Turn on thread page Beta

Capitalism versus Communism, Anarchism etc watch

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fishpaste)
    Perhaps the quote was referring to a more one sided war, where one very able country just flattens another. That kind of war wouldn't change the allocation of resources of said country. As llama boy mentioned, you can create new markets that way, including development and infrastructure.

    Note to self Innuendo has no place in macroeconomics.
    Wouldn't you shut down markets in this way?

    If a hugely powerful country crushes a less powerful country and grinds them into a state of being economically moribund how would that help the powerful country? Surely, that would shut down a potential market rather than open it's doors.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fishpaste)
    My economics teacher tells us that France is only about 50% market economy, the other 50% is planned. Interesting?
    He or she could well speak the truth.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    The way I like to think about it is in terms of restaurants.

    Think about it. In London, you can get any sort of food that takes your fancy 7 days a week. Chinese, Russian, French, Italian, Brazilian, Iranian etc.

    It amazes me to think that the market alone ensures that the right types and quantities of all these different foods are ordered, delivered, prepared, cooked, and served.

    What's more, the market does it unknowingly and without even thinking. Can you imagine government trying to do it?
    I take your point
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Wouldn't you shut down markets in this way?

    If a hugely powerful country crushes a less powerful country and grinds them into a state of being economically moribund how would that help the powerful country? Surely, that would shut down a potential market rather than open it's doors.

    Well I'm assuming said country has no formal markets, and isn't interested in international trade. By flattening their country, you not only create demand for a capital market (road infrastructure, machinery etc), but you introduce a government willing to trade internationally.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    The way I like to think about it is in terms of restaurants.

    Think about it. In London, you can get any sort of food that takes your fancy 7 days a week. Chinese, Russian, French, Italian, Brazilian, Iranian etc.

    It amazes me to think that the market alone ensures that the right types and quantities of all these different foods are ordered, delivered, prepared, cooked, and served.

    What's more, the market does it unknowingly and without even thinking. Can you imagine government trying to do it?
    Certainly not, although I think your analogy is imperfect if generally sound.

    For example, is the large amount of American food sold entirely due to people's tastes (economics speak: "free consumer choice"), or is it influenced by the large amount of money made elsewhere that the American corporations are able to pump into advertising in this country?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fishpaste)
    Well I'm assuming said country has no formal markets, and isn't interested in international trade. By flattening their country, you not only create demand for a capital market (road infrastructure, machinery etc), but you introduce a government willing to trade internationally.
    Hmmm. Well, I can't think of a huge powerful country that isn't interested in international trade. There's a long tradition of trade and Empire.

    Anyway, I don't see much benefit in a big rich country flattening a small poor country and further impoverishing it on the basis that you create a need for infrastructure. Surely that infrastructure reconstruction would need to be paid for by the big rich country?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llama boy)
    Certainly not, although I think your analogy is imperfect if generally sound.

    For example, is the large amount of American food sold entirely due to people's tastes (economics speak: "free consumer choice"), or is it influenced by the large amount of money made elsewhere that the American corporations are able to pump into advertising in this country?
    It's the best analogy I could muster up at short notice.

    Good point you make though. It reminds me of the old argument that $'s can be likened to votes. So the rich obviously have more votes than the poor and that the market reacts by providing not what is really wanted by the majority.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Wouldn't you shut down markets in this way?

    If a hugely powerful country crushes a less powerful country and grinds them into a state of being economically moribund how would that help the powerful country? Surely, that would shut down a potential market rather than open it's doors.
    Well as for "markets" for your products/services, take Iraq as an example. That was pretty much destroyed but there are now rich pickings there for American corporations in the short, medium and long term.

    There are also other instances of the workings of "the market" that aren't so much about selling your products as getting a cheap work force. Indonesia is an example where the West backed a war that brought a tyrant to power because of the huge potential for cheap factories etc to be opened up there.

    The "model pupil of globalisation", I think the World Bank said it was. The 500,000 who died in said war are of limited importance, obviously.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Hmmm. Well, I can't think of a huge powerful country that isn't interested in international trade. There's a long tradition of trade and Empire.

    Anyway, I don't see much benefit in a big rich country flattening a small poor country and further impoverishing it on the basis that you create a need for infrastructure. Surely that infrastructure reconstruction would need to be paid for by the big rich country?

    I hate to, but the example of Iraq? Trade was not possible because of the politics involved. By flattening the country, international contractors now get to rebuild Iraq, using oil revenues from the country as payment. Hence a market.

    I'm going to leave now before I get lynched for bringing in Iraq. Back later.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fishpaste)
    I hate to, but the example of Iraq? Trade was not possible because of the politics involved. By flattening the country, international contractors now get to rebuild Iraq, using oil revenues from the country as payment. Hence a market.

    I'm going to leave now before I get lynched for bringing in Iraq. Back later.
    at least you haven't mentioned religion


    oops
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    It's the best analogy I could muster up at short notice.

    Good point you make though. It reminds me of the old argument that $'s can be likened to votes. So the rich obviously have more votes than the poor and that the market reacts by providing not what is really wanted by the majority.
    Ah, that one.

    Example of that can be seen in the media. Commercial television, where not regulated, is slavishly aimed at those with the most disposable income, which is typically the young middle class. That explains why, for example, the first few series of Big Brother was made such a big deal of even though the ratings were v.v. poor compared to a lot of other shows IIRC.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Innate human selfishness, greed and pride.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by riffraff)
    at least you haven't mentioned religion


    oops
    lol
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fleff)
    lol
    anyone want to start yet another discussion on islam or shall I?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Some interesting points.

    I just wonder though, how it came to being that power in many ways equates to money. Why does power not equate to physical strength, so called survival of the fittest. This is what happens in nature... is it inevitable it will one day happen again with people? May Capitalism just be a blip?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llama boy)
    Well as for "markets" for your products/services, take Iraq as an example. That was pretty much destroyed but there are now rich pickings there for American corporations in the short, medium and long term.
    Maybe. But it's a hell of an odd way to open up a new market!

    Now, I'm just a simple man but if I wanted to open up trade with Iraq I'd have started off by lifting the embargo on oil. By doing that the price of oil would tumble and I could buy more of it and use it to manufacture things more cheaply.

    The Iraqi's would have revenue from oil and could spend it on the goods that I have produced nice and cheaply. Hey presto! A new market open without killing anyone!

    I thought that's how international trade worked. Obviously I hadn't considered "Adam Smith's Bazooka Theory"
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Maybe. But it's a hell of an odd way to open up a new market!

    Now, I'm just a simple man but if I wanted to open up trade with Iraq I'd have started off by lifting the embargo on oil. By doing that the price of oil would tumble and I could buy more of it and use it to manufacture things more cheaply.

    The Iraqi's would have revenue from oil and could spend it on the goods that I have produced nice and cheaply. Hey presto! A new market open without killing anyone!

    I thought that's how international trade worked. Obviously I hadn't considered "Adam Smith's Bazooka Theory"
    I'm not sure, but wasn't the advantage of flattening the country first that now the coalition countries could control the supply of oil and do themselves favours?? Whereas with the old regime, it was countries like France which benefited from Iraqi trade.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fishpaste)
    I'm not sure, but wasn't the advantage of flattening the country first that now the coalition countries could control the supply of oil and do themselves favours?? Whereas with the old regime, it was countries like France which benefited from Iraqi trade.
    Well, if that was the objective then the coalition have failed miserably. Oil is extremely expensive which has translated into the highest gas prices in the USA in living memory.

    I don't want to get into a "blood for oil" debate here but obviously all this oil the US is supposed to be stealing (or at least controlling the flow of) from Iraq doesn't seem to be having the desired effect.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Well, if that was the objective then the coalition have failed miserably. Oil is extremely expensive which has translated into the highest gas prices in the USA in living memory.

    I don't want to get into a "blood for oil" debate here but obviously all this oil the US is supposed to be stealing (or at least controlling the flow of) from Iraq doesn't seem to be having the desired effect.
    Why is it expensive though? Given that there should be more flowing now than there was with the blockades? The only reason I can think of is uncertainty of supply pushing up demand.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fishpaste)
    Why is it expensive though? Given that there should be more flowing now than there was with the blockades? The only reason I can think of is uncertainty of supply pushing up demand.
    Well, I don't think there is more flowing. Iraq remains an OPEC member and OPEC have just voted to slash production by 1 million barrels a week to preserve pricing levels.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.