Are you discussing state owed production? In the US the goverment owns little that would be considered productive, roads and the post office come to mind. Are you refering to regulation? A reasonable level of regulation can contribute to wealth creation but the decision making and actual work is still being done by the private sector, not the goverment.





A legal monololy concentrates wealth by allowing higher prices than under competion. In the absence a socially valid reason for the monopoly this is nothing but theft. In either case the artificially enhanced revenue can lead to the accumulation of capital from the customers, which may then be used, possibly for wealth creation.


Facilitate? Possibly, as stated above.


If you are considering monopolies as an example then no, not from a macro-economic perspective. From an individual perspective, yes, holding a monopoly could lead to an acculmulation of wealth, taken unfairly from your costumers.

Again with the belief that third world nations are not socialist, where do you get that idea?

And I would say that most third world nations are not wealthy enough to support a first world military.

Example. The first gulf war. Iraq, a nation where the goverment owned the primary means of production, ie the oil fields, thus socialist, with a third world military. Vs the US, the primary capitalistic nation in the world, with a 1st world military.


For many reasons. In the context of this discussion though, because decisions for advance 1st world economies would be made by a goverment dominated by populations with no experiance in 1st world economies. Whatever ideas or forces that have actually been responsibe for wealth creation to this point would no longer be in charge of wealth creation.





Would you not agree that most states do desire wealth creation, if not for the benifit of their people then other reasons? And thus their continuing failure is worthy of examination to determine what is causing the lack of wealth creation?

I am not sure the US can be considered a traditional command economy, yet. We still have plenty of free market rhetoric to overcome.

I tend to agree with your opinion of legal monopolies that do not promote the general welfare.
However, some legal monopolies, as in the example of copyright and patent protection, it might be said that the public sector has created the infrastructure and independently contracted with artists and inventors to create revenue producing forms of wealth. In this sense, it can be inferred that the public sector has artificially created an new revenue base that it can tax. The revenue generated from that revenue base, which would not exist except by government fiat, can be considered a form of wealth.

I am not sure we have the same view of socialism. If we consider any true anarchy to be non-socialism, then the US is very socialist when compared to a more anarchic region like Mogadishu. I am sure you agree that Mogadishu's economy is too anarchic to support a first world military; unlike the more socialist economy of the US.

Wouldn't it depend on the social contract of a, hypothetical, federal interstate government? A UN tenth amendment would reduce intrastate micromanagement by the interstate.

No. I cannot subscribe to logic that presumes that any form of statism would have, as a goal, the bankruptcy of the state. I am of the opinion, that the goal of statism is to improve the quality of life of its consumer base by promoting the general welfare.

[quote=danielpalos;863900]But despite this "handicapp" Amerca has managed to create a first world economy as demostrated by your measure of supporting a first world military. Does this not indicate at the very least the possiblity of wealth creation by a differant methode than your belief in the command economy?

Except when used to encourage the creation of wealth though higher levels of R & D.

I don't understand. If the goverment is putting forth the capital and paying the artists and inventors would not the output of this, ie the patent, belong to the goverment? In this senerio the goverment would certainly being trying to create wealth, no taxs would be needed, they would recieve all of any profits generated. THis would be socialism and/or a command economy. I am fairly sure this is illegal in the US, can you give me any examples of this in other nations?

I veiw socialism as goverment ownership of the economy.


Mogadishu is too poor to maintain a first world military. I think a more useful comparison would be between the US,the USSR and France. THe US and France very differant levels of "socialism", both able to create and maitain 1st world militaries. THe USSR, much more socialistic than either was not.

No. In the absense of cultural support for constitutional limitations on goverment power such laws would be overcome. Hell, if you doubt this look at the history of gun control in the US. It was not constitutional lawyers that stopped gun control but the work of grass roots gunrights groups.


Oddly idealistic of you. But that does not answer

What belief? Command economics can create forms of wealth. I am not saying command economics is the only form of statism for a public sector. It is only my assertion, that a warfare-state must employ command economics to perpetuate its ideology.

Research in R&D promotes the general welfare. What you are saying of command economics is only true of "traditional" socialism. Our (US) social contract contains specifically enumerated provisions for any command economics required to ensure the domestic tranquility and the common defense.

From a more abstract, economic perspective, I ,opine, that true statism cannot exist outside of socialism. Thus, any form of statism requires some form of socialism. It depends on the public policy of any state, that determines the ratios of market and command economics.

Mogadishu is only a poor country because it does not have enough socialism to be a "richer" first world state. Sufficient order to surpress anarchy would probably require sufficient socialism for statism to exist. The former Soviet Union was considered a first world military superpower.

I think it was merely an oversight, on the part of the Founding Fathers, that they did not include an amendment based on the theory of nullification, in the bill of rights.

I am not sure I understand your question. From my point of view, any form of statism can, and usually does, create forms of wealth by merely existing.

Joined this thread late. However, I have to say that the disappearing act is very possible these days in the US too, especialyl with the anti freedom/democracy (Bush calls it anti-terrorism laws) in the US these days against ALL foreigners, legal or illegal. Basically, they can hold you without trial for an unlimited number of days - and you have no legal right to a lawyer.

So much for democracy in the US.

Some say those laws extend to US citizens also but I am not too sure on that one.

Quit it. You have already acknowledged that this is a matter of debate by defending the idea. See below.

To pretend now that you are unaware that not everyone shares your view on this is either rude or insane.


Like what?


Well thank you for stating this as opinion and not a trueism. To assume that any state is socialistic strikes me as an incredibly self-serving statement for a socialist to make. By your definitions if the only thing the US goverment owned was the mint, then you could still claim that the US was socialist and thus, cast aspersions upon any claims to the contrary. THis can only make it more difficult to learn from comparing economies.

Again you state that only a command economy can create wealth. Just stating this over and over is not useful.


You might want to examine their plans for resupply for protracted large scale conflict. A high level of logistics is one of the most powerful segments of the first world military.

Is this in reponse to the world goverment question? In the absense of cultural support for limited goverment, which is not widespread in the world, such limitations would be nothing but ink on paper! To want the free societies of the world to entrust the general welfare of their population to a global goverment in any forseeable future is maddness!



Let us try something differant.

Let me ask you this, Is there any other way for wealth to be created?

I do not consider the fact that any command economy (or command economics) can create forms of wealth is in any way controversial. You only need to calculate the net asset value of any form of statism that employs command economics to determine how much wealth has been created. How much is our public good (Hoover Dam) worth?

I think it is also self-serving for any warfare-state, that would not exist but for the socialistic use of command economics, to claim that statism does not require the socialism of a social contract.

I am of the opinion that a formal mechanism based on the theory of nullification would be a better instrument for protecting any other rights or limitations to the power of the interstate.

How about this for a rebuttal, how much wealth is being created in the anarchy of Mogadishu, that could not be created by a more socialist US.

Only here in the US. Hmmm, which by a strange coincidence happens to be the worlds largest economy.


And then compare it to the wealth created by the private sector.

So socialism built the US? Explain yourself.

I am of the opinion that if any type of world state was ever faced with an attempt to secede from it's most productive population that there would be a civil war of a unimaginable scale.



Just because you continue to restate your belief that any state is by definition socialistic does not make it so.


It is not the socialistic aspects of the US which are the engines of wealth creation. Mogadishu does not have a free market, private property rights or enforcable contracts. THe US does.

I am not sure what you are referring to. It is my contention that advances in socialism are what made our current standard of living possible. I am of the opinion, that all monies spent on public works can be considered a form of socialism. Truer forms of capitalism are what enabled the standard of living of what we would consider, the third world.

I merely state that any form of statism requires a form of socialism; otherwise it would be an anarchy. From my perspective, Mogadishu does not have sufficient socialism (as does the US), to have a social contract that provides for the domestic tranquility and a Bill of Rights.

I am not sure how you can reach the conclusion that any amendment (to a hypothetcal UN or US constitution), based on the theory of nullification, would do anything other than add a form of arbitrage between the various states, the interstate, and the people. From one perspective, it could be used as a formal mechanism in the balance of power between the federal interstate, its several constituent states, and the populace.

Public sector ventures are similar to private sector ventures that are not required to make a profit. From this perspective, equivalent metrics can be used as a market based, basis for comparison.

You know, I have to defend the US there ... Not that I think the Patriot Act is any good or that what you are stating (no legal rights for foreigners, unlimited custody) is inaccurate.

The difference though with Cuba or China is that the next US administration may decide to have it go. In Cuba, you have to wait for Castro's death, then comes his brother, and China is a gerontocracy not a democracy.

__________________
______________________Own only what you can always carry with you: know languages, know countries, know people. Let your memory be your travel bag.”___________________Alexander Solzhenitsyn

So by this definition Cuba is more capitalistic than the US. Your contention needs some serious defending. Or you could just restate it.


Definitions that seem designed to impede debate. Furthermore are you assuming that if Mogadishu became more orderly and more socialistic that they would immediately have some type of bill of rights? That strikes me as ridiculous.

YOu are assuming a balance of power. I am assuming that in the absense of widespread cultural support for limited govermental power and protections of rights that these amendments would be ignored.


So why do you pretend that only socialism can create wealth?
Have you actually compared or are aware of any such comparisons?


BY the way, this world state you imagine, how democratic do you envision it?

I was under the impression that traditional command economies had command economized themselves to second world status, not third world status, by the advantageous use of socialism. Socialism's mixed market economy is not as inefficient as socialism's command economy.

It is simply my contention that statism requires domestic tranquility, in order to not go bankrupt. While they may not socially contract a Bill of Rights, they would certainly be better off in a domestically tranquil environment that allows markets to flourish.

You are probably correct that the plebiscite of a given state would not understand their social contract to be very effective at the individual level. However, with any separation of powers, presumably, one of the other branches of government would have a socially contracted interest, and power, to consider such potential problems. Having a formal mechanism for safe guarding those rights would be better than not having any formal mechanism to deny or disparage the power of the interstate federal government regarding the sovereignty of a state.

It depends on your perspective of socialism. Since any form of trade, requires a form of socialism; it can be inferred that socialism is required to improve the standard of living between more than one, nonself-sufficient market participant.

If what I am stating is indeed not inaccurate, then my point is made.

US may not be AS bad as Cuba but give Mr. Bush time, it'll get there.

Sure. But that is the good thing about having a democratic regime. With all its flaws, it gives time to "good sense" to win the over hand ... And never to "get there".

I still trust that good sense will take over in the US. The Bush administration, which has no more credit abroad, is also slowly losing its credit at home.

__________________
______________________Own only what you can always carry with you: know languages, know countries, know people. Let your memory be your travel bag.”___________________Alexander Solzhenitsyn

The current government in the US doesn't pay much heed to democracy or democratic principles (except for George Bush style democracy which isn't democracy).

Hopefully common sense will take over in the US. And yes, Bush and his administration have already lost most, if not all (save in the minds of a few nuts) credibility worldwide and also in the US itself.