capitalism, by definition, is a stupid and foolish human system
POSTED BY: 1kiki
UPDATED: Monday, January 13, 2025 18:50
VIEWED: 28147
PAGE 19 of 28
Quote:Except I'm not KIKI. If you could look at our IP addresses (which of course you can't) you'd see that even when we're in the inet at the same time our addresses are different and that they go thru different servers since we're not located in the same place. Also, if you've been here for a while- which you haven't- you'd see that I've been here since forever, while KIKI appeared later, and while we agree on many things we don't have the same "fist" and we don't have the same approach.
Boy, Miker must have been a major head ach for you huh? Well I am pleased to carry on in his stead and will answer this for him, 1kiki.
SO- you're not MIKER? 'Cause, yanno, I thought it was funny that MIKER suddenly appears and then flounces out, and then THGRII appears out of the blue right afterwards, with the same arguments, same mis-spellings and all. But- OK, "THGRII", I'll address you as a different person if you wish. It's your anonymous inet perogative to call yourself whatever you want.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:THGRII, it would be useful and interesting if you would do just A LITTLE research before you post.
The biggest point you are apparently unable to take away from the story is that “Quality of Life: India vs. China” is that what’s behind improving conditions in both countries is their enhanced practice of capitalism.
China can hardly be considered to practice "capitalism", since all of its major industries and banks are state-owned, and its services (education, healthcare etc) are state-provided.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:THGRII, it would be useful and interesting if you would do just A LITTLE research before you post.
The biggest point you are apparently unable to take away from the story is that “Quality of Life: India vs. China” is that what’s behind improving conditions in both countries is their enhanced practice of capitalism.
China can hardly be considered to practice "capitalism", since all of its major industries and banks are state-owned, and its services (education, healthcare etc) are state-provided.
Except for the industry that is co-owned by other countries as I point out. If you read what I posted you will see I acknowledge state provided education and health care as reasons for the influx of capitalism. It cuts costs. Right now China is evolving and capitalism is flourishing in China and India. If you do not recognize that what the F@#k do I care.
I will nether acknowledge nor deny any identity you chose to attach to me. I don't give a shit 1kiki.
si shen
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No, you missed the point:
ELECTRICAL GENERATION IS OWNED BY THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT. Not "some", or "most", but ALL. Petroleum purchase and refining, and petrochemicals. Banking. Transportation. The state-owned enterprises (SOEs) comprise the backbone of strategic, heavy, large industry, and when you add provincial and city ownerships, it rises even more. Furthermore, China seems to be reversing course on its liberalization policies
Quote:
A new shorthand has entered common parlance: guojin mintui, meaning the state [sector] advances and the private retreats. It seems to suggest that the state sector's share of the economy is growing, which it is not; non-state businesses are in fact prospering. But the government has been muscling in on business in a variety of ways. It has been tightening its grip on some industries it considers “strategic”, from oil and coal to telecommunications and transport equipment. It has been devising market-access rules that favour state firms. And to the chagrin of private businesses, it has allowed state companies to remain active in a surprising range of palpably non-strategic sectors, from textiles and papermaking to catering. In recent years property development has become a lucrative sideline for government businesses. “The tentacles of state-owned enterprises extend into every nook where profit can be made,” writes Zheng Yongnian of the National University of Singapore.
Of 42 mainland Chinese companies in the Fortune 500 list of the world's biggest firms in 2010, all but three were owned by the government. Carl Walter, a Beijing-based investment banker, said in a recent book that getting as many companies as possible into that select group was a matter of deliberate policy. China's own list of the 500 biggest Chinese companies spans 75 industries. In 29 of these not a single private firm makes the grade and in ten others they play only a minor part.
http://www.economist.com/node/18832034
Is it capitalist economy?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Once again our resident troll sock puppet, when presented with the analysis of a world-class economist, posted nothing of intelligence or even mild interest in response, and posted absolutely nothing to substantiate the mental diarrhea it tries to pretend is discussion. I really do wonder what passes for a brain in it.
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Why look at China and India 1kiki when they are both playing catch up with us. When both had to abandon what they were doing and adapt our approach to business. You should remember that both did the same thing in attracting business. They gave state assisted Education to many of its citizens while we have to incur large debts to educate ourselves, thus our need to demand higher wages. That along with state assisted medical which is a big burden to business in this country. Other than that it is us that built up their countries by moving our jobs there.
The biggest point you are apparently unable to take away from the story is that “Quality of Life: India vs. China” is that what’s behind improving conditions in both countries is their enhanced practice of capitalism.
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:G, I have no interest in talking to people who pretend to be "reasonable". Because what'll happen is that we'll get in a discussion, and then sooner or later... probably sooner rather than later... I'll hit a wall consisting entirely of your prejudice, which you'll refuse to acknowledge.
Agreeing with Byte's statement does not mean I like complaining - I personally detest complainers and whiners, even when I do it :). It just means I see a positive side to it - it can be a great motivator for change.
I'm still interested in your ideas, but whenever.
So I'll just sketch out some ideas.
I don't have "an ideal" society in mind, but a number of remedies that can be tried, depending on how far one wants to revise society.
The first attempt would simply be to redistribute the money currently whirling around in a speculative hurricane at the top, and reduce the role of debt in the economy. One could institute some form of wealth tax or financial xfer tax, raise minimum wages across the board, and require much higher capitalization rates of banks (winding up near 50+%). That might help stabilize the flow of money, prevent another financial collapse, and improve the "real economy" which consists of production and consumption.
Moving on, there could be a world-wide trade reform consisting - not of "free trade" (profit uber alles) but of tariffs which would be imposed on any nation's goods that engages in corrupt practices and destablizing behavior- for example, a 5% tariff for adult literacy rates less than 80%, a 5% tariff for legal disparities between men and women, a 5% tariff for governments which do not hold free and fair elections, etc. ... yanno, considering that most corrupt leaders engage in a cluster of bad behaviors, it would add up!
You could eliminate private banks.
However, there is also the problem that economies are TOO intertwined. Efficiency and ruggedness pull in opposite directions- ruggedness requires surplus and redundant systems while efficiency requires streamlining in both time (just in time) and space. National economies should be encouraged to be food, energy, and industry-secure. That way, if there's a large shock (solar flare for example) the pieces can break into parts which continue to operate at a survivable -if lower- level.
Even further, one could simply eliminate corporations as a business form, and require that all businesses be cooperatives, and that all banks be government-owned. I would also think that governments be devolved to the lowest effect (problem-solving) level, and that direct democracy be the political form.
Finally, you could eliminate money (that would be my choice), or allow/encourage the development of many currencies so that no one nation can dominate international finance.
I left out a bunch of ideas, I've listed these many times before and I really don't feel like going thru them... AGAIN.
As I see it, people would continue to work and consume, and the role of profiteers could be reduced or eliminated.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I've always been in favour of governments being able to own resources and utilities. There is no reason why governments shouldn't make a profit and redestribute that as infrastructure spending. That means for resource rich countries that funding for education, healthcare, care of the elderly could be pretty much funded by resource profit and that individual taxpayers would not have to bear such a burden, plus you don't have to rely on user pays systems.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's getting there; signym
How China Became Capitalist
Over the past 35 years, China has embraced capitalism not just in the economy. The Theory of Moral Sentiments has more than a dozen Chinese translations; the book has won the heart and mind of premier Wen Jiabao. The message of Adam Smith resonates strongly with the Chinese, not least because of its striking affinity with the traditional Chinese thinking on economy and society. A surprising outcome of China’s transition to capitalism is that China has found a way back to its own cultural roots.
http://www.cato.org/policy-report/januaryfebruary-2013/how-china-becam
e-capitalist
si shen
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
…..signym
I don't have "an ideal" society in mind, but a number of remedies that can be tried, depending on how far one wants to revise society.
This is one of your remedies or suggestions on how to improve our current form of capitalism.
Quote:
….signym
However, there is also the problem that economies are TOO intertwined. Efficiency and ruggedness pull in opposite directions- ruggedness requires surplus and redundant systems while efficiency requires streamlining in both time (just in time) and space. National economies should be encouraged to be food, energy, and industry-secure. That way, if there's a large shock (solar flare for example) the pieces can break into parts which continue to operate at a survivable -if lower- level.
It’s subjective in tone and little more than confusing bullshit. It is intentionally vague and makes little to no sense. Much of what you suggest in the rest of your response shows no understanding of what happens when governments overextend and try and control the world. Something you accuse this country of doing continuously.
You suggest eliminating public banks and again show your agenda to be one of complete centralized government.
No thanks.
si shen
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I've always been in favour of governments being able to own resources and utilities. There is no reason why governments shouldn't make a profit and redestribute that as infrastructure spending. That means for resource rich countries that funding for education, healthcare, care of the elderly could be pretty much funded by resource profit and that individual taxpayers would not have to bear such a burden, plus you don't have to rely on user pays systems.
You can accomplish the same thing by ending corporate welfare and expanding the tax base once again.
si shen
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME