tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19803826.post115765983461797716..comments2024-03-27T23:28:07.513-07:00Comments on BikeBubba's Boulangerie: Capitalism, or mercantilism?Bike Bubbahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08193546045614393425noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19803826.post-1157737602004064962006-09-08T10:46:00.000-07:002006-09-08T10:46:00.000-07:00Mark, David, probably best to answer in another po...Mark, David, probably best to answer in another post.Bike Bubbahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08193546045614393425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19803826.post-1157734151512678002006-09-08T09:49:00.000-07:002006-09-08T09:49:00.000-07:00Thanks bubba for your reply. I don't disagree with...Thanks bubba for your reply. I don't disagree with your definitions or capitalism or mercantilism. And the idea that we're under a new form of (neo)mercantilism never really occurred to me. I thought we had moved from capiltalism to socialism, but mercantilism does seem to fit rather well between the two. <BR/><BR/>I guess my question is, do you see mass production, specialized labor, factories, materialism, fiat currency, debt-based ecomonics, interest-based banking etc. more as characteristics of capitalism or mercantilism?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19803826.post-1157729841316454892006-09-08T08:37:00.000-07:002006-09-08T08:37:00.000-07:00David; yes, southern agrarians did complain about ...David; yes, southern agrarians did complain about "laissez faire capitalism," but that doesn't change the fact that the central tendencies of economic policy--tariffs, subsidies, government schooling, and colonialism--are hallmarks of mercantilism. <BR/><BR/>Again, you've GOT to get back to the definitions. If something is BY DEFINITION not free market capitalism, no number of statements by Marxist historians or southern poets can change that fact. It is "by definition" excluded, PERIOD.<BR/><BR/>Mercy, we are to be sure talking about degrees. However, it is a fact that when 40% of income goes to government and another 14% or more is absorbed in regulatory costs, we are by no means "capitalist" anymore. <BR/><BR/>The most capitalist places in the world today are, moreover, some of the former USSR/Warsaw Pact nations and Singapore. <BR/><BR/>Which way will we go? That probably depends on whether our nation embraces sound economics or not. I'm frankly not optimistic, given the degree of misinformation out there. Again, if we can't figure out that tariffs and subsidies aren't exactly free markets, calculating the long term disaster of Social Security and Medicare will almost certainly be beyond our abilities.Bike Bubbahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08193546045614393425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19803826.post-1157681152313886742006-09-07T19:05:00.000-07:002006-09-07T19:05:00.000-07:00Ok, I read it in one setting and my fingers are ti...Ok, I read it in one setting and my fingers are tired from the scrolling. Nevertheless, are you saying that the US, the free-est enterprise system of the world, is very much socialistic? Do you see us moving away from it since the economy is much more global now or vice versia depending upon whether our politicians are protectionists or not?Mercy Nowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02460657808114487254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19803826.post-1157680819147479782006-09-07T19:00:00.000-07:002006-09-07T19:00:00.000-07:00Bert, you cannot expect the avg viewer to use the ...Bert, you cannot expect the avg viewer to use the scroll bar when reading blogs. Guess I'll have to do it in two settings:o)Mercy Nowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02460657808114487254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19803826.post-1157667950238626742006-09-07T15:25:00.000-07:002006-09-07T15:25:00.000-07:00This is a very good explanation of our discussion....This is a very good explanation of our discussion. In your original post on my blog you were correcting my terminology when I said it was "capitalism" that the Southern Agrarians opposed. You said I should have used "mercantilism". Here you say,<BR/><BR/>"the late 19th century featured, at least in comparison to today, very few of the governmental regulations which today amount to a 14% or so tax on all business conducted here. So at least at a superficial level, the late 19th century does appear to be a great example of laissez faire capitalism."<BR/><BR/>Oddly enough, this is exactly what I'm talking about. It was the period around the turn of the century (19th) when the Southern Agrarians e.g., the Fugitive Poets, were speaking out about the abuses of laissez faire capitalism. If, like you have said here, "the late 19th century does appear to be a great example of laissez faire capitalism."", then why is not plausible that they had this in mind when they were writing during this period and immediately after?<BR/><BR/>I'm not going to quibble about the exact date, but there was a change from captialism back to mercantilism (sometimes called neomercantilism) that took place during the first part of the 20th century. That is not in question. And it has led, like you've said, to the socialistic system of today. <BR/><BR/>Thanks for the post.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com