The Elephant in the Room.

[philwar]

Laissez-faire capitalism would have allowed the Banks to fail.

Yes it would.

Laissez-faire would allow the existence of monopolies

It would 'allow' it but it would be the least conducive to it of all possible systems. Anyone is always free to start a new business in an existing branche.

You seem to equate laissez-fare capitalism with 'pure greed.' They may not be mutually exclusive, but they sure aren't identical.

[parbajtor]

Back to the OT. It's not an Elephant, it's a Hippo chewing a Snake.

Fascism is where the State adopts Corporatism.
I don't know what you call it when Corporations adopt the State.
Total Privatisation, perhaps?

[parbajtor]

It would 'allow' it but it would be the least conducive to it of all possible systems. Anyone is always free to start a new business in an existing branche.

You seem to equate laissez-fare capitalism with 'pure greed.' They may not be mutually exclusive, but they sure aren't identical.

What? Free? Like some new 'dealer' moving into a "Wess B-More Cawnah"? Sheeeeeeeeeeit.

Laissez-faire (To make allowance/permit) obviously isn't identical to pure greed, anymore than the environment is identical to the organism
(apologies to the Buddhists).
It's debatable whether the environment can be said to create the organism. (apologies to Theists)

Actually, I equate Laissez-Faire Capitalism with Anarchy. They are more than "synonyms in different languages".
There's a philosophical angle as well. One day (I hope) Humankind will be socially developed enough to not need Rule.
The long term consequences of their actions will be foreseen at the "choosing stage" and they will mitigate their behaviour accordingly (Self-discipline).
All you martial artists out there say Yeah! (IYKWIM). With freedom comes responsibility in equal measure. That concept is within grasp of human understanding,
but far removed from corporate sensibility.

[jdm61]

Actually, the way both fascism and Marxism developed, their really wasn't that much of a difference in how they handled the ""ownership" issue. The Nazis did not see the industrialists as immediate enemies of the party because they were initially trying to recreate a version of Bismarck's old alliance of the crown, the nobility/military and the industrialists. In 1933, the Nazi party stood in the place of the crown and, to a partial degree, the old Prussian nobility. The Nazi's realized that they did not have to actually take ownership of the means of production. That would take away any incentive. What they needed to do initially was to CONTROL the means of production, which they did. Sure, you owned your business, but if you were out of favor with the party, you weren't going to do very well. The eventual plan was to roll EVERYTHING into the party, be it industry, police and fiare departments, the military, the post office or even the "boy scouts".

Ideologically, the only difference between socialism and fascism is the question of ownership of the means of production. Both cloak themselves in Nationalism, but their definition differs slightly. Laissez -faire/pure greed can have longer term advantages that aren't realised due to Regulation which mitigates short term effects. Laissez-faire capitalism would have allowed the Banks to fail. Laissez-faire would allow the existence of monopolies, ultimately to the point where 1 global corporation would own everything and pay everyone's "wages" (or not if they re-introduced slavery). Ultimately this would result in the equalisation of monetary systems & wages and the end of inflation and "Boom & bust" cycles. Nationalism would lose its relevance because the flag we'd all be flying would be the corporate logo. There would be no 'game' because there'd be only one team and no rules. No Gubmint and no Constitution, either. Just a set of Company rules. "Profit" itself would then ultimately cease to have meaning (This is usually described as the Socialist agenda) and then the Corporation would fall into lassitude and falter.
Morality (and History) aside, are people any better off for having "eliminated Slavery"? Sure, we can point to the excesses of some individuals, but isn't that just a demonstration of people who don't care/know how to look after their own property? You have farmers who won't look after their livestock, but those farms ultimately don't tend to do very well, except through a very narrow focus on Profit (usually short term profit). "Put the beggars on the payroll" is the watchword of the Corporation. You get what you pay for (8 hours work ) with no additional responsibility (cost) for anything else. Slavery keeps the costs and responsibilities within the society. Corporatism (a legal construct created to avoid ethical/moral responsibility and limit Liability) transfers these costs/responsibilities to that society. "You're homeless/sick/hungry? Not the Corporations responsibility!" Your environment is contaminated/denuded/ dessicated because the Corporation has dumped their waste/ sucked the minerals and water out of the land? Who do you expect to put it right?" A slave owner takes (is obliged to take) responsibility for the actions of himself and his property (slaves) and the consequences of his enterprise. Corporations have (limited) liability for the actions of its "officers" who cannot be deemed individually negligent (liable) for carrying out the orders of the Corporation. But a Corporation cannot be put in jail for commiting a crime and the individual officers cannot be held responsible for carrying out the orders of the Company (even if they themselves wrote those orders). Individual greed is usually tempered by consequences, with Food it's obesity. With personal possessions, it's loneliness. With the acquisition of wealth, it's a lack of love and a distrust of peoples motives.
Corporatism avoids those consequences and in the absence of Regulation (the corporate substitute for Ethics), untrammelled greed is given the environment to flourish. But here's the paradox. Pure, unrestricted Greed must self regulate or it would ultimately first consume it's environment and then itself (adapt or die). It's the regulation that allows Greed to be immortal because it never has to look at itself or concern itself with where it's next meal is coming from. Everything goes in cycles (Yin/Yang) but it's the black dot in the white background (and vice versa) that allows for the existence of both.
Corporations are intrinsically anti-human constructs. But hey, what do you expect? A shark is a shark, right?
Now if only there were somewhere (guaranteed dolphin-free) where sharks could congregate en-masse, where the majority of other fish are taught that the shark is their friend and protector and any untoward incidents can be explained off as the work of "Dolphins" (they do look remarkably similar, right?). Of course, they need to keep the odd Barracuda (Entrepreneur) about for the other fish to point at and say "one of these days, I'm going to grow up to be one of them". Man, those fish will fight and die for the right to be Barracuda, even the Zebrafish and the Pufferfish, pretty much all of them.
Do you know anywhere like that?

[timcsaw]

Actually, the way both fascism and Marxism developed, their really wasn't that much of a difference in how they handled the ""ownership" issue. The Nazis did not see the industrialists as immediate enemies of the party because they were initially trying to recreate a version of Bismarck's old alliance of the crown, the nobility/military and the industrialists. In 1933, the Nazi party stood in the place of the crown and, to a partial degree, the old Prussian nobility. The Nazi's realized that they did not have to actually take ownership of the means of production. That would take away any incentive. What they needed to do initially was to CONTROL the means of production, which they did. Sure, you owned your business, but if you were out of favor with the party, you weren't going to do very well. The eventual plan was to roll EVERYTHING into the party, be it industry, police and fiare departments, the military, the post office or even the "boy scouts".

An important distinction that has, unfortunately, been learned all too well; If Pete owns his own business, but via government regulations he is told what he can sell, who he can and cannot sell too, where he must buy supplies, the wages he must pay, the hours he can be open for business, how much profit he can make, etc., etc., does the government REALLY NEED to actually OWN "the means of production"?

It's not "Socialism" unless the Govt. actually OWNS the health insurance company right?

[shunsui]

Back to the OT. It's not an Elephant, it's a Hippo chewing a Snake.

Fascism is where the State adopts Corporatism.
I don't know what you call it when Corporations adopt the State.
Total Privatisation, perhaps?

The best Democracy money can buy ?

[jdm61]

You do know that in countries like Germany, Belgium, etc, the health insurance companies and other non-government organizations like co-operatives still administer the single payer health care financing system, right? The act as "third party administrators" much like companies do over here when they are hired to handle self insured plans or government employee health plans where the employer sets the rules and collects the money and the insurer administers the plan for a fee or a cut of the premium money. Medicare is arguably closer to the British NHS system than that in that HCFA does most of the work themselves, but we still do allow private companies to provide gap policies and in the past, HCFA contracted with HMO's like Humana to handle Medicare work.

An important distinction that has, unfortunately, been learned all too well; If Pete owns his own business, but via government regulations he is told what he can sell, who he can and cannot sell too, where he must buy supplies, the wages he must pay, the hours he can be open for business, how much profit he can make, etc., etc., does the government REALLY NEED to actually OWN "the means of production"?

It's not "Socialism" unless the Govt. actually OWNS the health insurance company right?