Korean Job Discussion Forums

[comm]

[Unposter]

VisitorQ,

Is your answer to me some kind of joke? In your wikipedia blurb, it clearly states that laisse-fare economics has never existed and then you go on to say that everyone knows laisse-fare economics created the Industrial Revolution. How can something that never existed create something such as an "industrial revolution"? That makes no sense.

The fact that the Industrial Revolution started in England, a constitutional-monarchy and a colonial power, maybe even the greatest colonial power ever, doesn't even seem to make you blink. That is pretty darn far away from what could even be considered even a limited laisse-fare economy.

Listen, I am not perfect. I have been wrong about many things. But, I'll admit it. I'll just say I was wrong. I would suggest the same to you.

And, your logic about "socialism" is pretty circular, too. All modern economies, to date, have had some socialist aspects. And, all modern economies have problems. Therefore, socialism has been the cause of so much of the world's problems. Yeah, whatever.

Then, you double down on this fallacy. Your logic is like this: A Laisse-fare economy has never existed. So, a laisse-fare economy has never created a problem. Therefore, laisse-fare economies don't create problems. Wow! Just wow!

Of course, you are not the only person on this board to indulge in this utopian fantasy.

But, at least, do not "fool" people into believing that something that never existed created something we call the Industrial Revolution. I guess you'll be telling us about "virgin births" next. Because at the momment, you seem to be selling faith and religion, not empiricism and rationalism.

[visitorq]

[Unposter]

The point which I brought up is the factual incorrectness of your saying that laisse fare economics created (or allowed for) the Industrial Revolution.

The reason I have been talking about England (or Great Britain) is because what we call the Industrial Revolution started in England. This is factually correct.

Great Britain at that time and still today is not a laisse fare economy. Politically, it was and still is a Constitutional Monarchy, which established a number of barriers and restrictions on its economy. This is factually correct.

I am no expert on the time but here are some of the barriers that were placed on the economy.

1. The sovereign, with the permission of parliament, did tax its population, some of which went to the support of the monarchy at a great cost to its people.

2. The sovereign, I believe Queen Elizabeth and King James gave contractual rights to monopoly over trade to companies such as the East Indian Company and the Hudson Bay Company in specific colonial areas. This alone should be enough to rid any sensible person that England was not a laisse-fare economy.

3. The sovereign owned large amounts of land that was legally off-limits to the population.

4. There were barriers to education and economic and market information based on social class.

5. There was very little meritocracy. Family connections were a valuable asset to jobs.

6. The British government was highly bureaucratic, at a high cost to its population.

7. There were great barriers to jobs and markets if you were a subjected person in a British colony.

I believe this just scratches the surface. Yet, despite all these barriers, the Industrial Revolution did start in the UK. Hard to believe isn't it? But, it is true!

So, VisitorQ, please stop suggesting to people that it happened otherwise.

[Unposter]

I don't really want to get bogged down on this issue but I do have one thing to say.

As a general, non-specific rule, I can imagine that economic freedom has its benefits. But, what I don't understand is this axiom of the more freedom there is the better the economy. Since, we have not tested these limits, it is not prudent to say it is true, merely that it is an untested hypothesis. By using it axiomatically, and then ad-hominem bashing others for their lack of understanding of economics is just propaganda and foolishness.

I could just as easily hypothesize that if there were laisse-fare economics the result would one of two things: 1) one or a certain number of people would accumulate wealth and power and then wield dictatorial, even monarchist, powers over others 2) people would band together, form government, and restrict the concentration of wealth and power in others through taxation or other social, political and/or economic barriers.

And, at least historically, we could point to my two hypotheses a lot more, if at all, at your hypothetical laisse-fare economy.

[visitorq]

[visitorq]

[ontheway]

The parts of the economy that grew and thrived during the industrial revolution, and indeed both before and since, have always occured in those areas that suffered the least interference or were left alone entirely by government.

Both subsidies and barriers set up by governments have always had negative consequences at best, prevented all economic activity in the regulated area at worst, or caused massive malinvestment and fraud in the case of subsidies.

It is true that in modern times we have never completely escaped the evil hand of government in any large area of the populated world for any extended period of time. Nevertheless, throughout the long-term passing of human history, we have seen mankind continuously seeking and struggling for liberty and endeavoring to escape the rule, regulation and coercion of government. Looking at the areas of success and failure during that history, we have seen that the free market, including free trade, always works and socialism (all government activity in the economy) always fails.

[Unposter]

VisitorQ,

You stated that laisse-fare economics created the Industrial Revolution. This is just patently false. The Industrial Revolution started in England and England neither was then nor is now a laisse-fare economy.

Now, if you want to say/argue that the Industrial Revolution lead to greater economic freedoms, I may be more inclined to believe you despite the horrendous working conditions that came with the Industrial Revolution.

After the Industrial Revlution started in England, English companies with the help of the British government guarded their technological advancements adn tried hard to prevent their spread, something I don't associate with laisse-fare economics.

Only after stealing some of this technology did U.S. companies take part in the Industrial Revolution.

I mentioned the monopolistic charters of Queen Elizabeth and King James because it was under those charters that British companies exploited colonial areas and established international trade. These were conditions that were most definitely not laisse fare.

Bottom line, you should really re-consider your factually incorrect belief that laisse-fare economics created the Industrial Revolution because that is not correct.

[Unposter]

VisitorQ,

You have this highly idealized view of the 19th Century in America. Please correct me if I am wrong about these aspects of 19th Century America and if I am not wrong how they can be argued to be laisse-fare:

1) The U.S. used tarrifs against some imported goods
2) The U.S. government aided some industries, rail roads for example. I am sure there are others.
3) The U.S. government used eminent domain (sp?) to accquire land for the rail roads.
4) State governments favored some industries over others, such as cattle farmers over homesteaders.
5) There was federal taxation, though obviously quite different than that of the 20th Century.
6) Slavery was legal through most of the century

[Unposter]

While I can somewhat believe that the freer the economy the better, I mean obviously, the U.S. continues to be one of the freest economies in the world, and it is the largest economy in the world.

On the other hand, China and Japan are the second and third largest economies in the world and both are not very free. China is actually quite closed.

If we were to look at per capita GNP, the best economies are all oil based. And, it is not just Middle Eastern countries. Countries like Norway and the non oil producing country of Denmark also have very high GNPs.

So, I have to admit I am confused. Can you explain, using real-world examples or data, how freedom correlates with economic success?

[visitorq]

[visitorq]

[visitorq]

[northway]