Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mmintl.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!linus!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka From: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: capitalism vs. democracy??? Message-ID: <921@mmintl.UUCP> Date: Sat, 21-Dec-85 16:24:58 EST Article-I.D.: mmintl.921 Posted: Sat Dec 21 16:24:58 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 24-Dec-85 20:49:10 EST References: <261@gargoyle.UUCP> <286@frog.UUCP> <267@gargoyle.UUCP> Reply-To: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT Lines: 68 In article <1838@teddy.UUCP> lkk@teddy.UUCP (Larry K. Kolodney) writes: >>Nationalizing the banks would be a disaster! Instead of being independent >>power sources, they would all be added to what is already the greatest >>accumulation of power in the world. Now if you need to borrow money, >>there is only one place to go -- and you had better have good political >>connections if you expect any success. [Me] > >Until the recent advent of the Fair Credit Act (or whatever its called), >the same was true of commercial banks. Especially if you were poor, or black, >or . I'd much rather that the banks be in >the control of the government, which I have *SOME* chance of affecting, rather >than private individuals. There are a lot of ways to affect private individuals. One is to get a law passed, like the Fair Credit Act (or whatever it's called). But the main point is that there are lots of different banks, and you only have to convince one of them. >Government ownership of the banks could be like that in France, where they >are run as semi-autonomous "for profit" institutions. Government ownership >insures, however, that capital is available for societally important >sectors, such as farmers and the poor. Right now, the banks are in >the midst of a massive series of farm foreclosures across the >country. These foreclosures do nothing postive, help to futher destroy >the small farmer and rural culture, and could/should be prevented, >given a government bank with the foresight to realize this. Private >banks can't see past this years bottom line. The French nationalization is rather recent; I would avoid drawing any conclusions about it for a few years yet. Government ownership insure that capital is *not* available for areas the government *doesn't* like. The government can and does make capital available where it wants it by giving preferential tax treatment. The banks are *not* in the midst of a massive series of farm foreclosures. There are a lot of farmers who borrowed a lot more money in the 70's than they should have. Those who are in really bad shape are being foreclosed. On the whole, the banks involved are being very accomodating -- these people are valued customers. >>Truely meaningful economic reform would be a very good thing. It did wonders >>for Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, and Singapore. I suspect what you have in >>mind, however, is government control of the economy -- i.e., socialism. This >>policy has been adopted by most of the rest of the third world. It, too, >>has done wonders -- at preventing growth. > >It has also been implemented in almost every country in Europe, some >of which have higher growth rates than the United States, and are much >nicer places to live that Hong Kong. There are two (main) aspects of socialism -- nationalization and the welfare state. I was referring to nationalization here. The nations of western Europe all have more private industry than public industry. Furthermore, the public industries were mostly nationalized after they became large as private companies; and they are mostly not very productive today. Also, to my knowledge only France has much in the way of price controls; the typical third world country has lots of price controls. Twenty years ago, they were much, much nicer places to live in than Hong Kong. One expects (relatively) economically backward countries to catch up to (relatively) advanced ones. Western Europe has caught up with the U.S.; the Asian countries I listed, starting much farther back, have almost caught up with both. What needs explanation is why the rest of the world hasn't participated. I don't claim that socialist policies are the whole reason, but I think they are a large part of it. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108