prudence@trw-unix.UUCP (05/23/83)
Jeff Myers recently posted a note to this newsgroup in which he makes two points: 1) Government-run business do poorly because the government only nationalizes business which are tottering in the first place, and 2) The Soviet Union trails us because of the damage they sustained in WWII and because they started from a lower base. Point 1: This is valid, governments frequently use the ill health of an industry as an excuse for nationalization, however, the effect of such a move is usually to make the business even weaker. As a counter-example, look at the package delivery business. The U.S. Post Office abandoned the package delivery side of the mail because it was losing so much money. Congress repealed the Post Office monopoly on package delivery, and as a result, firms like Emory and REA have stepped in, providing excellent service at a low price. This is typical, because the government has never been capable of running a profitable operation. The single example Mr. Myers offered, Renault, is a rare exception. Newsweek reported that the reason Renault does so well is because of minimal government interference. Point 2: While it is true that the USSR suffered during WWII, Germany and Japan both suffered more, yet the free market has allowed entrepeneurs to rebuild the countries. The stifling Soviet bureaucracy has prevented this mechanism from working. Let us also dispell the notion that the Soviet Union was some sort of primitive backwater at the time of the Revolution. In 1910, the USSR was the fifth largest industrial nation in the world and a net exporter of food. Communism has had such a crippling effect on a naturally productive nation that countries as devoid of resources as Switzerland have long surpassed them. Let me end with a lesson from history. Laissez-faire capitalism is the only form of economy in history that has coincided with freedom and prosperity. The unending cycle of stagflation and recession that we have been suffering for nearly 20 years is a direct result of having abandoned such an economy. Prudence ucbvax!trw-unix!prudence
guy@rlgvax.UUCP (05/26/83)
Be careful when you casually toss the phrase "Communist sympathizer"
around. I suspect what Mr. Turner was saying was that what *we*
were doing in El Salvador would not make it any better. I don't
think an anarchist is likely to care much for Marxism-Leninism
in any form.
Guy Harris
RLG Corporation
{seismo,mcnc,we13,brl-bmd,allegra}!rlgvax!guymmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (05/27/83)
===================
Let me end with a lesson from history. Laissez-faire capitalism is the
only form of economy in history that has coincided with freedom and
prosperity. The unending cycle of stagflation and recession that we
have been suffering for nearly 20 years is a direct result of having
abandoned such an economy.
Prudence
ucbvax!trw-unix!prudence
===================
Prudence ought to try to live up to her name before making such sweeping
statements about imaginary history. Laissez-faire capitalism has coincided
with freedom and prosperity for a very few, misery and slavery for the
very many. Furthermore, it is a very strange view of the last 20 years
that calls it an "unending cycle of stagflation and recession!" Until
the huge jumps in oil prices, things were doing pretty well, in my memory.
The really bad problems didn't start until Reagan tried to destroy the
US (and non-US) economies with such gusto.
Martin Taylorucbesvax.turner@ucbcad.UUCP (05/29/83)
#R:trw-unix:-20700:ucbesvax:7500016:000:2877 ucbesvax!turner May 28 17:12:00 1983 In all, I think Prudence's examples (hackneyed as they may be) are fair examples of how government bureaucracy and efficient business operation are inimical. This is not to register total agreement, however. Prudence needs some correction, or we need some clarification from her, when she says: > While it is true that the USSR suffered during WWII, Germany and > Japan both suffered more, yet the free market has allowed entrepeneurs to > rebuild the countries. The stifling Soviet bureaucracy has prevented this > mechanism from working. Let us also dispell the notion that the Soviet > Union was some sort of primitive backwater at the time of the Revolution. > In 1910, the USSR was the fifth largest industrial nation in the world > and a net exporter of food. Communism has had such a crippling effect > on a naturally productive nation that countries as devoid of resources > as Switzerland have long surpassed them. Umm...is she forgetting the Marshall Plan, in the case of Germany? I don't think you can say, outright, that they could have done it without significant government intervention on the part of the U.S. In Japan, it's even less a case of "entrepreneurial" capitalism--industrialization was a very explicit GOVERNMENT policy--and key industries were parcelled out to old (formerly feudal) ruling families, not to the most competitive--who didn't exist yet. MacArthur didn't do much to change this, but it is notable that he oversaw one the world's more successful land-reform programs. (And, as matters stand now, the Japanese use the market economy as a testing ground for new industries; the ones that survive get to benefit by government support. This is a sight better than the U.S. "bailout" policy for the Good Ol' Boy industrialists.) As for Russia being the fifth largest industrial nation in the world before the revolution--what does this mean? Lithium is the THIRD lightest element in the table but you couldn't fill a balloon with it and expect it to float. Perhaps industrial-output-per-capita would be a better measure. And I think THAT figure would put Russia well behind most of Europe at the time. Prudence, again: > Let me end with a lesson from history. Laissez-faire capitalism is the > only form of economy in history that has coincided with freedom and > prosperity. The unending cycle of stagflation and recession that we > have been suffering for nearly 20 years is a direct result of having > abandoned such an economy. Not a very good historical lesson. When and where has laissez-faire existed? She gives no examples. In any case, freedom and prosperity are relative terms in this unfree and still rather impoverished world. For me, it suffices to point out that Milton Friedman's economic god- child, General Pinochet of Chile, will never stand among the world's great libertarians. Michael Turner