transition and Economics Politics, Markets, and Firms by Gérard Roland, a Dutch economist who specializes in communist societies & their transition to market economies and teaches at Cal-Berkeley. Also, see here:

CJO - Abstract

__________________


"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket."

Thomas Jefferson

Fair enough, though I was not responding to your post.

Your friend & colleague,

Mark Twain

__________________


"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket."

Thomas Jefferson

I know you were not responding to my post, but I thought I'd just jump in there.

Liberty1776

__________________
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
-Thomas Jefferson in his first inauguration address

I am not so sure that you have trapped me here.

First, allow me to make one correction in your characterazation of my economic viewpoints. I am not in line with the Chicago School. In fact, I despise the Chicago School. I think they have caused many problems with the economy (as well as the Keynesians). I consider myself to be an Austrian. Ludwig von Mises Institute Home is the website opperated by Austrians.

Alright, now that we have that out of the way, let's look at Russia. Are you familiar with the Gini Coefficent? It is some econometric tool that is used to show income inequality. If the number is 0, incomes are perfectly distributed; the higher the number (which ranges from 0 to 1), the higher the inequality. America's number is 45 in 2005. It was 46 in 2000. Russia's is currently 40. So, this tends to refute your conclusion that Russia has unequal income distribution. To be fair, the US has less people living under the poverty line. But, as I have argued, Russia's economy is building up.

As for the other countries you mention, I have a few questions. First, which countries are you talking about? Second, by what standard have they done better.

__________________
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
-Thomas Jefferson in his first inauguration address

Ideally, with UN assistance, if those economies cannot implement such policies on their own.