So I'm reading a great book by Ayn Rand called "capitalism." Before you flame (even though I am a HUGE Rand fan) this book is a collection of articles written about capitalism and scratches the service of objectivism and its not all straight from Rand's mouth. There is a bunch of articles by Rand, Alan Greenspan and some others. Its a great book, quick read due to it being separated by articles.

Anyway, they talk a lot of government intervention, certain laws made in America, what America was originally founded on, and where it may be heading. Even though most of the articles are from the 60s they still make sense in today's context.

So, is America still the most capitalist country? Why or why not?

Hong Kong isnt a country but the region is managed in a much more capitalist way (no import duties, total free trade, little labour laws) although they have a lot of urban planning and taxes on land.

Australia I think is more capitalist, at least going that way, although the state still manages a larger % of gdp than America.

One of the states with smallest % gdp is amazingly China, I remember seeing that they had something like 10% of gdp for the state, while USA was around 30%.

Some small countries are probably the most... i dunno much about cayman islands, luxemburg, carribean nations, etc... but there are pretty free places out there.

Chile is good also, the only place on earth with a long term sustainable pension system (not based on benefits but on contribution) and funds are not treated like a ponzi scheme like everywhere else

If you take into account small city states the USA was probably never the most capitalist country. But you need to define what the scale of capitalism is before you can really ask such a question.

OT: I still can't understand how Greenspan tries to pass himself off as an objectivist when he was an integral part of a system that helped the 'looters', as Rand would label them.
Can someone explain it to me?

If you want to consider first world and developed countries only (excluding Hong Kong, for example), then Switzerland is probably the best choice.

nice

I'm still kind of asking myself the same thing. He has some pretty strong feelings and makes some strong statements in some of these articles.

I guess his thinking is that the Fed is not "actually" a governmental body.

I don't think you go to these secret meetings with Rand, write articles, and then just 'forget' what you've believed half your life to become the Fed President.

The better question may be since America is more of a mixed economy, how he even got to be the Fed president when his thoughts and feelings on the economy were published in writing.

This is what I was thinking, but aren't the taxes pretty high?

They are pretty economically advanced and intelligent but I always thought they had more of a collectivist grounding like most of Europe.

Anakin Skywalker used to be a Jedi.

A perspective:

http://www.efnasia.org/index.php?opt...ation&Itemid=6

http://www.freetheworld.com/2009/rep...9_EFW-intl.pdf

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/resea...ions/6905.aspx

another perspective:

http://www.heritage.org/Index/
http://www.heritage.org/Index/Ranking.aspx
http://www.heritage.org/Index/pdf/Index09_ExecSum.pdf

Now, onto the question of which of those countries has the highest earning potential for US citizens?

It seems its pretty clear that just staying in the United States is the best decision for now. Still relatively high on the list, same spoken language, knowledge of business, most went to school here.

Greenspan loved Rand (a prized student/follower) and Austrian economics (even argued for a gold standard) until he got a job at the federal reserve system... I believe he came under some pressure there to do what he was told.


To answer the OP... Hong Kong

Whose bread I eat his song I sing, eh?

Skindog. How did you go pick that avatar?


I used to have a chihuahua and find your avatar hilarious.



Yes America is still the most capitalistic country. It is still by far the largest buyer of foreign assets.

Greenspan was also involved (supported the hedge funds) in the derivatives mess in the late 90s as well as the subprime mortgage mess.

I don't hold too much value to his opinions.

That seems to be the timing of his "change of heart", he didn't forget everything he knew in 1987, he got recruited. The Chairman of the Fed answers to the stockholders. This explains the dr jekyll and mr hyde of the greenspan.


or thug life... wut wut!

How do you define degrees of capitalism? In terms of lack of government intervention?

God I hate Ayn Rand even though I get that she was shafted by the USSR. Still...

Capitalism cannot work without government intervention. How much easier would it be able to trade in an anarchy where the strong rules the weak? Government is never a producer of good or value. That is true. Also excessive intervention can distort market forces and favor certain coalitions at the expense of the many. Also true.

On the other hand, lack of government intervention can lead to instability as people are free to take outsized risks without any regard to others. There are a lot of actions that cause negative externalities. These cannot be solved by free market forces.

I think you should read other people's perspectives too before equate captialism=good. The best way to frame the question would be:

What sort of system would provide the best incentive to motivate people to work hard without moral hazard that would ensure the welfare of America? Does that system still exist in America?

Right now I think captialism is destroying this country. That sounds harsh. I think there were improper incentives in the financial markets which contributed to the credit crisis which is a no brainer. I also think America has lost a large portion of its wealth in the middle classes because we are no longer producing anything. Those lost production capabilities aren't adequately replaced with the new information technology. Just because we have a large pool of Phds doesn't mean other countries are going to outsource intelligence to us.

The curious thing is China is undergoing something like the Industrial Revolution in Britain. Those workers are going to be the new dominant middle class consumers that we used to be. And chances are, a lot of our PhDs will in the future configure products and goods to serve their taste.

People dismissively say getting China to consume is the easiest way out our recession. It's the not easiest way out. It's the only way. We need to provide a service or a good in exchange for their goods instead of just debt.

GM and FORD is selling a lot of assets. No one wants them. The only companies buying them right now is in China because they are the only ones with money. 5 to 10 years from now people will be talking about how dumb GM and Ford was to give up their divisions. In fact, the wave of the future for car companies will be to get bigger and consolidate into mega companies instead of slimming down. Why? Once the large reservoir of saving in China starts to flow out, bigger companies will make the most money.

SUVs and Hummers are going to be the new status symbol in China. Of course, CEOs of such lucky companies are going to look like geniuses and be renowned for their innovation in improving logistics or marketing which any one with half a brain can manage.

The point is in the future, America won't be a consuming country. We'll probably be more like Germany or Japan. Production will be a matter state sovereignty. Right now a lot of the conglomerates are "international". They are just American companies with a strong dominance of foreign markets. But these companies will have to fight for market share in the US and other markets besides China. There will be an emphasis for exporting and producing more for the consumer economy in Asia and being competitive in the international markets. Lots of competition across markets will drive down wages but it'll also lower prices for goods.

But the difference in the future will be the nationalistic tone of the atmosphere. I feel that inclusion and xenophobia is going to become more prevalent. Nationalism will probably be on the rise with increased competition among national companies. This will inevitably set the stage for a world war through the peripheries. Two places for war will be near India or Russia.

Sounds like I am on acid, lol. Friction is already developing with US and China. We haven't been challenged in other countries markets as vigorously because of our sheer size. Coke is in every country. McDonalds is in every country. China is going to be potentially the largest consumer market in the history of the world. Coke and burgers can be easily replicated. Chinese national companies could successfully challenge American companies, and they could challenge American presence else where if they gain enough resources.

What does this even mean? Yes, Capitalism "works" without "government" involvement. You use these words but haven't defined "work" or "government" then type a giant wall of text which no one is going to read.

You don't get to define the given subjective variables with your opinion then argue against/for it and claim victory.

With this post, either you are one of the smartest geniuses in the world, or a fool. There is no in between with the claims you're throwing around.

Capitalism dominated or controlled by an oligarchy is not a capitalist system.

mrmusic, how do you feel about almost all the big banks paying back their bailout money

Yes it is.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oligarchy
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism

Well ArtX, I think that was bound to happen, they borrowed the money (or were forced to) the next logical step would be repayment. I think we went over this in a previous thread
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/30...ll-pop-627612/

That $700 billion number was just the tip of the iceberg.

TARP, TALF, TAF, TLGP, CPFF, MMIF, TSLF, look into this and tell me what percentage has been allocated properly.

Many other concerns as well but it would warrant a dif. thread imo.
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-g...trophe-2009-11

So do you feel bailouts to the banks are still wrong given they have paid the money back?