A Free-Market Perspective

[Anonymouse]

Re: Free-Market Economics

I never said I dislike it. Free Market economy is perhaps the soundest 'economic model' around today. However, economy and politics can clash if they are not symbiotic, that is if they don't compliment each other.



Simple example from an Armenian perspective: Just because Turkey or Israel or Saudi Arabia or Great Britain are wealthier than Armenia and have billions to invest worldwide, it does not mean Armenian authorities have to surrender to the elemental/fundamental concepts of a Free Market economy by selling its national assets to the highest bidder. It would be smart for a nation like Armenia to nationalize its airports, its communications network, its arms industry, its natural resources... Incidentally, pushing through the Free Market concept by force (military, financial or political) is precisely how the West subjugated the rest of the world in the aftermath of the Second Wold War, and is precisely the reason why we are in this current mess. The way the geopolitical world has been set up since the days of the great empires of old, and taking into consideration human nature, the safest form of governance, especially for emerging nations, is National Socialism or Constitutional Monarchy. Incidentally, the reason why Russia broke out of its degradation and stagnation of the 1990s was because of their current style of political rule, which could rightfully be considered a disguised form of National Socialism. I can bring up many such examples, but I'm pressed for time currently.

It's precisely because of "human nature" that socialistic governments fail and lead to more ruin. The reason Russia is the way it is is because of 90 years of socialist policies that have bankrupt and destroyed that whole culture. Russia is only now attempting to even remotely recover from it's century of socialism.

The free market is never about 'force'. I disagree. What the "west" pushed was a mercantalist and imperialist model. I think there is a misunderstanding of "free market."

[Armenian]

Re: Free-Market Economics

Why do you dislike the free market?

I never said I dislike it. Free Market economy is perhaps the soundest 'economic model' around today. However, economy and politics can clash if they are not symbiotic, that is if they don't compliment each other.

What about the market are "whims"?

Simple example from an Armenian perspective: Just because Turkey or Israel or Saudi Arabia or Great Britain are wealthier than Armenia and have billions to invest worldwide, it does not mean Armenian authorities have to surrender to the elemental/fundamental concepts of a Free Market economy by selling its national assets to the highest bidder. It would be smart for a nation like Armenia to nationalize its airports, its communications network, its arms industry, its natural resources... Incidentally, pushing through the Free Market concept by force (military, financial or political) is precisely how the West subjugated the rest of the world in the aftermath of the Second Wold War, and is precisely the reason why we are in this current mess. The way the geopolitical world has been set up since the days of the great empires of old, and taking into consideration human nature, the safest form of governance, especially for emerging nations, is National Socialism or Constitutional Monarchy. Incidentally, the reason why Russia broke out of its degradation and stagnation of the 1990s was because of their current style of political rule, which could rightfully be considered a disguised form of National Socialism. I can bring up many such examples, but I'm pressed for time currently.

[Anonymouse]

Re: Free-Market Economics

In my opinion, National Socialism or a Constitutional Monarchy is the best form of government, when they are not undermined and/or attacked by a conglomeration of foreign forces. And the aforementioned two forms of government 'can' be fused with limited (or loosely regulated) Free Market economy. I don't believe in unchecked Free Market. Example: A viable nation's communications system, transportation network, heavy industry, natural resources, etc., has to be under the nation's governmental supervision, at the very least. There are some things authorities simply cannot leave to the whims of Free Market. It's that simple.

Why do you dislike the free market? What about the market are "whims"?

[Anonymouse]

Re: Free-Market Economics

I'm a nationalist, and I believe that if a nation has to have some form of socialism one with a nationalistic bent is better than the current xxxx found in europe. Now answer my question on what type of government you would favor and why.

The best form of government is the government which governs least. I thought you would know this about my position. I am not an absolutist, although an absolutist government like a monarchy is superior to a democracy.

The so called west was able to do a lot of this stuff for many reasons, one of them being that they had an ocean to their west and Armenia, Byzantium and various other kingdoms to take wave after wave of barbarian attacks. Imagine how far the west would have gotten if the mongols, timurlane, and the turks had been able to go further west.
I'm all for the individual but at the same time the nation-state is fundamental, without a strong nationalistic nation-state fu*k the individual, eventually they become the lazy pos' we see in the so called west.

The sole purpose of the state should be national defense. When it goes beyond those parameters and starts to discipline and punish its population via all sorts of regulations, interventions and redistributions, then you have problems. These states eventually malfunction. All things are subject to the entropic effects of thermodynamics. That which becomes too big, too centralized and too powerful, fragments.

As for the thought experiment, neither, they both suck. And if this is what I think it is, one is hitler the other churchill.

The other is more like the early American revolutionaries such as Jefferson, Washington, or Sam Adams.

[Armenian]

Re: Free-Market Economics

In my opinion, National Socialism or a Constitutional Monarchy is the best form of government, when they are not undermined and/or attacked by a conglomeration of foreign forces. And the aforementioned two forms of government 'can' be fused with limited (or loosely regulated) Free Market economy. I don't believe in unchecked Free Market. Example: A viable nation's communications system, transportation network, heavy industry, natural resources, etc., has to be under the nation's governmental supervision, at the very least. There are some things authorities simply cannot leave to the whims of Free Market. It's that simple.

[Armanen]

Re: Free-Market Economics

You state that in your opinion National Socialism was the "best form of socialism." On what do you base this on? Socialism is still socialism.

I'm a nationalist, and I believe that if a nation has to have some form of socialism one with a nationalistic bent is better than the current xxxx found in europe. Now answer my question on what type of government you would favor and why.

You aren't saying anything new here that I already don't know. Because some clique has funded different things over time (conspiratorial version of history?) means we must settle for authoritarianism and omnipotent government? Human creativity, ingenuity, innovation and drive only flare up when the bonds and shackles of control are freed. When the individual has room to create and innovate do we see a better standard of living and "progress". This is why the "West" due to the industrial revolution, the idea of private property and capital accumulation had far surpassed the rest of the world which was still steeped in feudal bonds and mysticism. Sadly, the "West" is regressing back into primordial thought.

The so called west was able to do a lot of this stuff for many reasons, one of them being that they had an ocean to their west and Armenia, Byzantium and various other kingdoms to take wave after wave of barbarian attacks. Imagine how far the west would have gotten if the mongols, timurlane, and the turks had been able to go further west.
I'm all for the individual but at the same time the nation-state is fundamental, without a strong nationalistic nation-state fu*k the individual, eventually they become the lazy pos' we see in the so called west.

As for the thought experiment, neither, they both suck. And if this is what I think it is, one is hitler the other churchill.

[Anonymouse]

Re: Free-Market Economics

I realize that ns is still socialism, but in my opinion it is the best form of socialism. So what form of government do you two suggest? Democracy isn't the best form of government, neither is socialism/communism so what is? Mouse I understand you don't like socialism, but it seems like you're ideal country's form of government would be some libertarian anarchism or a night watchmen state. If I'm wrong please let me know and tell me what your ideal state would be.

"Ideal" would be a misnomer. But approximation, would be more apt.

You state that in your opinion National Socialism was the "best form of socialism." On what do you base this on? Socialism is still socialism.

Nazi Germany was funded by the same people who funded the ussr, u.s. and the other great powers. To this day these same people more or less pull the strings, especially in the so called 'west'. Realize that when you bet on all the participants in a horse race, you can't lose and in fact you can create the drama to maintain your criminal economic rule over the various populations.

If Germany had won ww2 who knows what would have happened. Would the nazi's eventually be overthrown, would they evolve into a more tradtionalist agarian nationalism, etc. No one can give the answers, at best it is all speculation.

The bottom line is that for the past 200 years the same elite class has come to dominate the world, thru imperialism, nationalism, war, economic subjugation, etc. When it suits their interests they tout the free market, other times socialism, you get the picture. And often, as I mentioned earlier, they create the illusion that there's options or a right and wrong, when in fact all roads lead to them.

You aren't saying anything new here that I already don't know. Because some clique has funded different things over time (conspiratorial version of history?) means we must settle for authoritarianism and omnipotent government? Human creativity, ingenuity, innovation and drive only flare up when the bonds and shackles of control are freed. When the individual has room to create and innovate do we see a better standard of living and "progress". This is why the "West" due to the industrial revolution, the idea of private property and capital accumulation had far surpassed the rest of the world which was still steeped in feudal bonds and mysticism. Sadly, the "West" is regressing back into primordial thought.

I may be wrong but I really don't think anyone system is flawless and should be blindly followed, at best we should look for some kind of hybrid system or a more holistic one. But at the end of the day if the same people are going to be pulling the strings how much can one do?

This is not about flawlessness. Where did anyone talk about this for you to inject flawlessness into the discussion? To my knowledge, I never claimed anything about perfections. The idea that the "same people" are "pulling the strings" is both right and wrong. While there are powerful and influential groups that act for their interest (Joos and others), by no means does this mean there is one monolithic shadow government.

Let me pose a thought experiment (who would you vote for?):

Candidate A is identified as "a well-known critic of government, this man has been involved in tax protest movements, and has openly advocated secession, armed rebellion against the existing national government, and even the overthrow of that government. He is a known member of a militia group that was involved in a shoot-out with law enforcement authorities. He opposes gun control efforts of the present national government, as well as restrictions on open immigration into this country. He is a businessman who has earned his fortune from such businesses as alcohol, tobacco, retailing, and smuggling."

Candidate B is described thusly: "A decorated army war veteran, this man is an avowed nonsmoker and dedicated public health advocate. His public health interests include the fostering of medical research and his dedication to eliminating cancer. He opposes the use of animals in conducting such research. He has supported restrictions on the use of asbestos, pesticides, and radiation, and favors government-determined occupational health and safety standards, as well as the promotion of such foods as whole-grain bread and soybeans. He is an advocate of government gun-control measures. An ardent opponent of tobacco, he has supported increased restrictions on both the use of and advertising for tobacco products. Such advertising restrictions include: [1] not allowing tobacco use to be portrayed as harmless or a sign of masculinity; [2] not allowing such advertising to be directed to women; [3] not drawing attention to the low nicotine content of tobacco products; and, [4] limitations as to where such advertisements may be made. This man is a champion of environmental and conservationist programs, and believes in the importance of sending troops into foreign countries in order to maintain order therein."

[Armanen]

Re: Free-Market Economics

I realize that ns is still socialism, but in my opinion it is the best form of socialism. So what form of government do you two suggest? Democracy isn't the best form of government, neither is socialism/communism so what is? Mouse I understand you don't like socialism, but it seems like you're ideal country's form of government would be some libertarian anarchism or a night watchmen state. If I'm wrong please let me know and tell me what your ideal state would be.


Nazi Germany was funded by the same people who funded the ussr, u.s. and the other great powers. To this day these same people more or less pull the strings, especially in the so called 'west'. Realize that when you bet on all the participants in a horse race, you can't lose and in fact you can create the drama to maintain your criminal economic rule over the various populations.

If Germany had won ww2 who knows what would have happened. Would the nazi's eventually be overthrown, would they evolve into a more tradtionalist agarian nationalism, etc. No one can give the answers, at best it is all speculation.

The bottom line is that for the past 200 years the same elite class has come to dominate the world, thru imperialism, nationalism, war, economic subjugation, etc. When it suits their interests they tout the free market, other times socialism, you get the picture. And often, as I mentioned earlier, they create the illusion that there's options or a right and wrong, when in fact all roads lead to them.

I may be wrong but I really don't think anyone system is flawless and should be blindly followed, at best we should look for some kind of hybrid system or a more holistic one. But at the end of the day if the same people are going to be pulling the strings how much can one do?

[jgk3]

Re: Political Islam

It was largely thanks to the nationalist socialist policies of Hitler that Germany was able to recover so fast from the world wide depression, while the u.k. with its pseudo free market ideals was down in the dumps. So I disagree that ns was just about xenophobia. Also, ns went beyond xenophobia and even in an another direction by advocating a Germanic empire led by Germany and establishment of other ns "Aryan" nations.

National Socialism in Germany did not lead to a free market system, it created production and yes, it created jobs, but this was again just allocation of resources by the government. It was a synthetically made recovery and could not be sustained if Germany had ceased its war effort to expand and gain global power. It is comparable to the same war effort the US had made to "get out of the depression". It's just that Germany lost and Russia and America had won.

The advocation of a Germanic empire would have required the down with National Socialism at some point because it would have exhausted its purpose in creating that synthetic environment that gave Germans jobs and stable income. If allowed to continue, it would just feed the greed, power and conglomeration of the corporations that drove this phenomenon to begin with, essentially leading to the same situation they enjoy today in the global scene. When Germany sank after WWII, they merely changed their administrative base to America.

Eventually, National Socialism and all the corporations that had funded it would've had to be discontinued, or even slaughtered by a coup of staunchly radical traditionalists who cared about a truly Germanic order and found their connection to its civilization through the high culture it had produced, and perhaps through spiritual rituals. The underlying interest would have to be about race, and this would lead to hierarchical racial and general social stratification in the empire, something oligarchs aren't all that interested in leading or organizing, but rather, climbing and manipulating to their whims, not for race, but for business.

You must realize that Nazi Germany still used state intervention of the market and rewarded and depended on the same corporate scum who lead the world today.

[Anonymouse]

Re: Political Islam

It was largely thanks to the nationalist socialist policies of Hitler that Germany was able to recover so fast from the world wide depression, while the u.k. with its pseudo free market ideals was down in the dumps. So I disagree that ns was just about xenophobia. Also, ns went beyond xenophobia and even in an another direction by advocating a Germanic empire led by Germany and establishment of other ns "Aryan" nations.

National socialism is still socialism and subject to the same laws of economics and flaws of socialism. Creating a war economy which gives an illusory "boom" is no different. The same happened under FDR. More and more capital was diverted from the private sector, and towards the end there was shortage and a dramatic decline in private production. Hitler's regime became increasingly unpopular and eventually would have been overthrown. The model was unsustainable.

"According to the Reich Statistical Office, they [wages] declined for skilled workers from 20.4 cents an hour in 1932, at the height of the depression, to 19.5 cents during the middle of 1936. Wage scales for unskilled labor fell from 16.1 cents to 13 cents an hour." (William Shirer: The Rise and Fall Of the Third Reich". p. 233)

Increasing consumer prices. And don't forget that wage and price controls also drastically reduced the real rate of inflation. And additionally there was apparently a deficit of consumers goods (a phenomenom that appears in almost every totalitarian country).

"A summary of price and wage levels prepared for Hitler on 4 September 1935 showed almost half of the German work-force earning gross wages of 18 ReichMarks or less per week. This was substantially below the poverty line...Wages, then, remained at the 1932 level--substantially lower than the last pre-Depression year of 1928 in the much-maligned Weimar Republic. Food prices, on the other hand, had risen officially by 8 per cent since 1933. Overall living costs were higher by 5.4 per cent. Official rates did not, however, tell the whole tale. Increases of 33, 50, and even 150 per cent had been reported for some foodstuffs. By late summer, the terms `food crisis' and `provisions crisis' were in common use." (Reason Magazine)

http://www.reason.com/news/show/31084.html

http://mises.org/story/1937