capitalism, by definition, is a stupid and foolish human system
POSTED BY: 1kiki
UPDATED: Monday, January 13, 2025 18:50
VIEWED: 28147
PAGE 20 of 28
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
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.
Quote:
....1kiki
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.
Because it is a distraction from the point and wants to suggest that we should think more like the Chinese and or India because they are becoming more successful and or have better philosophies. Ignoring the fact that they are climbing out of the gutter by riding on our backs, along with Europe. They are doing well because much of our economy (jobs)shifted to those countries. (cheep labor)
When Thomas Freedman asked some India officials what is the United States supposed to do with all it's jobs migrating to India? They responded by saying the United States should do what it always does. Create the jobs of the future.
si shen
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
T
I have a three-fold problem with the article you linked.
- One is that they don't actually talk about standard of living for the country as a whole. Metrics that are impossible to move unless you make improvements for the vast majority of the population are lifespan, female lifespan, literacy, vaccination rates, and infant mortality. If one has genuinely improved the lives of the masses, these figures move in a good direction. If one hasn't, no other metric can substitute as an indicator. (Due to the nature of arithmetic averages and the item being measured, it's possible to raise an average GDP by making one person astronomically wealthy while everyone else starves by 30; you can't raise average lifespan by making one person astronomically old.)
- Another is that they don't provide a definition of what they consider capitalism. Without that definition it's hard to reconcile the fact that the government entirely owns the vital energy, basic manufacturing, healthcare and financial sectors with the description 'capitalist'.
- The other is that (like you) they provide no facts or figures to demonstrate a time-line or indicate magnitudes. Without facts, it's impossible to evaluate their claims as anything other than fantasy.
As for your earlier contention that both the Chinese and Indians improved their standard of living as a result of capitalism, you've failed to make the links on any of your claims.
You referenced a paper that failed to demonstrate either your claims or even its OWN conclusions, you didn't demonstrate that India improved its standard of living for the masses or how capitalism can be linked to it, and you haven't explained why the people of one country are vastly better off than the people of another.
What you did was to take an 'authority' and post their paper without any real understanding of what was in it, or ability to logically examine the topic.
And FINALLY, and most importantly, you've failed entirely to address the topic of this thread - the shortcomings of capitalism as an economy and as value system.
Until you can address these issues I won't be discussing this with you further.
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
G
Your argument is limited. Saying 'that's how it works!' doesn't take into account the past where things didn't work this way, the present where there are places they don't work this way, or the future where people will do things differently.
Try thinking about this society - I dunno - AS IF IT WAS A SCIENCE FICTION STORY you weren't enmeshed in and vested in - and considering how it might change.
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:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Try thinking about this society - I dunno - AS IF IT WAS A SCIENCE FICTION STORY you weren't enmeshed in and vested in - and considering how it might change.
Gillian: Don't tell me, you don't use money in the 23rd Century.
Kirk: Well, we don't.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
ALLL riiiight!
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:
I agree about unsticking that glut of invested wealth, but I have objected to the idea of a wealth tax. It may have to happen at some point, but I would prefer a way to make the rich voluntarily redistribute their wealth.
Too funny. You made me spit out my morning coffee.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
….1kiki
I have a three-fold problem with the article you linked.
That is because you do not understand the point of the article and why I chose to post it as a response to signym. No surprise there.
Quote:
…..signym
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,
Is it capitalist economy?
Meaning China
Quote:
….1kiki
- One is that they don't actually talk about standard of living for the country as a whole. Metrics that are impossible to move unless you make improvements for the vast majority of the population are lifespan, female lifespan, literacy, vaccination rates, and infant mortality.
This is not relevant to the point I was addressing with the article. This is what you do. Spin things off.
Quote:
…..1kiki
- Another is that they don't provide a definition of what they consider capitalism. Without that definition it's hard to reconcile the fact that the government entirely owns the vital energy, basic manufacturing, healthcare and financial sectors with the description 'capitalist'.
Perhaps they figured you had some understanding of what capitalism means because most people do. If you don’t understand how China is weaving capitalism into its finical system that is sad because it has been explained in many venues for more than a decade. If you don’t understand how India’s economy has benefited in recent years through capitalistic pursuits that too indicates a staggering ignorance of the subject.
Quote:
…..1kiki
You referenced a paper that failed to demonstrate either your claims or even its OWN conclusions, you didn't demonstrate that India improved its standard of living for the masses or how capitalism can be linked to it, and you haven't explained why the people of one country are vastly better off than the people of another.
This article is from the Cato Institute. That you would suggest they failed to make proper arguments to support their own conclusions has me rolling on the floor in laughter.
Let’s get right to it shall we;
The article I referenced was in response to signym suggesting China had not adopted capitalism and has absolutely nothing to do with the questions you have posted about it. Nothing, but hey, that’s what you do, is it not?
“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
Quote:
…1kiki
And FINALLY, and most importantly, you've failed entirely to address the topic of this thread - the shortcomings of capitalism as an economy and as value system.
This thread was a bitch fest and attack against capitalism by some who live in a fantasy world. Who say things like we need to do away with all private banks and give complete control to the government.
"At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results, and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished, asked him directly: "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" "A republic if you can keep it" responded Franklin."
So you are right, I did not join in but instead have shown you and others to be completely unsophisticated in your understanding of what system we want, which system history shows works best, and what system history shows doesn’t work well at all.
Most im
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, you have nothing to contribute to the topic.
I have to say, you yourself don't seem to understand the article. The title was "How China Became Capitalist". Not, how it may be weaving some parts of capitalism into small areas of its economy ... nope, it called China capitalist. Is it?
According to a decision issued on Friday by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC), non-state-owned capital will be allowed to take equity stakes in projects featuring investment by state-owned capital, and employees of multi-ownership enterprises will be able to hold shares in their companies.
The country will vigorously develop mixed ownership to improve the basic economic system while keeping the dominant role of public ownership, with the state-owned economy playing a leading role, while encouraging, supporting and guiding the non-public sector, enhancing its vitality and creativity, according to the decision.
http://english.cri.cn/6826/2013/11/15/3441s798833.htm
Ownership of Land in China
China applies a system of public ownership to all land. As a general rule, land in urban areas is owned by the State and land in rural areas is owned by 'collectives' (rural collective economic organisations) and can only be used for agricultural purposes.
http://www.mondaq.com/x/89998/agriculture+land+law/Ownership+Of+Land+I
n+China
Against widespread expectations of a more market-oriented economy in the wake of China’s state sector restructuring in the late 1990s and the country’s accession to the World Trade Organisation in 2001, during the last decade SOEs have not only remained on the economic stage but have been recapitalised and consolidated. They have become the largest companies not only in China but also internationally.
http://www.thechinastory.org/2013/07/contesting-state-ownership/
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
Apparently nothing you are capable of understanding. But that's not a surprise.
“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.
But today, with the benefit of hindsight, we know that the economic forces that were really transforming the Chinese economy in the first decade of reform were private farming, township and village enterprises, private business in cities, and the Special Economic Zones. None of them was initiated from Beijing. They were marginal players operating outside the boundary of socialism".
Time for the next minion.
si shen
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And meanwhile, to understand the role of capitalism in improving life FOR THE MASSES you'll note here that the greatest gains in life expectancy in China - for women from 45 to 63, and for men from 44 to 64 - came between the years 1950 and 1972. http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/china/life-expectancy-at-birth
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