I'm sure you can think of plenty of things that India would want to import from other countries. They probably have no interest in your hand-carved furniture, but hey, give it a go if you'd like. Just make sure you check protectionist policies... make sure there are no laws against it.
The politicos might give you shit for selling furniture on your front lawn without liscences and permits and what have you... you know, any means of getting in on the profit you're trying to make with an honest business.
I did not say that India would in turn buy products directly from us, but rather that India will buy more from abroad. [They might actually be buying directly from us... I don't have the time to research it all].
People want to buy what is the best bang-for-their-buck. As an economy becomes stronger, goods produced domestically become more expensive. Comparative advantage begins to kick in for foreign 'industry', and foreign goods become more worth it.
Average income and standard of living do not lower at all when jobs are outsourced. The opposite actually occurs.
We're not losing jobs to other countries. We're exchanging one type of job for another. You can remain cynical all you want, but the facts are already accumulating to say that outsourcing is not as hurtful as so often claimed.
Nobody complains about foreign companies outsourcing jobs to the United States (Mercedez-Benz, Nissan, etc). Do you wonder why?
As far as our "third-rate software" goes... the market is already resolving this issue. Americans are still writing better software, and many are still making a damn fine living off of it.
You know, according to the Information Technology Association of American (ITAA), the dot-com meltdown which was homebrewed [thanks, Greenspan!] eliminated twice as many IT jobs as the current outsourcing trend (something like just less than 3% compared to 6% of the dot-com bust?).
According to an ITAA study, outsourcing white color jobs will ultimately lower inflation, create jobs, and boost productivity. That's a whole lot of money being saved and wealth being created.
I'm sure you're aware of the increasing movement towards halting or reversing the outsourcing of jobs that require higher skills. Why? Because factors of cost, wage, rental rates, demand conditions, and so on change over time. Sometimes its worth it to outsource jobs, other times it is not.
I definitely feel sorry for engineers or ITers who lose their job and have families to take care of, however, you cannot expect the rest of us to suffer the cost just so they can keep the jobs of their preference.
If they're good enough, they'll keep their jobs, otherwise, they'll lose them. Then it's time to go back to school... or you can be smart about it all, and constantly develop your skills so you can move to whatever job the market provides for your efficiency and skillset.
The wealthy are both purchasing more goods from home and abroad. They're not just earning money and not spending it. That's total bullshit. People with money are not only often entrepreneurial, constantly creating new business ventures (creating jobs and wealth), but they're also often buying new homes, cars, jewelry, clothing or what have you. You seriously cannot deny that.
Look at the Rap/Hip-Hop Industry!
Enough with the mindless class warfare.
[If you're wondering why this post jumps around in no sequential order, it's because it was written over the course of some time. 'Tis a busy labor day, after all. I apologize for the unorganization of the post.]
Did you know that the corporation is an intentional government construct? You know, corporations do not naturally exist in a free market.
Since the U.S. government [FDR and Wilson] created the modern corporation, then you can see the lack of capitalism in the country.
Capitalism, free market capitalism, the way it was intended, is human-being-centric. It is not about extracted profits from consumers for yourself at all costs. It is about providing goods and services to consumers honestly, and most efficiently. In a free market, only companies that are honest and provide goods and services for a decent enough price prevail.
America [or rather the U.S. government] turned its back on capitalism a long time ago.
Unfortunately, the Liberal Establishment and other socialists [from the Left and the Right] love the idea of getting credit for bringing down what they initially created -- thus giving themselves more power.
If it can't be called "The People's automaker" [Volkeswagon!], it will be called Chrysler, a publically owned corporation.
Nationalizing industry and all... Market Socialism.
Perhaps it is because when India's economy is strengthened, they have more money in which to purchase goods. Since some countries can produce better goods and services of one type or another better than a specific country [India, for example], than India will have to go abroad to purchase goods with their new found wealth.
If they do not come to the U.S. for these goods, then they will go to another country which in turn will go to another country, eventually wealth gets back to the United States. Let's also not forget the immediate benefits of the money being saved in the U.S. when companies outsource or buy their goods from abroad.
Seriously now, what's with the jealousy of CEOs or other wealthy elite here, just because they make more money than you? As their wealth increases, they'll purchase more goods from home or abroad.
I'd recommend some books on economics here... but then, why bother? Would you read them?
Here's an EXCELLENT article about the Red Team-Blue Team hypocrisy in politics and media today:
http://www.centraloregonian.com/PCOGuestOpinions 7. html
I recommend you read it and share among those you associate with.
"That isn't such a good deal, people from other countries constantly come to the US for healthcare. Not to mention, many of the european countries are going to have to cut back on socialist programs like universal health care in 20-25 years because there will be way more people retired than working."
They're already coming to the US now for healthcare. Canada, which has a highly touted health care system (touted by socialists, like Kerry-- who would bankrupt us with his bullshit health care plans), has waiting periods that can be several weeks (4-6 averages?), even for serious operations. An increasing number of ill or injured Canadians continue to come to the United States for health care.
There's alot of hidden costs associated with "free' socialized health care... not to mention the layers of bureaucracy that have to be dealt with. After they get around the bureaucrats, you're still going to have people using up more and more of what they perceive as "free".
These people should have read some Heinlein. TANSTAAFL. There Aint No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
All to often people associate Americans lacking medical insurance with lacking medical care. If you're bleeding to death, or seriously injured in some other way, you're GOING TO GET MEDICAL CARE in the United States. It's pretty much by law. However, the hospital is going to expect you to get on a payment plan to pay them back. What is so bad about this? Nothing. It's morally acceptable, and it's efficient.
"You are right about this, go out and VOTE people. If you don't like the current political parties, find one that appeals to you or make your own and VOTE. While you may think that a third party vote is "throwing your vote away" a third party only needs about 5% to get federal campaign funds for the next election."
When the system is built for as little change as possible, and those that are capable of altering the system start to merge, the only sensible vote is to not vote at all... which is a vote for all intensive purposes. Even few enough people vote, then our government will begin to lose legitimacy and inevitably you'll find some radical changes in politics or our government structure outright -- which no matter where you stand on the political spectrum, you have to agree with.
10. It's funny, a large number of American citizens were unconcerned with Cuba, or Serbia, for a long time and like I said about Iraq, Americans did not want to bother with Iraq until the non-Conservative, anti-liberty minded, George W. Bush got to power. That RiNO (Republican in Name Only) has been a thorn in the side of all Conservative Republicans ever since -- giving them a bad name and all. I suppose you haven't checked out any "Conservative" political magazines from the U.S., and saw all of the anti-Bush rhetoric? Of course not, in your world, Bush is a capitalist, and Bush is evil. Of course this goes to show you fail to recognize both what Bush is, and what capitalism is not.
You know, you keep talking about propaganda giving me the wrong view of Socialism, but yet, you have quite the corrupted view of capitalism. You still haven't offered anything, and I don't particularly care if you take anything from my posts.
In a last minute defense of the free market is about counting individual costs and allocating privately owned resources. It is not an end in itself. It is a means to an end. It allows all of us to make better decisions because we have counted the cost more accurately. It leads to lower plane fares and therefore more music. It leads to the Internet and therefore more ideas.
When it comes to the benefits offered by the free market, we all get a consumer's surplus most of the time: more than we paid for.
7. Modern America might be imperialistic, but modern America is hardly capitalistic. You can try to associate the two all you want, but you've ignored my previous arguments on the matter, so you're arguing with nothing. I'm not in support of Imperialism, I'm in support of "live and let live". If you want to live in a communist society, go right on ahead. I won't bother to care until you try to impose it upon me. [Again, I'll say in hopes of it sinking in to your skull, modern American Imperialism -- despite what Marx might say on the matter -- has nothing to do with capitalism.]
I'm quite aware of America being more communist than it has been in quite some time. Come to think of it, I've even said it, although in different words, to you. Americans have just been a bit more efficient in their communism than the Soviets.
8. My mom is a Republican, and she doesn't vote for Bush. I'm a libertarian, and I'd never vote for Bush. That was a such a pathetic attempt at attacking both my mom and I you louse.
9. Of course the Cuban people are free, that's why so many are trying to get into the United States. Makes perfect sense, or not.
I don't ever remember being told anything about an "evil Cuban state" in school, let alone an "evil Iraqi state" or an "evil Serbian state". There's barely been a mention of Iraq or Serbia for many years, until they started talking about ousting Saddam (something I opposed... it's not my country.) I have long been in favor of ending sanctions against Iraq and Cuba. So how about you stop being such an hypocrite.
6. Oh no, I did not spell "per se" correctly, I must be stupid. That's a groundless ad hominem attack if I ever saw one. You keep talking about anti-communist and anti-socialist propaganda in America, but yet you fail to recognize that ever-increasingly, schools in America are promoting collectivism and central planning. Talk about ignorance...
Again, I don't claim capitalism will endure forever and ever you boisterous bink, but it can endure longer than true socialism, and is more beneficial. Actually, I have read some Marx, and I'm unimpressed. My not being impressed probably has something to do with learning about Austrian economics, instead of listening to Marxist pipe dreaming.
A free capitalist economy is a subset of a more general science of human action. This rests on the axiom, "Human action is purposeful behavior. Action means the employment of means for the attainment of ends." The logic of a free market economy does not evolve around money, or Marx's cash nexus, but rather about choice.
5. I am just trying to say that your beliefs in the eternal firmness of the capitalist society closely resemble that particular brand of bullshit that was spouted by Fukuyama and refuted countless times. No wonder that you came with the same idea without reading his (or other) books - you don't need much education or intelligence to shout "Our system is the best, their system is the evil!"
The eternal firmness in a free market society? Nah, I don't believe in utopia. There's probably some inherent flaw in human nature that would not allow for one system to work forever.
I don't know how much Fukuyama said about capitalism being a system that would lost forever, but I seem to recall him referring to socialism as being dead. Full blown socialism did not exist in the U.S.S.R., because it couldn't have worked. Socialism as an economic system could not produce or allocate economically.
It's been argued that Lenin demonstrated this during the period of War Communism of the Soviet Union: from 1918 to 1921 he attempted to abolish all markets, property, and trade. The result was an unparalleled man-made catastrophe. The Soviets then stepped back from the abyss to permit the reintroduction of aspects of the markets, and thereafter ruled over a highly bureaucratized total state that finally collapsed in 1990.
Can the Soviet economy between 1921 and 1990 be called socialist? Since the rise of Stalin, the left has said no. By calling it something else, the socialists do not thereby have to bear responsibility for the mass human suffering, bloodshed, and poverty of these years. And in one narrow sense they are correct: it wasn't Marx's vision that prevailed for those 70 years but an extreme version of traditional economic despotism in which the people are severely restricted in what they can produce and keep as their own.
4. I suspect you don't know what you are talking about, because you never read Marx and pick up all your information about communism from propaganda in your school. Am I correct?
You're far from correct. Various forms of collectivism is being taught more and more in public schools, from Elementary School through High School and even in some Colleges. As most Americans experienced with "higher education" in America know, the Liberal [Socialist leaning] establishment dominates the university environment.
It's funny that the USSR's world renowned systems of school were not all that impressive, except in comparison to pre-Soviet Russia, as they only temporarily kept the USSR in front of America in terms of technology during the "Space Race". Education in the USSR basically became an instance of pumping large amounts of capital to "beef up" their science and technological programs in order to beat the Americans. Perhaps it is fortunate that they were not able to hang onto that lead for long.
Any economic indicator will tell me that capitalism bankrupted Russia? That's pretty funny. I learned from von Mises and other Austrian economists that Russia, as a socialist country, was doomed to fail because the possibility of economic calculation is lacking; it's impossible to ascertain the cost and result of an economic operation. Soon after his election, Boris Yeltsin immediately embarked upon ambitious reforms that were to transform the command system into an individual-enterprise market order. Several steps needed to be taken. First, goods prices had to be set free so that supply and demand would direct production and clear away all goods shortages. Next was the task to privatize all state enterprises, including the giant monopolies. Third was the need to privatize agricultural land, breaking up the large Soviet collectives and state farms. Fourth was the need to privatize not only all facilities of retail distribution but also all kinds of housing. Finally, in order to stabilize the currency, the large budget deficits flowing from heavy state subsidies to inefficient enterprises had to be eliminated. Such were the great tasks for the reformers. Not much of this was sufficiently accomplished, or at least cleanly accomplished.
When Boris Yeltsin embarked upon his 500-day privatization program, he faced the unwavering opposition by the anti-reform forces in the Duma, the Russian national parliament. The powerful Communist Party, which still commanded one-third of the popular vote, together with the Agrarian Party and various nationalist groups, opposed all economic reforms. They waged an ongoing battle over every measure of reform which nevertheless moved forward by fits and starts.
The Russian transition from a harsh command system to an individual enterprise order undoubtedly was arduous and painful for millions of individuals accustomed to the old ways. It introduced an order they did not understand. But many intelligent individuals in positions of State and Party leadership viewed the transition as personal opportunity and chance from which to profit.
Experienced in the old ways of "wheeling and dealing" in political relations, they managed to acquire large enterprises by questionable means. They had political influence but little or no economic know-how and no interest in competing in markets and serving customers. They became the oligarchs, a small faction of politically connected individuals who held sway over the Russian economy.
So how can a rational, logical, and intelligence person such as yourself, claim that capitalism is the fault of Russia's troubles, when Russia is still largely controlled by an oligarchy of politicos?
Why do foreigners continue to make generalizations about Americans, but then get their panties in a bunch any time an American stereotypes a foreigner? You're accusing me of being ignorant and stupid, but yet you have done nothing but revealed those same traits within yourself -- without actually giving evidence of either in me (oh, except my ignorance of Latin, because I spelled it "per say" instead of "per say".
1. First, I'll define oligarch for you. An oligarch is a person who supports or is part of an oligarchy. Now, I'll define an oligarchy for you. An oligarchy is where the small minority has all of the power over the majority. Of course when an oligarchy forms, it is always immediately blamed on capitalism. This is an uneducated, or intentionally biased remark. The problem of an oligarchy forming is not a problem of capitalism, but rather of democracy. You see, in a Democracy, the people with the most amount of power get to do whatever they want to the people with the least amount of power. The people with the most amount of power are usually considered the majority, however, when government interacts too much in the market, big business (market socialism, the modern corporation) begins to take over. Why? Because in a Democracy, politicians can be bought out because the politicians can make laws happen, and often do for the right price. The United States was never meant to be a Democracy, but rather a Democratic Republic with a limited number of laws and powers of the government specifically documented in a written constitution. In a Democracy, it is easy to change these laws. The result is that of an oligarchy, or the tyranny of the majority. There has never been a democracy in history that has managed to not hang itself.
(You can really tell your logical disconnect, when socialism has always been about concentration of power and control in the hands of a few.
I can list the Karl Marx's 10 Planks if you'd like. This is directly out of the communist manifesto.
1) Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 2) A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 3) Abolition of all right of inheritance. 4) Confiscation of the property of emigrants and rebels.
5) Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6) Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state. 7) Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. 8) Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 9) Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country. 10) Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc.
The dramatic economic improvements in China 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
The thing of it is, I basically want to get the point across that people do tend to look after one another with or without the government. Private institutions exist for the homeless and the poor, and everyone does get medical care to help with illness or injury that requires medical care.
I don't say that your opinions that people deserve those things are wrong, just that other people shouldn't be coerced into paying for it (try not paying your taxes some time:-p).
It's kind of quaint that Sweden is blaiming the enormous burden of the state on privatization...
Sweden's "Welfare Paradise" is collapsing. Standard of living has fallen over the past ten years [relatively, anyways].
For how great the system is supposedly doing, there seems to be an ever increasing amount of investments flowing abroad, as well as a lack of any significant savings. Medical is not improving [relatively... I don't mean lack of new medical technologies...]. Poverty is increasing.
Because of that "welfare paradise", an ever increasing share of the national product has to be distributed to the public sector in order to pay for all of that. It's not a long term fix.
Higher taxes, and the breakdown of institutions that taxes were supposed to support, have caused rifts in Sweden's political landscape. These rifts are growing larger.
[Critics often criticize America for outsourcing... Sweden has done the same thing. The outcry wasn't as large in America since it was pretty much a necessity for the Swedes.]
Of course, economics aside, the Swedish welfare system (just like everywhere else, including Denmark and all the other Scandinavian countries) are experiencing breakdowns in the traditional family. This is pretty much the plan of socialist bureaucrats. Divorce rates are up, numbers of aborted children and children placed up for adoption are increasing, and general, the parental care available for children has decreased significantly (somebody has to pay for a welfare state...).
As one Swedish politician said, "I should like to abolish the family as a means of earning a livelihood, let adults be economically independent of each other and give society a large share of responsibility for its children." This is going back several years, and I don't remember the name. I've only seen it repeated from time to time, so I can't offer you a name.
[Here's more about the destruction of the family in Sweden.. http://www.nkmr.org/english/destroying_t he_family_ swedish_style_by_eric_brodin.htm... Societies tend to change when most of the production leaves the rural and suburban areas and goes to the city, and when the family begins to break down. These changes are not for the better.]
It sounds like Sweden is acting a whole lot like Russia, blaiming failing private services on privatization itself, instead of red tape and old bureaucracy still in place.
Now, if there happens to be factual proof of privatization being the actual burden on the state, then to me, this says that I should like the Swedes even less than I do.:-)
I have been in Labor Unions, well one of them. The rest of my family has been as well.
You've just met your first person who has done several day's worth of work in mounds of coal (well not "in" the mounds, of course). Nice to meet you. Now I didn't mean to say that all union bosses are fat cats who do no good, I say that they were not necessary, and that even when they do accomplish something that helps the laborer, they do not really do that much good in the long run. Of course, all of this goes to help out those union fat cats as well.
Maybe me taking you as gung-ho anti capitalist came from referring to capitalism as being as brutal as communism could ever be. This is bullshit and I like to call people on it... perhaps unfortunately, I do so while being a bit caustic. (I do apologize for that... yesterday was a bad day)
Anywho... You're saying that since a counter example does not exist today, then it could not exist again (Ancient Ireland, Midieval Iceland, most of the first half the American History...)? Well if that isn't a few logical fallacies, then I don't know what is!
But again, I do apologize for my acrimonious response. It was a bad day. But my points still stand...
1. Read "The Not So Wild Wild West" http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf H oping to avoid the slashdot effect. It probably will though, the excitement is over for this topic. - There's also interesting commentary here: http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1449&i d=66
2. Concerning America's deficit and debt. If you're referring to the "trade deficit", I'm afraid you're mistaken. The trade deficit is a myth, and nothing more. Just because we buy more from one country than we sell to said country, doesn't mean we're losing money. We sell elsewhere. Macroeconomics.
However, if you're talking about the huge debt that the very anti-free-market RiNO (Republican in Name Only) George W. Bush has caused, this is hardly a good argument against capitalism.
3. In the absence of government laws and regulations, the free market tends to drive quality up while driving prices down. This is part of the benevolence of a free market. A business or an organization cannot succeed unless it is doing its customers a good service. It's funny that I was able to afford a private school in spite of all of heavy government regulation against the private educational world, with only my father working on the Railroad (quite a bit of heavy, manual labor, mind you).
Why do you keep suggesting that millions of people in America are without healthcare? This is bullshit. Look, if something is actually wrong with you, and you go to an emergency room, hospitals do not turn you away and let you bleed to death. They have to buy law treat you. In order to pay for it (There Aint No Such Thing As A Free Lunch), you can offer the hospital whatever you can afford to pay per month. If you want to look at how great socialized medicine and healthcare is, take a look at some of the truth behind Canada and European socialized health care institutions. You have to be allowed, by some bureaucrat, to get health care in all but the most dire circumstances (you're actually bleeding to death right then and there). If you're not, and say you need the removal of cancer or a hip replacement, you get put on a waiting list. I seem to remember the average waiting period being over a month -- and often several months long. This doesn't happen in the United States, thank you very much.
Now if it's something not life threatening, then I don't think you should deserve it unless you earn it. If you don't pay your bills, I shouldn't have to. If you use the law to pay your bills with my dollar, I should be able to file suite against you for consemptation.
4. Alot of that stuff that is government funded, could be funded by the private sector. There's also a question of necessity. How much of the things that the government is "financing" are actually of use -- or do not have a better alternative in the private sector? Little, if anything.
5. Why should I, or anyone else, have to pay for your mother to go back to grad school? Where does she get the Right? People do not have Rights to go to school, they only have the right to earn their way there.
You also continue to ignore the fact that a free market is benevolent. Maybe it was my ascerbic responses from yesterday that gave you this impression, and if so, then I apologize. It was a bad day. But back to free markets. Karl Marx and other socialists were wrong in that they assume that human beings, on their own, are not at all good and require being kept in order. Of course, this is bullshit. People freely help out each other on their own, and it's usually always more efficient than government.
[Take a look at all those counter-productive grants given overseas to places like Africa. You're talking billions of dollars every few years, and it's not doing any good. In fact, it's creating a dependency by now only creating people dependent on us, but also not allowing the people to develop wealth on their own, and having to continue to serve their scumbag leaders.
I'd also like to ad, to you or any one else who likes to speak of how great Cuba's educational system is because of it's high rate of literacy.
Who in Cuba is actually allowed to read what they want to read? The State dictates to them what to read, what not to read, what to think about what, and how to do it.
Of course, collectivists are going to love it. No decent human being worth giving a damn about would, though.
1. Russia is dominated by political and economic oligarchs, and is not very capitalistic on a large scale. The reason that capitalism hasn't worked so well in Russia, unlike in China, where it has improved the economy and general standard of living, is because China did not try to change the economy and the government all at once. China has just been moving towards a capitalist economy, and the "liberty and prosperity" [at least relative to former times] in China is due to the freeing up of the Economy. Russia, on the other hand, went bankrupt, and tried to do it all at once without having much of a stable infrastructure. Not to mention the lack of legitimacy of the new regime.
2. Lack of military [I assume you mean "foreign hostiles"?] operations on US soil is an interesting point, but completely irrelevant to the argument of capitalism vs communism and collectivism. Wars do cause massive damage to society; infrastructure and economy.
(You don't see two nations with free trade going to war, do you?)
3. Where and how has communism ever [significantly] increased liberty and prosperity? In Eastern Europe, in China, in Russia, in Cuba, in Korea, in Vietnam, anywhere it has been tried, communism has failed to compete with capitalism. You can quote me all you'd like about how communism improved Russia's economy compared to how it was under the Czar's, but guess what? Communism bankrupted Russia. It was bankrupting China to, until China began to open its markets (and even then, the success is limited because of the bureaucracy having to be supported).
When I included Cuba in the list, I didn't mean that there were millions killed in Cuba, that combined there were many killed. Between Russia and South East Asia (mainly China), there was over 70,000,000 people killed.
When we're talking about Korea, we're talking about people who have starved to death by government mismanagement or foolish "redistribution" of wealth and resources.
Now, stop being such an ignorant little communist apologetic. "Communism didn't cause the deaths in China or Russia, per say." Bullshit it didn't. Power corrupts, and absolutely power corrupts absolutely. Following Marx's directions, the Soviet Union put alot of power into the hands of a few, and look what happened.
As far as Cuban's educational system goes... how could you find any factual information on it? Studies that show it is doing better than other South American countries (who spend alot less on education)? It's like all those people trying to compare educational systems in other parts of the world (such as China); saying how they're superior than America's educational system (which I don't really care for). For starters, all American citizens can get a full education all the way from K-12, and then through college as well.
If you want to throw in private education into the mix, no educational system in the world produces the results that private institutions do in the United States.
4. I haven't read any of Fukuyama's material, so I don't really know what you're trying to say about that...
It's kind of funny, while you're ignoring the many many millions of people killed, or otherwise forced to revert to neolithic standards of living, by communism, you continue to claim that communism is not only inevitable, but also a beneficial thing.
You also back this up with [intentionally] vague and meanginless links to and between changes in the means of production. It's like obfuscating the failures of Karl Marx -- who never fully understood means of production, let alone be able to predict future changes in production.
It's quite likely that if America embraced communism, there would be alot more wars than before (on top of a violent revolution being a practical prequisite for such a change or other pogroms against American citizens), but also counter-productive institutions and regulations being forcefully imposed on American citizens.
5. "P.S." Actually, my mom would be proud. Bless her soul, she hates collectivism. If rudeness comes from intoleration, then I'm glad I was rude to you. Some things shouldn't be tolerated.
Let's also not forget that Microsoft and WalMart are corporations. As I'm sure we all know, or at least I'll continue to say it until we all do, the modern corporation is an intentional government construct to nationalize industry. Two of the most anti-capitalist presidents ever, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, were pivotal in the creation of the modern corporation.
It's called "Market Socialism".
In baby terms, Microsoft and WalMart are both good and bad. The good, almost by definition, results from attempting to provide the customer with something better or relatively equivalent for less. The bad, at least in Microsoft's case, is that they tend to try and take advantage of The System (tm) to get the upper hand over their competitors. Microsoft seems to be succeeding with this, as does some of Microsoft's competition (Apple, Nutscrape etc). This doesn't show a flaw in capitalism, but rather in our democracy.
We were never meant to be a wide open Democracy, but rather a Limited Republic with Democratically elected officials. See, in a democracy, the group with the most money and power (or most numbers for less wealthy nations) gets to make new laws to keep themselves above the rest (usually at the expense of the rest). In a Limited Republic (with all laws and powers outlined in a written constitutions), the way the American founding fathers intended it, this was supposed to be relatively impossible or at least highly unlikely.
With IP and Copyright laws, it has become even easier to use The System (tm) to keep the upper hand over the competition, instead of how a free market system would work, where ideas and inventions are not prevented from being improved upon. Hell, it's against the law now to even sound like something somebody else brought up. It's rediculous.
The GPL fits much better into the free market world than a socialist world.
I think you might be the dumbest and most ignorant person ever.
First off, Russia isn't a capitalist nation in anyway except on paper, and even then, tentatively. Infact, Russia and Russians are still very much anti-capitalist, mostly out of ignorance and continual misinformation by Soviet, oops, 'scuse me, Russian politicians.
Secondly, how can you say that capitalism doesn't work, yet the most capitalist countries are the most successful?
Thirdly, since when has communism increased liberty or prosperity anywhere? Are you not aware with the millions and millions of people killed by communists world wide over the past century? We're talking million of Russias, Chinese, Koreans, Vietmanese, Cubans, etc. Argue all you want about it being in the past, these countries are still highly oppressed. Also, despite what those socialist-european studies say, Cuba's educational system sucks. I know this from people who were educated under the system.)
I would like to point you towards "The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, and Repression" by Curtois, Werth, Panne, Bartosek, Margolin, and Paczkowsky. Interest doesn't last long enough in this microdebates on Slashdot for you to get the whole picture, but if you read that book, you will. [For those ignorant people reading this and trying to suggest that the Soviet Union wasn't Marxist, the aforementioned book gives a chapter on how the Soviet Union WAS Marxist.]
There has always been, and will continue to be until the end of the universe as we know it, a direct correlation with the freedom of markets to the liberty and prosperity of a people. Free trade and a free market always results in peace, prosperity, stability and progress. History proves me correct.
Mideival Icelandic villages, Ancient Ireland, and slightly less so, the America West (and early America) were all examples of capitalist societies. Ancient Ireland, probably the most libertarian, decentralized society ever, was quite stable and had little armed conflict, until invading Britons brought feudalism to Eire's shores.
Denmark, Sweden, and the Netherlands might have the highest standards of living now, but they're going backrupt [just like the Soviet Union did]. It might just take a while longer, since the Scandinavian countries aren't being hurried to bankruptcy by a Space Race with the United States.
Actually, you did have to pay for school from Kindergarden until now, or at least your parents had to. It's called taxes, and in the long run, taxes end up costing a whole lot more than what you would have to pay for a private education, and with a private education, you're better off.
Most science is done by private organizations, and are not funded by government subsidies.
Where did you get the idea that the jobless would be left to starve without State Welfare? Where has State Welfare actually helped? It's a temporary solution that gives off the illusion of being useful, and instead, ends up in a welfare culture where more and more people stop taking responsibility for their lives, and end up wanting freebies.
This is the same problem with Free Educations and Socialized Health Care. Private education and private health care is much, much better. It is cheaper in the short term and the long term, and government regulation keeps the cost from going down. (Don't believe me, do some research and unnecessary and often incredibly foolish government regulatory laws that private institutions have to meet. Nobody is claiming America is a free market country, but it is more capitalist than pretty much anywhere else.)
Labor Unions? Yes, because what they provide could not have been done without Labor Unions. *rolls eyes*. Labor Unions have basically become an instance where the worker gives up rights to a Union, and in turn, Union bureaucracy fattens its own pockets by doing very little for the worker.
Limited Hour Work Week? What business is it of any government to say how long people should be able to work? What good does it do? None at all. Minimum Wage laws? Cause unemployment, and do nothing good except sound good.
Child Labor Laws? Oh, you must have heard about the "Robber Barons" of a century or so ago. Yeah, the truth is, that it wasn't these dominating capitalist institutions exploiting people, it was that there were too many immigrants coming into the country without the infrastructure ready for them. If you actually knew anything, you'd know that Capitalism has done MORE for child labor laws, and MORE for the development of safety in industry that the state ever has.
For starters, I would recommend reading "The Myth of the Robber Barons" by Folsom.
When you're ready to stop being naive, and stop blaiming the problems in the world on capitalism, feel free to take control of your life, earn yourself an education, earn yourself a job, and earn yourself a happy life. Socialism cannot provide it for you, and it doesn't allow you to provide it for yourself. Only capitalism does.
History, logic, and economic theory are on the side of capitalism. Ignorant little socialists still haven't been able to come up with a good response.
NASA has been feeding the public a bunch of B.S. for years in order to increase their budget...
For a generic example, think of all the Near-Earth asteroid nonsense. Every couple of months you hear of another asteroid that has a chance, albeit a slim one, to hit us. Sure, let's give 'em more funding [especially when coupled with Hollywood movies...].
Government organizations and [almost all] government employees are the same way. Think about road construction... they'll tear up a perfectly good road just to use up the money they were given for the year, so that they can get more for the next year.
That sounds quite a bit like what NASA does. It's kind of what the Pentago and the DoD do also. The CIA and the NSA love doing it. Infact, it's almost by definition that government agencies feed bullshit to increase their budgets.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure you can think of plenty of things that India would want to import from other countries. They probably have no interest in your hand-carved furniture, but hey, give it a go if you'd like. Just make sure you check protectionist policies... make sure there are no laws against it.
The politicos might give you shit for selling furniture on your front lawn without liscences and permits and what have you... you know, any means of getting in on the profit you're trying to make with an honest business.
I did not say that India would in turn buy products directly from us, but rather that India will buy more from abroad. [They might actually be buying directly from us... I don't have the time to research it all].
People want to buy what is the best bang-for-their-buck. As an economy becomes stronger, goods produced domestically become more expensive. Comparative advantage begins to kick in for foreign 'industry', and foreign goods become more worth it.
Average income and standard of living do not lower at all when jobs are outsourced. The opposite actually occurs.
We're not losing jobs to other countries. We're exchanging one type of job for another. You can remain cynical all you want, but the facts are already accumulating to say that outsourcing is not as hurtful as so often claimed.
Nobody complains about foreign companies outsourcing jobs to the United States (Mercedez-Benz, Nissan, etc). Do you wonder why?
As far as our "third-rate software" goes... the market is already resolving this issue. Americans are still writing better software, and many are still making a damn fine living off of it.
You know, according to the Information Technology Association of American (ITAA), the dot-com meltdown which was homebrewed [thanks, Greenspan!] eliminated twice as many IT jobs as the current outsourcing trend (something like just less than 3% compared to 6% of the dot-com bust?).
According to an ITAA study, outsourcing white color jobs will ultimately lower inflation, create jobs, and boost productivity. That's a whole lot of money being saved and wealth being created.
I'm sure you're aware of the increasing movement towards halting or reversing the outsourcing of jobs that require higher skills. Why? Because factors of cost, wage, rental rates, demand conditions, and so on change over time. Sometimes its worth it to outsource jobs, other times it is not.
I definitely feel sorry for engineers or ITers who lose their job and have families to take care of, however, you cannot expect the rest of us to suffer the cost just so they can keep the jobs of their preference.
If they're good enough, they'll keep their jobs, otherwise, they'll lose them. Then it's time to go back to school... or you can be smart about it all, and constantly develop your skills so you can move to whatever job the market provides for your efficiency and skillset.
The wealthy are both purchasing more goods from home and abroad. They're not just earning money and not spending it. That's total bullshit.
People with money are not only often entrepreneurial, constantly creating new business ventures (creating jobs and wealth), but they're also often buying new homes, cars, jewelry, clothing or what have you. You seriously cannot deny that.
Look at the Rap/Hip-Hop Industry!
Enough with the mindless class warfare.
[If you're wondering why this post jumps around in no sequential order, it's because it was written over the course of some time. 'Tis a busy labor day, after all. I apologize for the unorganization of the post.]
Did you know that the corporation is an intentional government construct? You know, corporations do not naturally exist in a free market.
Since the U.S. government [FDR and Wilson] created the modern corporation, then you can see the lack of capitalism in the country.
Capitalism, free market capitalism, the way it was intended, is human-being-centric. It is not about extracted profits from consumers for yourself at all costs. It is about providing goods and services to consumers honestly, and most efficiently. In a free market, only companies that are honest and provide goods and services for a decent enough price prevail.
America [or rather the U.S. government] turned its back on capitalism a long time ago.
Unfortunately, the Liberal Establishment and other socialists [from the Left and the Right] love the idea of getting credit for bringing down what they initially created -- thus giving themselves more power.
If it can't be called "The People's automaker" [Volkeswagon!], it will be called Chrysler, a publically owned corporation.
Nationalizing industry and all... Market Socialism.
It ends when you learn some economics...
Seriously... this guy is modded "Insightful".
This is getting so re-goddamn-diculous, it's not even funny anymore.
Perhaps it is because when India's economy is strengthened, they have more money in which to purchase goods. Since some countries can produce better goods and services of one type or another better than a specific country [India, for example], than India will have to go abroad to purchase goods with their new found wealth.
If they do not come to the U.S. for these goods, then they will go to another country which in turn will go to another country, eventually wealth gets back to the United States. Let's also not forget the immediate benefits of the money being saved in the U.S. when companies outsource or buy their goods from abroad.
Seriously now, what's with the jealousy of CEOs or other wealthy elite here, just because they make more money than you? As their wealth increases, they'll purchase more goods from home or abroad.
I'd recommend some books on economics here... but then, why bother? Would you read them?
So how many of us geeks were twisted enough to find out what came up when you searched for "Vampire shemale beastiality bondage"?
I for one will probably be having nightmares tonight...
"[You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]"
Is that your [pathetic] attempt to belittle private gun ownership advocates?
You make some great points about the media.
s 7. html
Here's an EXCELLENT article about the Red Team-Blue Team hypocrisy in politics and media today:
http://www.centraloregonian.com/PCOGuestOpinion
I recommend you read it and share among those
you associate with.
"That isn't such a good deal, people from other countries constantly come to the US for healthcare. Not to mention, many of the european countries are going to have to cut back on socialist programs like universal health care in 20-25 years because there will be way more people retired than working."
They're already coming to the US now for healthcare. Canada, which has a highly touted health care system (touted by socialists, like Kerry-- who would bankrupt us with his bullshit health care plans), has waiting periods that can be several weeks (4-6 averages?), even for serious operations. An increasing number of ill or injured Canadians continue to come to the United States for health care.
There's alot of hidden costs associated with "free' socialized health care... not to mention the layers of bureaucracy that have to be dealt with. After they get around the bureaucrats, you're still going to have people using up more and more of what they perceive as "free".
These people should have read some Heinlein.
TANSTAAFL. There Aint No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
All to often people associate Americans lacking medical insurance with lacking medical care. If you're bleeding to death, or seriously injured in some other way, you're GOING TO GET MEDICAL CARE in the United States. It's pretty much by law. However, the hospital is going to expect you to get on a payment plan to pay them back. What is so bad about this? Nothing. It's morally acceptable, and it's efficient.
"You are right about this, go out and VOTE people. If you don't like the current political parties, find one that appeals to you or make your own and VOTE. While you may think that a third party vote is "throwing your vote away" a third party only needs about 5% to get federal campaign funds for the next election."
When the system is built for as little change as possible, and those that are capable of altering the system start to merge, the only sensible vote is to not vote at all... which is a vote for all intensive purposes. Even few enough people vote, then our government will begin to lose legitimacy and inevitably you'll find some radical changes in politics or our government structure outright -- which no matter where you stand on the political spectrum, you have to agree with.
10.
It's funny, a large number of American citizens were unconcerned with Cuba, or Serbia, for a long time and like I said about Iraq, Americans did not want to bother with Iraq until the non-Conservative, anti-liberty minded, George W. Bush got to power. That RiNO (Republican in Name Only) has been a thorn in the side of all Conservative Republicans ever since -- giving them a bad name and all. I suppose you haven't checked out any "Conservative" political magazines from the U.S., and saw all of the anti-Bush rhetoric? Of course not, in your world, Bush is a capitalist, and Bush is evil. Of course this goes to show you fail to recognize both what Bush is, and what capitalism is not.
You know, you keep talking about propaganda giving me the wrong view of Socialism, but yet, you have quite the corrupted view of capitalism. You still haven't offered anything, and I don't particularly care if you take anything from my posts.
In a last minute defense of the free market is about counting individual costs and allocating privately owned resources. It is not an end in itself. It is a means to an end. It allows all of us to make better decisions because we have counted the cost more accurately. It leads to lower plane fares and therefore more music. It leads to the Internet and therefore more ideas.
When it comes to the benefits offered by the free market, we all get a consumer's surplus most of the time: more than we paid for.
7.
Modern America might be imperialistic, but modern America is hardly capitalistic. You can try to associate the two all you want, but you've ignored my previous arguments on the matter, so you're arguing with nothing. I'm not in support of Imperialism, I'm in support of "live and let live". If you want to live in a communist society, go right on ahead. I won't bother to care until you try to impose it upon me. [Again, I'll say in hopes of it sinking in to your skull, modern American Imperialism -- despite what Marx might say on the matter -- has nothing to do with capitalism.]
I'm quite aware of America being more communist than it has been in quite some time. Come to think of it, I've even said it, although in different words, to you. Americans have just been a bit more efficient in their communism than the Soviets.
8.
My mom is a Republican, and she doesn't vote for Bush. I'm a libertarian, and I'd never vote for Bush. That was a such a pathetic attempt at attacking both my mom and I you louse.
9.
Of course the Cuban people are free, that's why so many are trying to get into the United States.
Makes perfect sense, or not.
I don't ever remember being told anything about an "evil Cuban state" in school, let alone an "evil Iraqi state" or an "evil Serbian state". There's barely been a mention of Iraq or Serbia for many years, until they started talking about ousting Saddam (something I opposed... it's not my country.) I have long been in favor of ending sanctions against Iraq and Cuba. So how about you stop being such an hypocrite.
6.
Oh no, I did not spell "per se" correctly, I must be stupid. That's a groundless ad hominem attack if I ever saw one. You keep talking about anti-communist and anti-socialist propaganda in America, but yet you fail to recognize that ever-increasingly, schools in America are promoting collectivism and central planning. Talk about ignorance...
Again, I don't claim capitalism will endure forever and ever you boisterous bink, but it can endure longer than true socialism, and is more beneficial. Actually, I have read some Marx, and I'm unimpressed. My not being impressed probably has something to do with learning about Austrian economics, instead of listening to Marxist pipe dreaming.
A free capitalist economy is a subset of a more general science of human action. This rests on the axiom, "Human action is purposeful behavior. Action means the employment of means for the attainment of ends." The logic of a free market economy does not evolve around money, or Marx's cash nexus, but rather about choice.
5.
I am just trying to say that your beliefs in the eternal firmness of the capitalist society closely resemble that particular brand of bullshit that was spouted by Fukuyama and refuted countless times. No wonder that you came with the same idea without reading his (or other) books - you don't need much education or intelligence to shout "Our system is the best, their system is the evil!"
The eternal firmness in a free market society? Nah, I don't believe in utopia. There's probably some inherent flaw in human nature that would not allow for one system to work forever.
I don't know how much Fukuyama said about capitalism being a system that would lost forever, but I seem to recall him referring to socialism as being dead. Full blown socialism did not exist in the U.S.S.R., because it couldn't have worked. Socialism as an economic system could not produce or allocate economically.
It's been argued that Lenin demonstrated this during the period of War Communism of the Soviet Union: from 1918 to 1921 he attempted to abolish all markets, property, and trade. The result was an unparalleled man-made catastrophe. The Soviets then stepped back from the abyss to permit the reintroduction of aspects of the markets, and thereafter ruled over a highly bureaucratized total state that finally collapsed in 1990.
Can the Soviet economy between 1921 and 1990 be called socialist? Since the rise of Stalin, the left has said no. By calling it something else, the socialists do not thereby have to bear responsibility for the mass human suffering, bloodshed, and poverty of these years. And in one narrow sense they are correct: it wasn't Marx's vision that prevailed for those 70 years but an extreme version of traditional economic despotism in which the people are severely restricted in what they can produce and keep as their own.
4.
I suspect you don't know what you are talking about, because you never read Marx and pick up all your information about communism from propaganda in your school. Am I correct?
You're far from correct. Various forms of collectivism is being taught more and more in public schools, from Elementary School through High School and even in some Colleges. As most Americans experienced with "higher education" in America know, the Liberal [Socialist leaning] establishment dominates the university environment.
It's funny that the USSR's world renowned systems of school were not all that impressive, except in comparison to pre-Soviet Russia, as they only temporarily kept the USSR in front of America in terms of technology during the "Space Race". Education in the USSR basically became an instance of pumping large amounts of capital to "beef up" their science and technological programs in order to beat the Americans. Perhaps it is fortunate that they were not able to hang onto that lead for long.
Any economic indicator will tell me that capitalism bankrupted Russia? That's pretty funny.
I learned from von Mises and other Austrian economists that Russia, as a socialist country, was doomed to fail because the possibility of economic calculation is lacking; it's impossible to ascertain the cost and result of an economic operation. Soon after his election, Boris Yeltsin immediately embarked upon ambitious reforms that were to transform the command system into an individual-enterprise market order. Several steps needed to be taken. First, goods prices had to be set free so that supply and demand would direct production and clear away all goods shortages. Next was the task to privatize all state enterprises, including the giant monopolies. Third was the need to privatize agricultural land, breaking up the large Soviet collectives and state farms. Fourth was the need to privatize not only all facilities of retail distribution but also all kinds of housing. Finally, in order to stabilize the currency, the large budget deficits flowing from heavy state subsidies to inefficient enterprises had to be eliminated. Such were the great tasks for the reformers. Not much of this was sufficiently accomplished, or at least cleanly accomplished.
When Boris Yeltsin embarked upon his 500-day privatization program, he faced the unwavering opposition by the anti-reform forces in the Duma, the Russian national parliament. The powerful Communist Party, which still commanded one-third of the popular vote, together with the Agrarian Party and various nationalist groups, opposed all economic reforms. They waged an ongoing battle over every measure of reform which nevertheless moved forward by fits and starts.
The Russian transition from a harsh command system to an individual enterprise order undoubtedly was arduous and painful for millions of individuals accustomed to the old ways. It introduced an order they did not understand. But many intelligent individuals in positions of State and Party leadership viewed the transition as personal opportunity and chance from which to profit.
Experienced in the old ways of "wheeling and dealing" in political relations, they managed to acquire large enterprises by questionable means. They had political influence but little or no economic know-how and no interest in competing in markets and serving customers. They became the oligarchs, a small faction of politically connected individuals who held sway over the Russian economy.
So how can a rational, logical, and intelligence person such as yourself, claim that capitalism is the fault of Russia's troubles, when Russia is still largely controlled by an oligarchy of politicos?
Why do foreigners continue to make generalizations about Americans, but then get their panties
in a bunch any time an American stereotypes a foreigner? You're accusing me of being ignorant
and stupid, but yet you have done nothing but revealed those same traits within yourself -- without actually giving evidence of either in me (oh, except my ignorance of Latin, because I spelled it "per say" instead of "per say".
1.
First, I'll define oligarch for you. An oligarch is a person who supports or is part of an oligarchy. Now, I'll define an oligarchy for you. An oligarchy is where the small minority has all of the power over the majority. Of course when an oligarchy forms, it is always immediately blamed on capitalism. This is an uneducated, or intentionally biased remark. The problem of an oligarchy forming is not a problem of capitalism, but rather of democracy. You see, in a Democracy, the people with the most amount of power get to do whatever they want to the people with the least amount of power. The people with the most amount of power are usually considered the majority, however, when government interacts too much in the market, big business (market socialism, the modern corporation) begins to take over. Why? Because in a Democracy, politicians can be bought out because the politicians can make laws happen, and often do for the right price. The United States was never meant to be a Democracy, but rather a Democratic Republic with a limited number of laws and powers of the government specifically documented in a written constitution. In a Democracy, it is easy to change these laws. The result is that of an oligarchy, or the tyranny of the majority. There has never been a democracy in history that has managed to not hang itself.
(You can really tell your logical disconnect, when socialism has always been about concentration of power and control in the hands of a few.
I can list the Karl Marx's 10 Planks if you'd like. This is directly out of the communist manifesto.
1) Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2) A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3) Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4) Confiscation of the property of emigrants and rebels.
5) Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6) Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7) Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8) Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9) Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.
10) Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc.
The dramatic economic improvements in China 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
Yeah, again, I do apologize. It was a bad day.
:-p).
The thing of it is, I basically want to get the point across that people do tend to look after one another with or without the government. Private institutions exist for the homeless and the poor, and everyone does get medical care to help with illness or injury that requires medical care.
I don't say that your opinions that people deserve those things are wrong, just that other people shouldn't be coerced into paying for it (try not paying your taxes some time
Arrivederci.
It's kind of quaint that Sweden is blaiming the enormous burden of the state on privatization...
t he_family_ swedish_style_by_eric_brodin.htm ... Societies tend to change when most of the production leaves the rural and suburban areas and goes to the city, and when the family begins to break down. These changes are not for the better.]
:-)
Sweden's "Welfare Paradise" is collapsing. Standard of living has fallen over the past ten years [relatively, anyways].
For how great the system is supposedly doing, there seems to be an ever increasing amount of investments flowing abroad, as well as a lack of any significant savings. Medical is not improving [relatively... I don't mean lack of new medical technologies...]. Poverty is increasing.
Because of that "welfare paradise", an ever increasing share of the national product has to be distributed to the public sector in order to pay for all of that. It's not a long term fix.
Higher taxes, and the breakdown of institutions that taxes were supposed to support, have caused rifts in Sweden's political landscape. These rifts are growing larger.
[Critics often criticize America for outsourcing... Sweden has done the same thing. The outcry wasn't as large in America since it was pretty much a necessity for the Swedes.]
Of course, economics aside, the Swedish welfare system (just like everywhere else, including Denmark and all the other Scandinavian countries) are experiencing breakdowns in the traditional family. This is pretty much the plan of socialist bureaucrats. Divorce rates are up, numbers of aborted children and children placed up for adoption are increasing, and general, the parental care available for children has decreased significantly (somebody has to pay for a welfare state...).
As one Swedish politician said, "I should like to abolish the family as a means of earning a livelihood, let adults be economically independent of each other and give society a large share of responsibility for its children." This is going back several years, and I don't remember the name. I've only seen it repeated from time to time, so I can't offer you a name.
[Here's more about the destruction of the family in Sweden..
http://www.nkmr.org/english/destroying_
It sounds like Sweden is acting a whole lot like Russia, blaiming failing private services on privatization itself, instead of red tape and old bureaucracy still in place.
Now, if there happens to be factual proof of privatization being the actual burden on the state, then to me, this says that I should like the Swedes even less than I do.
I have been in Labor Unions, well one of them. The rest of my family has been as well.
You've just met your first person who has done several day's worth of work in mounds of coal (well not "in" the mounds, of course). Nice to meet you. Now I didn't mean to say that all union bosses are fat cats who do no good, I say that they were not necessary, and that even when they do accomplish something that helps the laborer, they do not really do that much good in the long run. Of course, all of this goes to help out those union fat cats as well.
Maybe me taking you as gung-ho anti capitalist came from referring to capitalism as being as brutal as communism could ever be. This is bullshit and I like to call people on it... perhaps unfortunately, I do so while being a bit caustic. (I do apologize for that... yesterday was a bad day)
Anywho...
You're saying that since a counter example does not exist today, then it could not exist again (Ancient Ireland, Midieval Iceland, most of the first half the American History...)? Well if that isn't a few logical fallacies, then I don't know what is!
But again, I do apologize for my acrimonious response. It was a bad day. But my points still stand...
1. Read "The Not So Wild Wild West" http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf
H oping to avoid the slashdot effect. It probably will though, the excitement is over for this topic.
- There's also interesting commentary here: http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1449&i d=66
2. Concerning America's deficit and debt. If you're referring to the "trade deficit", I'm afraid you're mistaken. The trade deficit is a myth, and nothing more. Just because we buy more from one country than we sell to said country, doesn't mean we're losing money. We sell elsewhere. Macroeconomics.
However, if you're talking about the huge debt that the very anti-free-market RiNO (Republican in Name Only) George W. Bush has caused, this is hardly a good argument against capitalism.
3. In the absence of government laws and regulations, the free market tends to drive quality up while driving prices down. This is part of the benevolence of a free market. A business or an organization cannot succeed unless it is doing its customers a good service. It's funny that I was able to afford a private school in spite of all of heavy government regulation against the private educational world, with only my father working on the Railroad (quite a bit of heavy, manual labor, mind you).
Why do you keep suggesting that millions of people in America are without healthcare? This is bullshit. Look, if something is actually wrong with you, and you go to an emergency room, hospitals do not turn you away and let you bleed to death. They have to buy law treat you. In order to pay for it (There Aint No Such Thing As A Free Lunch), you can offer the hospital whatever you can afford to pay per month. If you want to look at how great socialized medicine and healthcare is, take a look at some of the truth behind Canada and European socialized health care institutions. You have to be allowed, by some bureaucrat, to get health care in all but the most dire circumstances (you're actually bleeding to death right then and there). If you're not, and say you need the removal of cancer or a hip replacement, you get put on a waiting list. I seem to remember the average waiting period being over a month -- and often several months long. This doesn't happen in the United States, thank you very much.
Now if it's something not life threatening, then I don't think you should deserve it unless you earn it. If you don't pay your bills, I shouldn't have to. If you use the law to pay your bills with my dollar, I should be able to file suite against you for consemptation.
4. Alot of that stuff that is government funded, could be funded by the private sector. There's also a question of necessity. How much of the things that the government is "financing" are actually of use -- or do not have a better alternative in the private sector? Little, if anything.
5. Why should I, or anyone else, have to pay for your mother to go back to grad school? Where does she get the Right? People do not have Rights to go to school, they only have the right to earn their way there.
You also continue to ignore the fact that a free market is benevolent. Maybe it was my ascerbic responses from yesterday that gave you this impression, and if so, then I apologize. It was a bad day. But back to free markets. Karl Marx and other socialists were wrong in that they assume that human beings, on their own, are not at all good and require being kept in order. Of course, this is bullshit. People freely help out each other on their own, and it's usually always more efficient than government.
[Take a look at all those counter-productive grants given overseas to places like Africa. You're talking billions of dollars every few years, and it's not doing any good. In fact, it's creating a dependency by now only creating people dependent on us, but also not allowing the people to develop wealth on their own, and having to continue to serve their scumbag leaders.
6. I'm defying logic that private educati
I'd also like to ad, to you or any one else who likes to speak of how great Cuba's educational system is because of it's high rate of literacy.
Who in Cuba is actually allowed to read what they want to read? The State dictates to them what to read, what not to read, what to think about what, and how to do it.
Of course, collectivists are going to love it. No decent human being worth giving a damn about would, though.
1. Russia is dominated by political and economic oligarchs, and is not very capitalistic on a large scale. The reason that capitalism hasn't worked so well in Russia, unlike in China, where it has improved the economy and general standard of living, is because China did not try to change the economy and the government all at once. China has just been moving towards a capitalist economy, and the "liberty and prosperity" [at least relative to former times] in China is due to the freeing up of the Economy. Russia, on the other hand, went bankrupt, and tried to do it all at once without having much of a stable infrastructure. Not to mention the lack of legitimacy of the new regime.
2. Lack of military [I assume you mean "foreign hostiles"?] operations on US soil is an interesting point, but completely irrelevant to the argument of capitalism vs communism and collectivism. Wars do cause massive damage to society; infrastructure and economy.
(You don't see two nations with free trade going to war, do you?)
3. Where and how has communism ever [significantly] increased liberty and prosperity? In Eastern Europe, in China, in Russia, in Cuba, in Korea, in Vietnam, anywhere it has been tried, communism has failed to compete with capitalism. You can quote me all you'd like about how communism improved Russia's economy compared to how it was under the Czar's, but guess what? Communism bankrupted Russia. It was bankrupting China to, until China began to open its markets (and even then, the success is limited because of the bureaucracy having to be supported).
When I included Cuba in the list, I didn't mean that there were millions killed in Cuba, that combined there were many killed. Between Russia and South East Asia (mainly China), there was over 70,000,000 people killed.
When we're talking about Korea, we're talking about people who have starved to death by government mismanagement or foolish "redistribution" of wealth and resources.
Now, stop being such an ignorant little communist apologetic. "Communism didn't cause the deaths in China or Russia, per say." Bullshit it didn't. Power corrupts, and absolutely power corrupts absolutely. Following Marx's directions, the Soviet Union put alot of power into the hands of a few, and look what happened.
As far as Cuban's educational system goes... how could you find any factual information on it? Studies that show it is doing better than other South American countries (who spend alot less on education)? It's like all those people trying to compare educational systems in other parts of the world (such as China); saying how they're superior than America's educational system (which I don't really care for). For starters, all American citizens can get a full education all the way from K-12, and then through college as well.
If you want to throw in private education into the mix, no educational system in the world produces the results that private institutions do in the United States.
4. I haven't read any of Fukuyama's material, so I don't really know what you're trying to say about that...
It's kind of funny, while you're ignoring the many many millions of people killed, or otherwise forced to revert to neolithic standards of living, by communism, you continue to claim that communism is not only inevitable, but also a beneficial thing.
You also back this up with [intentionally] vague and meanginless links to and between changes in the means of production. It's like obfuscating the failures of Karl Marx -- who never fully understood means of production, let alone be able to predict future changes in production.
It's quite likely that if America embraced communism, there would be alot more wars than before (on top of a violent revolution being a practical prequisite for such a change or other pogroms against American citizens), but also counter-productive institutions and regulations being forcefully imposed on American citizens.
5. "P.S."
Actually, my mom would be proud. Bless her soul, she hates collectivism. If rudeness comes from intoleration, then I'm glad I was rude to you. Some things shouldn't be tolerated.
Let's also not forget that Microsoft and WalMart are corporations. As I'm sure we all know, or at least I'll continue to say it until we all do, the modern corporation is an intentional government construct to nationalize industry. Two of the most anti-capitalist presidents ever, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, were pivotal in the creation of the modern corporation.
It's called "Market Socialism".
In baby terms, Microsoft and WalMart are both good and bad. The good, almost by definition, results from attempting to provide the customer with something better or relatively equivalent for less. The bad, at least in Microsoft's case, is that they tend to try and take advantage of The System (tm) to get the upper hand over their competitors. Microsoft seems to be succeeding with this, as does some of Microsoft's competition (Apple, Nutscrape etc). This doesn't show a flaw in capitalism, but rather in our democracy.
We were never meant to be a wide open Democracy, but rather a Limited Republic with Democratically elected officials. See, in a democracy, the group with the most money and power (or most numbers for less wealthy nations) gets to make new laws to keep themselves above the rest (usually at the expense of the rest). In a Limited Republic (with all laws and powers outlined in a written constitutions), the way the American founding fathers intended it, this was supposed to be relatively impossible or at least highly unlikely.
With IP and Copyright laws, it has become even easier to use The System (tm) to keep the upper hand over the competition, instead of how a free market system would work, where ideas and inventions are not prevented from being improved upon. Hell, it's against the law now to even sound like something somebody else brought up. It's rediculous.
The GPL fits much better into the free market world than a socialist world.
I think you might be the dumbest and most ignorant person ever.
First off, Russia isn't a capitalist nation in anyway except on paper, and even then, tentatively. Infact, Russia and Russians are still very much anti-capitalist, mostly out of ignorance and continual misinformation by Soviet, oops, 'scuse me, Russian politicians.
Secondly, how can you say that capitalism doesn't work, yet the most capitalist countries are the most successful?
Thirdly, since when has communism increased liberty or prosperity anywhere? Are you not aware with the millions and millions of people killed by communists world wide over the past century? We're talking million of Russias, Chinese, Koreans, Vietmanese, Cubans, etc. Argue all you want about it being in the past, these countries are still highly oppressed. Also, despite what those socialist-european studies say, Cuba's educational system sucks. I know this from people who were educated under the system.)
I would like to point you towards "The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, and Repression" by Curtois, Werth, Panne, Bartosek, Margolin, and Paczkowsky. Interest doesn't last long enough in this microdebates on Slashdot for you to get the whole picture, but if you read that book, you will. [For those ignorant people reading this and trying to suggest that the Soviet Union wasn't Marxist, the aforementioned book gives a chapter on how the Soviet Union WAS Marxist.]
There has always been, and will continue to be until the end of the universe as we know it, a direct correlation with the freedom of markets to the liberty and prosperity of a people. Free trade and a free market always results in peace, prosperity, stability and progress. History proves me correct.
Mideival Icelandic villages, Ancient Ireland, and slightly less so, the America West (and early America) were all examples of capitalist societies. Ancient Ireland, probably the most libertarian, decentralized society ever, was quite stable and had little armed conflict, until invading Britons brought feudalism to Eire's shores.
Denmark, Sweden, and the Netherlands might have the highest standards of living now, but they're going backrupt [just like the Soviet Union did]. It might just take a while longer, since the Scandinavian countries aren't being hurried to bankruptcy by a Space Race with the United States.
Actually, you did have to pay for school from Kindergarden until now, or at least your parents had to. It's called taxes, and in the long run, taxes end up costing a whole lot more than what you would have to pay for a private education, and with a private education, you're better off.
Most science is done by private organizations, and are not funded by government subsidies.
Where did you get the idea that the jobless would be left to starve without State Welfare? Where has State Welfare actually helped? It's a temporary solution that gives off the illusion of being useful, and instead, ends up in a welfare culture where more and more people stop taking responsibility for their lives, and end up wanting freebies.
This is the same problem with Free Educations and Socialized Health Care. Private education and private health care is much, much better. It is cheaper in the short term and the long term, and government regulation keeps the cost from going down. (Don't believe me, do some research and unnecessary and often incredibly foolish government regulatory laws that private institutions have to meet. Nobody is claiming America is a free market country, but it is more capitalist than pretty much anywhere else.)
Labor Unions? Yes, because what they provide could not have been done without Labor Unions. *rolls eyes*. Labor Unions have basically become an instance where the worker gives up rights to a Union, and in turn, Union bureaucracy fattens its own pockets by doing very little for the worker.
Limited Hour Work Week? What business is it of any government to say how long people should be able to work? What good does it do? None at all. Minimum Wage laws? Cause unemployment, and do nothing good except sound good.
Child Labor Laws? Oh, you must have heard about the "Robber Barons" of a century or so ago. Yeah, the truth is, that it wasn't these dominating capitalist institutions exploiting people, it was that there were too many immigrants coming into the country without the infrastructure ready for them. If you actually knew anything, you'd know that Capitalism has done MORE for child labor laws, and MORE for the development of safety in industry that the state ever has.
For starters, I would recommend reading "The Myth of the Robber Barons" by Folsom.
When you're ready to stop being naive, and stop blaiming the problems in the world on capitalism, feel free to take control of your life, earn yourself an education, earn yourself a job, and earn yourself a happy life. Socialism cannot provide it for you, and it doesn't allow you to provide it for yourself. Only capitalism does.
History, logic, and economic theory are on the side of capitalism. Ignorant little socialists still haven't been able to come up with a good response.
I'd prefer my women to be like my soup; crabby and swiss.
:-)
(Wait, maybe it was that... I like my women like I like my dressing; creamy and italian?)
Please mod me down.
NASA has been feeding the public a bunch of B.S. for years in order to increase their budget...
For a generic example, think of all the Near-Earth asteroid nonsense. Every couple of months you hear of another asteroid that has a chance, albeit a slim one, to hit us. Sure, let's give 'em more funding [especially when coupled with Hollywood movies...].
Government organizations and [almost all] government employees are the same way. Think about road construction... they'll tear up a perfectly good road just to use up the money they were given for the year, so that they can get more for the next year.
That sounds quite a bit like what NASA does. It's kind of what the Pentago and the DoD do also. The CIA and the NSA love doing it. Infact, it's almost by definition that government agencies feed bullshit to increase their budgets.