Dubai's free market capitalism

[Kevin_Kennedy]

it's still funny watching you zombie-eyed capitalists trying to insist that fire doesn't burn.


seriously.

I supposse it's easy to do that when you have as skewed a version of reality as you do. Are you so naive as to think that there is some economic system out there that is going to be totally free of corruption?

No one is claiming that there won't be corruption in a capitilistic system. Then again it's not like there won't be corruption in any other system as well. So your bitching about that particular is basically mute. Secondly you are of the belief that the corruption that is present is something widespread. Sorry, it isn't. To have jobs you need other people to employ people. The vast majority of employers are more then fair with their employees in terms of pay and benefits.

But fine, we install your beloved communism and now instead of everyone having the opportunity to attain great wealth - or hell, as you would argue only some having opportunity - NO ONE has that opportunity. Since there is no wealth creation and no room for business to expand there is no job creation.

The FACT of your position Shogun is that you are a whiny pussy who is essentially saying since I'm not willing to put for the effort to achieve I'm gonna set up a system where NO ONE can achieve. By doing so you will lower the standard of living of everyone. Not just the miniscule number of corrupt business men you hope to eliminate, but everyone they would have employed as well. So you understand how truly laughable you are when you claim you want to improve America by doing away with capitalism.

Like I told you yesterday, Bern, you can save your candy ass, limp wristed shit talking for someone who is not already laughing at your continual failures regarding econ theories. You can cry like a baby about skewed reality and the education of those who disagree with you all day long but, and here is the pattern BERN, you always seem to find yourself making excuses for the FUCKUPS rather than being able to point out time and again how FMC is benefiting more than your beloved upper class. Again, you are the reason Batista's ass found himself ejected from Cuba and lord fucking knows how many trade embargo's it takes to produce your opinions about socialism in CUBA.


NO system is free of corruption. But, that doesn't keep your kind from falling over itself crying about Cuba and Russia DESPITE YOUR PUNCHLINE DEPENDENCE ON COMMIE CHINA. do you give socialist nations as much benefit of the doubt as your pansy ass EXPECTS to be given here? Fuck no you don't. You use them each and every time as if they are THE example of why those systems don't work. Tell me, Bern, how does that irony taste?


So, before you reply with some trite fucking joke of a post that makes me laugh at you harder today go try and ween your silly fucking capitlist self off of the tit of COMMIE CHINA who seems to be doing pretty well stroking your sense of FMC while taking the US to the bank, literally.


Maybe next you can parade around like a fucking ringside round number girl and insist that Trade Deficits are good for our economy too, eh motherfucker?

Again, it is true free market economists advocating that the embargoes on Cuba be removed completely rather than employing little half steps that the current administration has put in place.

Lift the Embargo on Cuba « LewRockwell.com Blog

Struggling for Relevance in Cuba: Close, Still No Cigars by Ron Paul

China isn't a communist economy, and it's laughable that you're trying to claim that they are.

 

[DiamondDave]

What you don't understand Shogun is that everything you advocate will result in a lower standard of living for everyone.

I think your problem is that you only see things in an either/or/black/white. Like I said above: Ireland, Japan, France, Germany, Norway, Austria, Amsterdam, Norway, etc. - all have very strong capitalist markets and also have generous social programs. In fact, Austria and Ireland have even freer markets than we do, according to the "top 10" I posted earlier - and they also have very generous social programs. Their standard of living is also much higher than ours. Why can't we have both? Seems like it would make us even more competitive in the global community - and everyone can prosper. You act like if you live in one of these countries, you cannot be wealthy as well? Do you know the country that had the most millionaires in 2007? It was frickin' Norway. Why can't we take the things that WORK well for the citezenry from both sides and make this a truly great country?

1) We still have the highest standard of living in the world... unless you really like to believe socialist loving, touchy-feely UN 'ratings'..
2) You are not entitled to have your personal responsibilities taken care of by other, just because you want it... you and ones like you are not owed jack shit at the expense of others and at the expense of the freedoms of others
3) If you wish to help others (as many people do, conservative and liberal alike) all you have to do is keep government out of it ans support the charities that help those who are in need for the causes that are close to your heart... not a damn thing is stopping you... I realize it is very easy to be generous with the money of others, but you do not have the right to be

 

[Shogun]

I have never made excuses for it. It is a risk of the system. I have simply said if your too much of a pussy to challenge yourself and deal with the risk, leave.



dude, your entire fucking input thus far is nothing more than a giant excuse for the failures of capitalism. I know I know... it takes a free market education to really taste the nuance.



oh, and it doesn't look like America is swallowing the load of your econ opinion the longer it continues to be auto-asphyxiated by your theories. I'm sure i'll see you soon in a "WAaah WhaaaaH th socialists are coming" thread.



The upside of corruption to the detriment of society in a capitlaistic society is that you can turn to government to regulate where needed. Who do the laborers of China and Cuba have to turn to?



a better question is, since they work on the cheap, why do you even pretend to give a fuck? Labor standards DRIVE UP THE PRICE, right BERN? But hey, make another laughable grab at some half-assed excuse.




What you don't understand Shogun is that everything you advocate will result in a lower standard of living for everyone. Whether it be switching to communism or becoming isolationist and only buying American. Communism limits what one can achieve thus it limits job creaton and the ability of EVERYONE to accumulate wealth. Buying only American costs more for the consumer and is one of those things you can't have both ways. So expenses go up which makes it harder again to improve one's standard of living. You can't expect companies to shoot themselves twice by increasing your wages that you piss and moan about AND make goods cost less. Unless you believe we should just subsidize everything and pile on even more deficit by like infinity


according to your OPINION. Which, by evidence of the downward spiral for the AMERICAN STANDARD OF LIVING after taking your economic opinion up the ASS, is the cherry on top of this punchline thread. Your tired fucking rhetoric just doesn't impress anyone this side of your "labor is cheaper in mexico so fuck the labor unions anyway" mentality. AMERICA is not accumulating wealth due to your bullshit OPINIONS, dude. It's not benefiting from hemorrhaged jobs and deregulation. It's not better off after your kind devalue the concept of national self preservation as long as such conflicts from your PERSONAL stake in the game.

but hey... you already call that excuse "an up and down nature of the market", right buddy? go figure.


And yes, I can expect every single company who benefits from the US and it's consumers in safety, location and stability to abide by that which preserves exactly that same safety, location and stability. If not, THEN TAKE YOUR FUCKING ASS TO MEXICO, BERN. Let's see you brag about working in CHINA, BERN. go wade through the fucking beggars of CALCUTTA, BERN, before you cry like a bitch about what we can or cannot expect from companies. I'll call your fucking bluff, BERN. Take your business anywhere else and enjoy your trip out from under the umbrella of America's protection. But, like most giant, mouth breathing pussies who have more rhetoric than balls, I BET YOU DON'T. The same applies to each and every company that you seem to think can't, or won't, get replaced the day you exit stage fucking left.



Why would I do that?


...because it's SOP for capitalista fucktards who continue to pretend that FMC should mean that America must like bending over and getting fucked in the ass by your rhetorical bullshit, BERN. The day you reign in trade deficits, despite crying FMC like chicken little, is the day you might gain more validity than the average "we hate commies but love to buy cheap shit from their cheap labor" punchline.

 

[Shogun]

I supposse it's easy to do that when you have as skewed a version of reality as you do. Are you so naive as to think that there is some economic system out there that is going to be totally free of corruption?

No one is claiming that there won't be corruption in a capitilistic system. Then again it's not like there won't be corruption in any other system as well. So your bitching about that particular is basically mute. Secondly you are of the belief that the corruption that is present is something widespread. Sorry, it isn't. To have jobs you need other people to employ people. The vast majority of employers are more then fair with their employees in terms of pay and benefits.

But fine, we install your beloved communism and now instead of everyone having the opportunity to attain great wealth - or hell, as you would argue only some having opportunity - NO ONE has that opportunity. Since there is no wealth creation and no room for business to expand there is no job creation.

The FACT of your position Shogun is that you are a whiny pussy who is essentially saying since I'm not willing to put for the effort to achieve I'm gonna set up a system where NO ONE can achieve. By doing so you will lower the standard of living of everyone. Not just the miniscule number of corrupt business men you hope to eliminate, but everyone they would have employed as well. So you understand how truly laughable you are when you claim you want to improve America by doing away with capitalism.

Like I told you yesterday, Bern, you can save your candy ass, limp wristed shit talking for someone who is not already laughing at your continual failures regarding econ theories. You can cry like a baby about skewed reality and the education of those who disagree with you all day long but, and here is the pattern BERN, you always seem to find yourself making excuses for the FUCKUPS rather than being able to point out time and again how FMC is benefiting more than your beloved upper class. Again, you are the reason Batista's ass found himself ejected from Cuba and lord fucking knows how many trade embargo's it takes to produce your opinions about socialism in CUBA.


NO system is free of corruption. But, that doesn't keep your kind from falling over itself crying about Cuba and Russia DESPITE YOUR PUNCHLINE DEPENDENCE ON COMMIE CHINA. do you give socialist nations as much benefit of the doubt as your pansy ass EXPECTS to be given here? Fuck no you don't. You use them each and every time as if they are THE example of why those systems don't work. Tell me, Bern, how does that irony taste?


So, before you reply with some trite fucking joke of a post that makes me laugh at you harder today go try and ween your silly fucking capitlist self off of the tit of COMMIE CHINA who seems to be doing pretty well stroking your sense of FMC while taking the US to the bank, literally.


Maybe next you can parade around like a fucking ringside round number girl and insist that Trade Deficits are good for our economy too, eh motherfucker?

Again, it is true free market economists advocating that the embargoes on Cuba be removed completely rather than employing little half steps that the current administration has put in place.

Lift the Embargo on Cuba « LewRockwell.com Blog

Struggling for Relevance in Cuba: Close, Still No Cigars by Ron Paul

China isn't a communist economy, and it's laughable that you're trying to claim that they are.

Though private sector companies still dominate small and medium sized businesses. The government still plays a big part in the bigger industries. The fact that over a third of the Chinese economy is state owned shows this But foreign owned companies hold significant stakes. The public sector is mainly made up of State Owned Enterprises (SOE's).

Economy of the People's Republic of China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



you were saying?


http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/08/china-enterprises-state-lead-cx_jrw_0708mckinsey.html

http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14859337

 

[Mr. Peepers]

1) We still have the highest standard of living in the world

No, actually, we don't.
Human Development Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2) You are not entitled to have your personal responsibilities taken care of by other, just because you want it

I am not referring to "want" but "need". I like the idea of my countrymen having the absolute best chance to succeed, no matter what their circumstances at birth, after a job loss, after a medical emergency, death of a spouse, etc...

3) If you wish to help others (as many people do, conservative and liberal alike) all you have to do is keep government out of it ans support the charities that help those who are in need for the causes that are close to your heart...

Sorry, but charity will not take care of all those fallen on hard times, or unable to work, or disabled etc., especially if it gets harder and harder to make ends meet in this country as is the trend. Human beings are inherently greedy animals. I guess it just depends if you want a civilized country where many flourish and "make it' or a backwards free-for all where 5% of the population controls all of the wealth and the rest barely survive. This righty "personal responsibility" talky point is getting really old. Can you please spout a new one for variety? By the way, Paris Hilton is very very rich... what "personal responsibility" does she shoulder, now?

 

[DiamondDave]

1) We still have the highest standard of living in the world

No, actually, we don't.
Human Development Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2) You are not entitled to have your personal responsibilities taken care of by other, just because you want it

I am not referring to "want" but "need". I like the idea of my countrymen having the absolute best chance to succeed, no matter what their circumstances at birth, after a job loss, after a medical emergency, death of a spouse, etc...

3) If you wish to help others (as many people do, conservative and liberal alike) all you have to do is keep government out of it ans support the charities that help those who are in need for the causes that are close to your heart...

Sorry, but charity will not take care of all those fallen on hard times, or unable to work, or disabled etc., especially if it gets harder and harder to make ends meet in this country as is the trend. Human beings are inherently greedy animals. I guess it just depends if you want a civilized country where many flourish and "make it' or a backwards free-for all where 5% of the population controls all of the wealth and the rest barely survive. This righty "personal responsibility" talky point is getting really old. Can you please spout a new one for variety? By the way, Paris Hilton is very very rich... what "personal responsibility" does she shoulder, now?

Again.. referencing the UN based studies (much like the WHO ranking of health care) which has a sever bias towards socialist systems.... nice try

Your needs are still your responsibility... not mine, not Joe SixPack in Idaho

Charity can and does help out those in bad situations... but what you and ones like you don't like is that it does not take care of the 'wanty'.. you know, those ones that claim to be 'needy' but in actuality are just too lazy to do what they have to do for themselves...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Like I told you yesterday, Bern, you can save your candy ass, limp wristed shit talking for someone who is not already laughing at your continual failures regarding econ theories. You can cry like a baby about skewed reality and the education of those who disagree with you all day long but, and here is the pattern BERN, you always seem to find yourself making excuses for the FUCKUPS rather than being able to point out time and again how FMC is benefiting more than your beloved upper class. Again, you are the reason Batista's ass found himself ejected from Cuba and lord fucking knows how many trade embargo's it takes to produce your opinions about socialism in CUBA.


NO system is free of corruption. But, that doesn't keep your kind from falling over itself crying about Cuba and Russia DESPITE YOUR PUNCHLINE DEPENDENCE ON COMMIE CHINA. do you give socialist nations as much benefit of the doubt as your pansy ass EXPECTS to be given here? Fuck no you don't. You use them each and every time as if they are THE example of why those systems don't work. Tell me, Bern, how does that irony taste?


So, before you reply with some trite fucking joke of a post that makes me laugh at you harder today go try and ween your silly fucking capitlist self off of the tit of COMMIE CHINA who seems to be doing pretty well stroking your sense of FMC while taking the US to the bank, literally.


Maybe next you can parade around like a fucking ringside round number girl and insist that Trade Deficits are good for our economy too, eh motherfucker?

Again, it is true free market economists advocating that the embargoes on Cuba be removed completely rather than employing little half steps that the current administration has put in place.

Lift the Embargo on Cuba « LewRockwell.com Blog

Struggling for Relevance in Cuba: Close, Still No Cigars by Ron Paul

China isn't a communist economy, and it's laughable that you're trying to claim that they are.

Though private sector companies still dominate small and medium sized businesses. The government still plays a big part in the bigger industries. The fact that over a third of the Chinese economy is state owned shows this But foreign owned companies hold significant stakes. The public sector is mainly made up of State Owned Enterprises (SOE's).

Economy of the People's Republic of China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



you were saying?


Reassessing China's State-Owned Enterprises - Forbes.com

China's state-owned enterprises: Nationalisation rides again | The Economist

China adopted modest market reforms, and reported rapid economic development. China's economic progress is actually in line with the nature of its reforms. Modest reforms have produced modest growth.

China and the Development Myth - D.W. MacKenzie - Mises Institute

These dramatic economic improvements were brought about by a complete overhaul of China's economy. By allowing the market mechanism to increasingly replace functions previously carried out by government central planning, those in the private sector have been able to capitalize on better access to the knowledge that prices and profits provide.

With the death of Mao Zedong in 1976 and the political ascension of Deng Xiaoping in 1977, the Chinese government embarked on deregulation that first began with a de-collectivization of the farming sector. After proving successful, more economic reforms followed at an increasing rate. Between 1984 and 1988, regulations pertaining to the banking sector, credit management, and private enterprise development were liberalized.

Perhaps most important, by 1992, more than 90 percent of retail sales, 80 percent of producers'-goods sales, and 85 percent of the sales of agricultural products occurred at market-determined prices. Considering that during the early 1960s, the State Price Commission and similar pricing bureaus created nearly all prices in the People's Republic of China, the fact that market forces now determine prices in many sectors shows remarkable improvement.

Welcome to Capitalist China - Jude Blanchette - Mises Institute

As I said before, China is obviously not a free market, but their capitalistic reforms make it impossible to classify them as communist any longer. And let us note that it wasn't until after these capitalistic reforms that China became a serious economic power. It should also be noted that the Communist Party now accepts open capitalists into their ranks. Not something a truly communist Communist Party would do.

 

[Diuretic]

So it is your opinion there is better system for accruing wealth and job creation? Do tell.

Capitalism as a system can not screw people over. People screw people over and it will happen regardless of what system is in place. Corruption is not something unique to capitalism. You can not possibly know how a free market would turn out as one has never existed.

If you only want wealth for a few then capitalism is the way to go.

I'm sorry Diuretic but you have it backwards. This is the hardest reality to accept but the reason only a few succeed is because there just aren't that many people driven to achieve it. There is a misconception that the reason there aren't more rich is because the rich must be holding them down. It's simply not true. The truth is observable all around you in the vast majority of people who will never come close to trying to find out what their potential really is. Capitalism doesn't fail people. People fail at capitalism.

Bern – rich people get rich by cornering the resources that create wealth. They then reproduce and hand their wealth and resources to their children. If someone wants to be rich they should choose rich parents. Most of the hard work has been done for them.

 

[Bern80]

What you don't understand Shogun is that everything you advocate will result in a lower standard of living for everyone.

I think your problem is that you only see things in an either/or/black/white. Like I said above: Ireland, Japan, France, Germany, Norway, Austria, Amsterdam, Norway, etc. - all have very strong capitalist markets and also have generous social programs. In fact, Austria and Ireland have even freer markets than we do, according to the "top 10" I posted earlier - and they also have very generous social programs. Their standard of living is also much higher than ours. Why can't we have both? Seems like it would make us even more competitive in the global community - and everyone can prosper. You act like if you live in one of these countries, you cannot be wealthy as well? Do you know the country that had the most millionaires in 2007? It was frickin' Norway. Why can't we take the things that WORK well for the citezenry from both sides and make this a truly great country?

Because similar to government run health care arguments, it is naive to assume that becuase it works there it will work here. There are too many mitigating factors. A big one that gets ignored is how our society has evolved.

Our society has evolved to make life ever easier. A generation got caught in transition where they saw what previous generations had acquired, but did not see the work that went into acquiring them. This generation has been dubber generation ME. A big part of our problem is our irresponsible behavior with money. Are lack of understanding of the work ethic of previous generations, coupled with the ease with which we can acquire things for nothing (credit cards) caused us to literally break our economy and the very concept of economics.

Economics is the study of how limited resources are used to acquire unlimited wants. Things only got worse because we covet what other people have but don't understand that most had to work for them. Except in our society that has made things ever easier we decided that we don't want to work for things because it is incredibly easy to put things on the 'ol plastic. The concept of economics got broke. Johnny attained what he wanted without having to give any resources. Enough people behaved irresponsibily this way and our economy tanked.

What does that have to do with social programs? Many of them don't help dissuade people from that kind of behavior, some like the CRA under Carter even encourage it. It was of the best intentions of course. Why everyone should have their own home (regardless of your financial position). The government made lenders lend to higher risk people. Fast forward 30 years of irresponsible buying behavior and the invisible hand of the market rubs its fingers together and says 'time to pay the piper'. We got the point with these policies that we actually think it evil now when corporations try to protect themselves from risk. We can't raise people's credit card rates, we can't let health insurance raise premiums for higher risk people, etc. Why do they not have the right to protect themselves against risk?

The point is you have to be careful that social prorgrams don't socially engineer people into had behavior. You can take care of people too much to societies detriment to the point I think the people on the spaceships in Wall-E aren't too far fetched. Hi standard of living, yes. Extermely little drive or motivation.

 

[Shogun]

nice BLOG, Kev.

 

[Shogun]

nice BLOG, Kev.








ps, I guess the term "STATE OWNED ENTERPRISE" translated differently in your Chinese to Engrish dictionary than it does mine. Say, what 9 letter S word would you use to describe a state owned enterprise policy if adapted here in the US?

 

[Diuretic]

Yes.. because Marxism, socialism, and communism get all of their wealth redistribution powers by kumbaya feelings and people who just don't have it in them to want the fruits of their labors... it all just comes completely naturally and does not take the forced power of government to ensure that the non-contributors are supported by the contributors...

Give me a fucking break...

Socialism, Marxism, and communism are failed ideologies that do not work outside of small hippie communes and small groups of people

Searching for a point. None found.

The point is you are complaining about how wealth is distributed under capitlaism which presumes you must think some other system will magically provide for people with little effort on their own part.

Wealth is inequitably distributed under capitalism. Those who don't do much at all get most of the loot while those who do the work are getting not much at all. And people must work to get paid, no problem there.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

nice BLOG, Kev.

Nice Wikipedia there earlier.

For the record, the Ludwig von Mises Institute isn't a blog.

 

[DiamondDave]

If you only want wealth for a few then capitalism is the way to go.

I'm sorry Diuretic but you have it backwards. This is the hardest reality to accept but the reason only a few succeed is because there just aren't that many people driven to achieve it. There is a misconception that the reason there aren't more rich is because the rich must be holding them down. It's simply not true. The truth is observable all around you in the vast majority of people who will never come close to trying to find out what their potential really is. Capitalism doesn't fail people. People fail at capitalism.

Bern – rich people get rich by cornering the resources that create wealth. They then reproduce and hand their wealth and resources to their children. If someone wants to be rich they should choose rich parents. Most of the hard work has been done for them.

So.. it is then wrong to give things or pass things down to your children that are a result of your own decisions, own efforts, own ideas, own risks, etc???

Is it also then wrong for you to take the resources in your possession to then attempt to do better???

Are those said resources owed to you, at the expense of the person who has/had them in their possession, for nothing more than your motherfucking existence?

You also seem to be under the typical entitlement junkie delusion that 'rich people' got what they have for nothing.. and while there are the Paris Hiltons of the world, the vast majority of people who get more money EARN that money with their efforts, ideas, choices, etc....

 

[Shogun]

nice BLOG, Kev.

Nice Wikipedia there earlier.

For the record, the Ludwig von Mises Institute isn't a blog.

wiki is sourced.. and were the TWO sources I provided on top of that from two of your own usual stomping ground.

oh my, an "institute". How impressive.

*yawn*


maybe I can get a shout out from a "Think Tank" next.

 

[Diuretic]

Point being that systems based on the capitalist ideal are not failures.. while all governmental systems based on socialism, Marxism, and communism have been failure and will always be failures... they simply cannot and will not work unless you have the crushing power of the ruling elite forcing the ideals within those systems

Elite? You know that capitalism is run by and for elites don't you?

Capitalism is an economic system that is built on certain premises and operates in a certain fashion. It is a system that requires periodical failures, not just of individual actors but the system itself. Neat one eh? To operate it must fail from time to time. That works doesn't it?

The alleged failures of socialism are brought up time and time again but never really analysed properly. It could be a bit tedious I suppose but it would be worth a discussion.

Has it failed in Cuba? Think about it for just a minute or two because Cuba is probably an interesting example.

And just to finish off, capitalism cannot function without government. It has, as I have said before, shaped government to protect it and to enable it to continue to exist. Ironic but not surprising. The elites have to cloud people's thinking with propaganda so that the truth about capitalism isn't revealed to them. If they knew how it really operated they'd try to get rid of it.

The reason those other systems fail is because people tend to want freedom and those other systems are not free. Some others like Shogun and possibly yourself will CLAIM you want freedom, just so long as you dont have to be burdened by its inherent risks. Sorry freedom is one of those things you can't have both ways.

The problem with capitalism, which is simply economic freedom, is that it requires active participation and effort by everyone. It requires self accountability. The second we get people that piss and moan and complain about unfairness wear there is none or think it's someone elses job to provide for them, THAT is when capitalism fails.

I really don't understand why you and Shogun keep pointing to Cuba. Does it not bother you that their government sacrafices the very FREEDOM of its citizens to accomplish that?

System failures have their own reasons for failing. We should discuss some.

Freedom – an interesting concept. But what is “freedom”? It's worth a serious thread by itself. But for now let me argue that it is much more complex than it has been represented previously. Just as an example, it can be divided into “freedom from” and “freedom to”. We can go from there.

Capitalism isn't about “economic freedom”. It's an economic system that puts the means of production into private hands and by definition that means a few people in a society. That's not “economic freedom”, it's actually denying economic freedom to most people.

Yes, capitalism is unfair but that's not why it will eventually fail. It's unfairness makes it undesirable but it doesn't make the mechanism faulty.

Cuba is an interesting contemporary example because it has been a success for socialism and in doing so it has exposed capitalism for what it really is. And the concept of “freedom” is important in looking at Cuba because it helps to point out the complexity of the idea and the fact that “freedom' is very much socially defined.

 

[Diuretic]

Point being that systems based on the capitalist ideal are not failures.. while all governmental systems based on socialism, Marxism, and communism have been failure and will always be failures... they simply cannot and will not work unless you have the crushing power of the ruling elite forcing the ideals within those systems

Elite? You know that capitalism is run by and for elites don't you?

Capitalism is an economic system that is built on certain premises and operates in a certain fashion. It is a system that requires periodical failures, not just of individual actors but the system itself. Neat one eh? To operate it must fail from time to time. That works doesn't it?

The alleged failures of socialism are brought up time and time again but never really analysed properly. It could be a bit tedious I suppose but it would be worth a discussion.

Has it failed in Cuba? Think about it for just a minute or two because Cuba is probably an interesting example.

And just to finish off, capitalism cannot function without government. It has, as I have said before, shaped government to protect it and to enable it to continue to exist. Ironic but not surprising. The elites have to cloud people's thinking with propaganda so that the truth about capitalism isn't revealed to them. If they knew how it really operated they'd try to get rid of it.

To have successes you cannot avoid failures.. and in the systems based on capitalism, like our own, you have the freedom to fail just as you have the freedom to succeed... and that freedom means much more to me than some nanny state redistribution center

Cuba has absolutely failed.. Soviet Union, failed... And China is emerging in to more and more in the free market

The socialists, to enforce their redistribution and suppression of individuals reaping major rewards from their personal exploits, must indeed have the forced control system... the supreme wielding power to bring about that redistribution to non-contributors at the expense of contributors... where government is the end-all-be-all, and your individual freedoms mean nothing in comparison to the state and the collective

I'll stick to the system where I can achieve as much or as little as my abilities, decisions, and actions take me... even knowing the fact that I could fall flat on my face and live in a washing machine box.. but it's me that we get me there, or keep me in my current nice house, or get me into a mansion where I can wipe my ass with $100 bills

Success and failure. Again, sorry to sound like a pedant Dave but they are words, concepts, that have to be examined in place. Capitalism does reward a few over the many. If success for one means failure for a thousand and you're happy with that then that's fine. I'm not.

Cuba has not failed. It is a remarkable success. The Soviet Union is more than the Stalinist years and bears examination beyond those excesses. China is very interesting. It's almost like looking at an experiment in capitalist development in a petrie dish.

Any economic system has to enforce its will to survive. Capitalism and imperialism have demonstrated an utter ruthlessness against domestic and foreign enemies.

The washing machine box isn't usually an option in a socialist economy but you're perfectly welcome to accept the risk of being forced to live in one if you wish.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

nice BLOG, Kev.

Nice Wikipedia there earlier.

For the record, the Ludwig von Mises Institute isn't a blog.

wiki is sourced.. and were the TWO sources I provided on top of that from two of your own usual stomping ground.

oh my, an "institute". How impressive.

*yawn*


maybe I can get a shout out from a "Think Tank" next.

The point being that I never said China was a free market. They obviously are a centrally planned economy, even more so than the U.S. is. But you can't deny that their status as an economic power has gone up since they've introduced capitalistic reforms. They were a stagnant third world country under Mao and communism, but they've become what they are today thanks to capitalistic reforms.

Now you would rather attack my source as a "blog," despite the Mises Institute being one of the foremost economic resources on the web. Attacking the source means that you can't attack the information, which means you have no argument. If you did, you could discuss the information regardless of the source.

 

[Diuretic]

Surprise.. diuretic disagrees with the notion that capitalism is more based on freedoms including the freedom to fail that goes hand in hand with the freedom to succeed.. and probably disagrees that socialism is fully reliant on the control of the ruling elites to ensure that the redistribution to non-contributors takes place and to ensure the government controls of industry, property, and production

And we can pretty mush assume, with the way he describes how he has to go to work, that he holds much resentment for those that have succeeded while he must toil away while he fully FEELS that he DESERVES more

Hello to the people Dave is addressing. Diuretic disagrees with Dave's interpretation of his (Diuretic's) arguments.

 

[Diuretic]

Capitalism is the best way to accrue wealth and prosperity. Not everyone is going to succeed, however.

True enough, some will do well, many will not do well.

It's your contention that more people lose wealth under capitalism than gain it?

No Kevin, it's my contention (and I realise I'm late in the thread on my return and it has moved on) is that only a few gain wealth while many don't gain much at all.