Did Bush lie? It doesn't matter any more.
POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Tuesday, July 11, 2023 18:35
VIEWED: 11007
PAGE 4 of 11
Quote:
I'm concerned with our soldiers being shot at. I'm concerned with what's going to happen to Iraq in the next few years. Please explain to me how determining whether Bush lied or not is going to change one iota of what is going on in Iraq today.
It's an emotional/ ideological response to cut short a painful discussion, not a logical one.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Just wanted to point out some erroneous equations.
It is NOT true that capitalism = democracy = independence = secularism = 'freedom' .
capitalism - an economy of government in service to business (as opposed to one of business in service to government, which is socialism)
Huh? My Webster's Ninth New Collegiate defines capitalism as: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision rather than by state control, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.
Does the definition change in later editions?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Huh? My Webster's Ninth New Collegiate defines capitalism as: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision rather than by state control, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.
Does the definition change in later editions?
Come on, Geezer, you're just being a smart-ass. Of course Rue's definition isn't in the dictionary! Rue's definition is what we call "insight." (Why don't you look that up?)
Besides which, Rue's point (i.e: that part of Rue's argument that you'd be responding to if you had any respect for the discussion or Rue) was that capitalism and democracy are not the same thing--a point which is still borne out by Webster.
So why don't you come back to the grown-up table and talk about what special affinity democracy has for capitalism, if any?
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"just an excuse for folks to keep rehashing the same old comfortable arguments rather than actually trying to figure out solutions for the things that are happening right now. "
Here's an idea. Give Bush the boot for starters!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
...So why don't you come back to the grown-up table and talk about what special affinity democracy has for capitalism, if any?
(Ahh. Present the fly just right and they'll always rise to it)
Well, since you ask so nicely.
Capitalism, by Webster's definition, tends to exist in countries where it is allowed to function with a lesser level of state control. Such a country is usually either a Democratic Republic, or a Democratic Constitutional Monarchy.
Checking the UN Human Development Index, http://hdr.undp.org/ all the top countries are democracies of one sort or the other, http://www.wordiq.com/definition/List_of_countries_by_system_of_govern
ment and allow capitalism to work relatively unemcumbered in the market sector, even if they are more socialist in the public services sector (health care, pensions, etc.) I'd take this as a pretty convincing argument that capitalism and democracy tend to work well together.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
However, if you look into the actual workings of capitalist countries, you'll see that the only aspect where reality and definition coincide is the part about private ownership of the means of production.
As such, I would argue that there are really no capitalist countries.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
However, if you look into the actual workings of capitalist countries, you'll see that the only aspect where reality and definition coincide is the part about private ownership of the means of production.
As such, I would argue that there are really no capitalist countries.
If you're talking about a pure capitalist system, where there is absolutely no state interference with business, I have to agree. And to tell the truth, I'm just as glad that the FDA, USDA, SEC, OSHA, etc. are on the job.
There aren't pure examples of any economic or political system out there. The fact that people are individual and sometimes imperfect sees to that. It does seem, though, that countries that hew closer to the capitalist and democratic ideals generally provide a better standard of living and more freedom than those that don't.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Indeed, finding a "pure" system of any economic form is impossible. But my beef with the British, and then American version of capitalism is not so much that it's over-regulated but that politicians place too much favor towards business. In other words, it isn't an "level playing field" free market, but one that's slanted towards large businesses and specifically towards large coporations. And I'm not talking about subsidies (although that in itself is a problem) but the entire history and structure of of our policies.
What people don't remember is that Adam Smith envsioned a free market not just between consumer and producers but also between businesses and laborers. However, throughout the history of British and American industrialization, governments invariably intervened on behalf of business in the labor/ business market: writing laws favorable to corporations and unfavorable to worker associations; granting rights to corporations that other entities didn't enjoy; militarily enforcing cheap labor abroad; using army, police and private security agencies to bust heads and break up unions internally.
So while business consolidated nationally and then internationally, labor was forced to negotiate from individual and local levels. If our laws and interventions had not been so persistently pro-business, the current economic landscape would be different.
The other thing that people don't realize is that the whole concept of capitalism depends on competition. The LAST thing that business wants is competition, and large corporations have a myriad ways of stifling it- Microsoft is a prime example of how monopolism makes capitalism a moot point.
Just as an aside to Libertarians, this is where I find a fatal flaw in their arguments. They are so individualistic that they would rather lose power singly than protect themselves cooperatively.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Indeed, finding a "pure" system of any economic form is impossible. But my beef with the British, and then American version of capitalism is not so much that it's over-regulated but that politicians place too much favor towards business. In other words, it isn't an "level playing field" free market, but one that's slanted towards large businesses and specifically towards large coporations. And I'm not talking about subsidies (although that in itself is a problem) but the entire history and structure of of our policies.
What people don't remember is that Adam Smith envsioned a free market not just between consumer and producers but also between businesses and laborers. However, throughout the history of British and American industrialization, governments invariably intervened on behalf of business in the labor/ business market: writing laws favorable to corporations and unfavorable to worker associations; granting rights to corporations that other entities didn't enjoy; militarily enforcing cheap labor abroad; using army, police and private security agencies to bust heads and break up unions internally.
So while business consolidated nationally and then internationally, labor was forced to negotiate from individual and local levels. If our laws and interventions had not been so persistently pro-business, the current economic landscape would be different.
The other thing that people don't realize is that the whole concept of capitalism depends on competition. The LAST thing that business wants is competition, and large corporations have a myriad ways of stifling it- Microsoft is a prime example of how monopolism makes capitalism a moot point.
Just as an aside to Libertarians, this is where I find a fatal flaw in their arguments. They are so individualistic that they would rather lose power singly than protect themselves cooperatively.
Various US governments at various times have been on both sides of the labor-management issue. Britain in the '70s just about ran their auto industry into the ground by catering to labour at the expense of sound business decisions.
US government has been relatively anti-monopoly since the trust-busting of the early 20th century. There are any number of state and federal anti-trust cases going on against Microsoft as we speak.
Of course money talks, and business does get some breaks. No system is perfect. But I still have to maintain that overall the capitalist democracies provide a better standard of living and more freedom for more of their people than any other system. I haven't yet seen any evidence that refutes this.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think it depends on "for whom and where". Also, you have to look at what might be a "sound business decision" in light of the overall world context.
We in the United States have a wonderful standard of living because we were protected from the ravages of WWII by oceans. At the end, we were literally the only industrialized nation left standing. (My husband, who grew up in post-war Hungary, likes to remind me that at the end of WWII there was only one bridge left and a few running trucks.) This gave us a significant edge to our technology, military, and currency. I don't think we can attribute that to capitalism per se but more to geographic fortune. I also happen to think that we are about to run out of our historical capital, but be that as it may....
Most of Africa, South and Central America, and Russia are capitalist basket cases. They have private/ coporate ownership-the hallmark of capitalism- but they are neither democratic nor properous. When capitalism was instituted in Russia, Poland, Argentina, Chile, and Nicaragua, the standard of living plummetted for most people while a few became fabulously wealthy. India, which is becoming "more" capitalist, is seeing a growing middle class- but also a growing POORER class.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME