Kmar wrote:
The correlation here, relative to the discussion, is that both are self promoting.
Self promoting? In what context? Individualism does not specifically advantage the individual. Individualism implies much more than simply a personal right to one's possessions, it also implies a responsibility for one's own actions. Further, an individualistic view can chastise the same acts as any collectivist view could. Individualism is not financial anarchy(or any anarchy) despite what certain modern groups would imply. (Including that quote)
Supply and demand are subject to their own set of problems.
Of course.
Supply does not always meet demand, and in times of great necessity that is a big problem.
True, but early America was not one of those times. There hasn't been such a time in a long while, in fact.
Only once a potential personal gain is weighed and judged does an increase in demand warrant a change.
It was a much simpler economy. We didn't have executives weighing potential net profits and the like. Besides, there were plenty of horseshoe smithies elsewhere who surely we're already on their way to do the same job and benefit from the bountiful surplus which America supplied. I doubt there was any such shortage of people nor that there would have been a lag of production.
The shortage/surplus motivator system is not the most efficient.
It depends on the situation.
It carries the burden of lag as the system is always fluctuating, trying to acquire the market clearing point. By it's very nature it is a reactionary process.
It's reactionary in theory, and in application in modern day as well, mainly because expansion is dead. Such was not the case then.
Also there is no guarantee of competition. For example, a few selfish horseshoe makers can easily get together and price fix. Or the first one to the top can buy out the competition, or leverage themselves to eliminate them. The differences in each ideology is consistency, ability to react, and exploitation.
How is this relevant?
This is not a knock on the free market system.
Never thought it was, though that last line confused me a bit.
A more productive system isn't necessarily a better thing. This depends on where you place your value. My point was that in times of critical importance (war/initial development) individuality is not the most ideal philosophy. (Seems rather obvious) We tolerate a move towards freedom and choice only as the situation provides us with the ability to relax. However, it's not simply by chance that we find ourselves migrating towards less individuality, and more group oriented when we are faced with extreme challenges. This is a human condition.
There are times when it's practical to look at a set as a whole, such as when you're limited in your resources. You then have the choice of ignoring blame(since you can't do anything about the failings of that person since you can't just replace them), and compensate in other areas. But it doesn't seem economically feasible. An economy isn't going to do well on the basis of surviving. In terms of initial development, it varies. Individuals staking claim and building their own, then coming together and deciding on laws could make an effective society just as much as one that's collective in the decision of where and how to build everything. I think initial development can be hard, but not really a time of economic hardship.
Yes, America's natural resources has had a lot to do with it's success. However, it's rather shallow to simply imply that is the only reason.
It really is, though. I mean, yes, they could have fucked it up by being stupid with it, like by burning all the crops and killing the soil, but it wasn't some stroke of brilliance in terms of society that made it thrive.
There are plenty of countries that have more than enough natural resources and remain sub-par as a societal whole.
Look at the size of the
known world in that time relative to America. The amount of resources
in the known world was about doubled by America. On top of that, America introduced tons of new resources that didn't even exist before. If you were going to try to draw a modern parallel, you would have to find a country who is
the size of earth, or
contains resources equating to the entirety of earth, along with a few other resources that aren't on earth but are useful for whatever reason. So basically, you'd have a whole new planet, untouched, with the same level of resources of Earth, unclaimed. What you would have then is neither a lack (or "lag") of supply or demand, since anyone foolish enough not to advantage from such a discovery would quickly be replaced by millions of others more than willing to do so. What you would then have is a deflation (due to a sudden shock of massive amount of resources), and a quick draining of wealth from the rest of the world to that new place, because everyone will be buying up those new resources. At the end of the day(or years), that new planet would have a massive hold on earth in terms of wealth, simply from it owning half of everything at that time, an advantage that doesn't go away in a day.
There are also countries with very limited resources that excel.
I'm sure there are, I just can't think of any. Though even if there is, it's not really relevant since it's more than believable that there's more than one way for a country to be successful.
The system of economics built around those resources are just as important as the resources themselves. The idea that there is a one size fits all philosophy to governing a society in every circumstance is false. However, that seems to be the predominant theory these days.
Well, yeah. If there's 5 people on an island, you certainly don't need a stock exchange. But again, when you're handed such a great advantage, you can use the same system as everyone else and thrive.
