The leap to socialism?

[msmith198025]

http://thehill.com/dick-morris/obamas-leap-to-socialism-2009-04-21.html

[Skyhi]

I don't know how much more socialism talk I can take......

Right-Wingers: YOU'VE MADE YOUR POINT LOUD AND CLEAR!

[msmith198025]

Apparently not. It is still heading in a direction that many are not comfortable with:)

I honestly have heard very few leftist even admit that there might be SOME merit to this argument, even if it just a little. Most of the time the people that bring it up are paraniod, or that is the dismisal anyway

[HD MM]

This country will never become a Socialist society.

Quit being scared.

:026:

[HDRoberts]

Well, maybe with the government having a say in how these banks are run, tey risky investing that killed the economy won't happen again.

Plus, who is to say the government won't eventually sell the common stock, which is much more valuable now that it can sell a controlling interest.

[msmith198025]

This country will never become a Socialist society.

Quit being scared.

:026:

See what I mean;)

[msmith198025]

Plus, who is to say the government won't eventually sell the common stock, which is much more valuable now that it can sell a controlling interest.

That is possible, but I wont believe it until I see it

[fallout2600]

Dick Morris is wrong. If the feds convert our share to common stock, then the tax payer will get short-changed and lose money, that is NOT socialism at all. That is blunt stealing from the tax payer to prop up broken institutions. Sounds like status-quo to me.

[vurbano]

This country will never become a Socialist society.

Quit being scared.

:026:
You are either blind or do not know what socialism is.

[vurbano]

Dick Morris is wrong. If the feds convert our share to common stock, then the tax payer will get short-changed and lose money, that is NOT socialism at all. That is blunt stealing from the tax payer to prop up broken institutions. Sounds like status-quo to me.when those shares are converted the government will get voting rights on the board. that's what he's afraid of as I am. Enough votes and then the government runs the bank, hence socialism. Obama wants to trade repayment of the loans for permanent control.

[froggigger]

when those shares are converted the government will get voting rights on the board. that's what he's afraid of as I am. Enough votes and then the government runs the bank, hence socialism. Obama wants to trade repayment of the loans for permanent control.

The principal feature of a socialist is the substitution of the government's plan for the plans of individual citizens. Sounds kind of familiar, huh?

[stevenl]

For those that fear socialism so much. Please point me to the bad of it? Please show me which socialist country is any more worse off then we are? Please tell me which one is 11 trillion in debt. (or more realistic number which is almost 100% of GDP in det)

[HDRoberts]

And let's keep in mind that the USSR, North Korea, and Cuba, not to mention others, were/are communist, not socialist.

[froggigger]

And let's keep in mind that the USSR, North Korea, and Cuba, not to mention others, were/are communist, not socialist.

It is a fundamental fallacy that there is a distinction between socialist planning on one side and communism on the other. The two are synonyms. Marx and Engels called their plan the Communist Manifesto while the parties organized for the realization of the plan called themselves socialist parties. Until around 1917, the two words were used indiscriminately.

Even Lenin made clear that his communist party's goal was the realization of socialism. He did, after all, call the new government the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics. One simply can't be opposed to communism and support socialism any more than a person can be opposed to murder but support assassination.

[msmith198025]

Well froggigger, if you don't weed out the bad ones, the argument does not work as well:05:
:)

[HDRoberts]

Definition: communism-a form of socialism that abolishes private ownership

That is the fundamental difference.

[msmith198025]

Definition: communism-a form of socialism that abolishes private ownership

That is the fundamental difference.

That is correct. A form of SOCIALSM
So why are they excluded from being examples?

[fallout2600]

Definition: communism-a form of socialism that abolishes private ownership


With that definition, how would you define the USA's move of nationalizing bank, hence destroying the private ownership of banks?

[msmith198025]

With that definition, how would you define the USA's move of nationalizing bank, hence destroying the private ownership of banks?

Which was in the first post no less

[fallout2600]

we have come full circle in this thread.

[vurbano]

I am amazed at how many do not understand that they are both Socialism.

[HDRoberts]

Having public ownership of a few banks is a LONG way from abolishing private ownership.

[fallout2600]

Hasn't America since the New Deal been a hybrid of socialism and capitalism anyways?

[msmith198025]

Having public ownership of a few banks is a LONG way from abolishing private ownership.
True, but it IS a step. Or is it not?

[Bear Paws]

Definition: communism-a form of socialism that abolishes private ownership

That is the fundamental difference. No.. the fundamentals of Communism is Socialism. When inevitably Socialism fails, through natural progression it has to become Communistic. The burden is so great on the Socialistic society at the moment of failure that the society (community) has to become the "owner" in order for the society to survive from anarchy. IOW "Its too big to fail". I thought you might recognize that.

Socialism eats its young until all that's left is one old bloated society.. The Commune.

[stevenl]

Socialism under a republic or democratic type system has done fine in europe for some time. Its when the dictatorships control things that they cause problems. China being the exemption of the rule though.

I dont know many Socialist nations under a "democratic" type system fighting to change back to capitalism.. I do see a capitalist nation fighting to become socialist though..

[HD MM]

Socialism eats its young until all that's left is one old bloated society.. The Commune.

Old and bloated?! Those hot blond Swedish chicks certainly don't look old and bloated. They look perfectly healthy to me. :)

[vurbano]

Definition: communism-a form of socialism that abolishes private ownership

That is the fundamental difference.
socialism is the first step.

[vurbano]

Socialism under a republic or democratic type system has done fine in europe for some time. Its when the dictatorships control things that they cause problems. China being the exemption of the rule though.

I dont know many Socialist nations under a "democratic" type system fighting to change back to capitalism.. I do see a capitalist nation fighting to become socialist though..

you can't go the other way without a war. You are certainly not going to get a majority of fat freeloaders sucking off the government tit to suddenly vote to get up and work to produce.

[Bear Paws]

Old and bloated?! Those hot blond Swedish chicks certainly don't look old and bloated. They look perfectly healthy to me. :) http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/930696/swedish_girls_more_likely_fat_than_boys/index.html

[Bear Paws]

Socialism under a republic or democratic type system has done fine in europe for some time. Its when the dictatorships control things that they cause problems. China being the exemption of the rule though.

I dont know many Socialist nations under a "democratic" type system fighting to change back to capitalism.. I do see a capitalist nation fighting to become socialist though..
What I don't see is all the Americans rushing to live in Europe. However I do see a lot of Europeans and people from other socialistic style countries like Mexico and Venezuela [if they can escape without getting shot] beating down our doors to get in here. I wonder why is that..

Hint... Productive people wither on the vine in those environments and risk everything to get out.. While the non-productive people find government sanctuary for their idleness. Productive self sufficient and responsible people made our country so great for so many years. THe free capitalist system eliminated starvation and the so called working poor in this country live and eat by far better than the so called mediocre middle class in the socialist countries. Since the 60s (really the 20s) we have progressively discouraged productivity incrementally with our ever expanding socialistic welfare system. Today we don't make anything and are fast approaching Banana republic style statist system. We now punish the producers, achievers and successful and celebrate the idle and underachievers with trophies, applause and financial inducements to do even less. Since failure is no longer a stigma and but rather a incentive, failure has reached the stature to be celebrated. Not only do we now publicly disparage the successful but we punish them by confiscating their effort to the benifit of those that put in minimal effort or even worse don't put in any effort.

That system is self perpetuating and feeds on its own failure. Even if we still are marginally better than the strict Socialist countries and still manage to attract some of the productive from those countries, that is dwindling as we get progressively like them.. In the not too distant future there will be no place to go anymore like the once shining city on the hill that we once where. Incredibly Russia and China may be the America of the 1800s where oppertunity abounded and success was celebrated and to be emulated..

Like I told Jon many moths ago... If I where young and looking for a new life's oppertunity like my parents did when they came here from the socialist country of Hungary for the freedom of unlimited oppertunity I would seriously at least look at Russia or China.

[stevenl]

Why do you mention europe then bring up Mexico and Venezuela? People are not rushing to leave europe.. Vene and Mexico are not where they are becuase of socialism. THey have other problems that are bringing them down.

[Bear Paws]

Why do you mention europe then bring up Mexico and Venezuela? People are not rushing to leave europe.. Vene and Mexico are not where they are becuase of socialism. THey have other problems that are bringing them down.
Have you not noticed that a lot of people you come in contact with speak with a foreign accent and its not only predominantly Spanish? Oh thats right... your kinda isolated in Florida and don't know whats going on in the rest of the USA, let alone the world.

Of course they are.. How do you think socialism got a foot hold. The people voted it in based on shames and lies of Utopia with promises of lollipops and ice cream. The same bullshit early rhetoric you heard during the campaign and still are hearing now from Washington....Your common sense has been blinded by your greed and jealousy of the more successful because you believed the bullshit they where the evil ones. Who are the evil ones in Venezuela now. The same ones that got in power the same way the current weasels in Washington and to some degree the previous ones. Promise of Sunshine and lollipops. Keep hoping. Remember the little old lady that kept hoping she would hit the lottery and how you scoffed at her naivete.

[fallout2600]

Latin America got burned with socialism, Reagan fought throughout the 80's to defeat the socialist regimes there and get free elections for the countries that were suffering under those regimes.

[froggigger]

Definition: communism-a form of socialism that abolishes private ownership

That is the fundamental difference.

It is an insignificant difference. Private ownership means little if the private property rights do not come with the deal. What good is it to own property if government tells you what you can and can't do with it? The entire concept of rights only make sense as property rights, and having no property rights means you have no rights at all.

[HDRoberts]

It is an insignificant difference. Private ownership means little if the private property rights do not come with the deal. What good is it to own property if government tells you what you can and can't do with it? The entire concept of rights only make sense as property rights, and having no property rights means you have no rights at all.

I'm pretty sure the Swedes and the French have some reasonable property rights.

The fact is Europe is flush with immigration. Not much from the US, as we are attached to our families and language, but plenty of people prefer it in "socialist" Europe.

[msmith198025]

I'm pretty sure the Swedes and the French have some reasonable property rights.

The fact is Europe is flush with immigration. Not much from the US, as we are attached to our families and language, but plenty of people prefer it in "socialist" Europe.

The fact is that america is flush with immigration as well.

The reason as to why americans are not moving to europe could be that they prefer the system we have in place as much as anything else

[froggigger]

I'm pretty sure the Swedes and the French have some reasonable property rights.

The fact is Europe is flush with immigration. Not much from the US, as we are attached to our families and language, but plenty of people prefer it in "socialist" Europe.

Sweden and France still realize that they need capitalism to fund the socialism.

"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." - Margaret Thatcher

[froggigger]

The fact is that america is flush with immigration as well.

The reason as to why americans are not moving to europe could be that they prefer the system we have in place as much as anything else

I bet a lot of the people moving to Europe would come here instead if they could figure out a cheap way to cross the big pond.

[fallout2600]

Sweden and France still realize that they need capitalism to fund the socialism.

"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." - Margaret Thatcher

Exactly, govts can't create money, they can only confiscate it through taxation. Without some form of capitalism in play, there would be no entitlements.

To me, America since the New Deal has become the hybrid, its many entitlement programs warrant the title of socialism, but our competitiveness still allows capitalism to prosper.

[Bear Paws]

Having public ownership of a few banks is a LONG way from abolishing private ownership.


True, but it IS a step. Or is it not? Lets start with this simple premise. THere is no such thing as a little bit of Socialism.. There is only the beginning of Socialism. The end, if allowed to grow as it only naturally has to in order for Socialism to survive, is Communism. It then controlles the means of production and the capital. (more on that later)

Conversely, Capitalism either is or isn't. Once the beginning of socialism is introduced into the Capitalistic system socialism eats capitalism in steps (incrementalism) in order to survive. Like Fallout and Frogger have said. Socialism needs the funding of Capitalism to grow but at the ever detriment to free market capitalism. Until Socialism collapses from lack of capitalism. Then it needs to be Communistic.

That is not theory. All one needs to do is look at our country and the exponential growth of Socialist programs since their introductions and inceptions. I'm certain I don't need to list them. Being bureaucratic out of necessity and confiscatory in practice, the result is always the same. Bigger more intrusive and onerous government. Until the Government becomes the owner.
The US government now owns 500 banks in some controlling capacity, as well as major insurance companies and manufactures like GM GE on and on.
Every entitlement program and those ownerships started with a "little bit of Socialism" that wasn't "too" bad.

Will the USA become Communistic? Maybe Marxist or at least Engelist at this rate.

[msmith198025]

We have had a litte bit of socialism for years, and there has traditionally been a happy medium that worked, or could work.

Middle ground is ok, we are past that however, and I really see no way to go back.

[froggigger]

We have had a litte bit of socialism for years, and there has traditionally been a happy medium that worked, or could work.

Middle ground is ok, we are past that however, and I really see no way to go back.

I have to disagree. We may have started with a little bit of socialism but it increases every year. The happy medium was simply capitalism still being the largest part and thus able to sustain the socialist part. The roles are reversing and it's nothing but a downhill ride now, picking up speed as we go. Like Bear said, "There is no such thing as a little bit of Socialism.. There is only the beginning of Socialism." That's driving the nail with one hammer swing.

[msmith198025]

I have to disagree. We may have started with a little bit of socialism but it increases every year. The happy medium was simply capitalism still being the largest part and thus able to sustain the socialist part. The roles are reversing and it's nothing but a downhill ride now, picking up speed as we go. Like Bear said, "There is no such thing as a little bit of Socialism.. There is only the beginning of Socialism." That's driving the nail with one hammer swing.

That is basically what I meant, if it wasnt as clear as I intended.

Bear seemed to say that there is either one or the other. Or so I saw it.

I may have misunderstood

[fallout2600]

I think we are further down the road than Frog and Bear thinks we are.

[msmith198025]

I think we are further down the road than Frog and Bear thinks we are.
I agree, and that is what I said.

I simply think we have gone past the "happy medium", well before the past the first 100 days. They have just rushed us along faster than we have been used to

[Bear Paws]

That is basically what I meant, if it wasnt as clear as I intended.

Bear seemed to say that there is either one or the other. Or so I saw it.

I may have misunderstood Exactly what I said. Once Socialism Begins, that is the end of Capitalism. It is no more. There is no hybrid of the two.. It can not co-exist in the same place at the same time.. How much socialism incrementally grows further is the only question. I akin it to being a little pregnant. Like I said... Capitalism is or isn't.

We are quite socialist and true free market capitalism does not exist..only it's what is still useful tattered fringe remnants more accurately called corporatism to fund socialism's march...

Oh I think, and Frooger may concur, we are a lot further down the road than most in this country believe or are willing to admit.. After all... that would be admitting a capitulation and selling out to the welfare state. . Just in my adult lifetime compared to the 50s to today I see a huge shift.. In those days it already had a foot hold but nowhere near as omnipresent and intrusive as today. My dad kept warning about it. He was born 1906.. He left a socialist country when this still appeared to be a free country or at least less socialist and yet feared it would get worse here. His fears have been borne out..

[froggigger]

Exactly what I said. Once Socialism Begins, that is the end of Capitalism. It is no more. There is no hybrid of the two.. It can not co-exist in the same place at the same time.. How much socialism incrementally grows further is the only question. I akin it to being a little pregnant. Like I said... Capitalism is or isn't.

We are quite socialist and true free market capitalism does not exist..only it's what is still useful tattered fringe remnants more accurately called corporatism to fund socialism's march...

Oh I think, and Frooger may concur, we are a lot further down the road than most in this country believe or are willing to admit.. After all... that would be admitting a capitulation and selling out to the welfare state. . Just in my adult lifetime compared to the 50s to today I see a huge shift.. In those days it already had a foot hold but nowhere near as omnipresent and intrusive as today. My dad kept warning about it. He was born 1906.. He left a socialist country when this still appeared to be a free country or at least less socialist and yet feared it would get worse here. His fears have been borne out..

I definitely agree. The people that can't see how far down the road we are are the ones that stick their heads in the sand. Like you said, once socialism enters the picture, capitalism is no longer capitalism. Unfortunately, capitalism is blamed for socialism's failures and most people are too economically ignorant to see the truth or take the time to find the truth. Just the way government likes it.

[fallout2600]

I totally agree Bear and Frog, the New Deal killed capitalism and I agree with the notion that we haven't had a free market economic system in a long time. So when people blame capitalism, they are blaming something that doesn't exist.

What I find interesting is that America was primarily an isolationist nation prior to WWI. We were the largest producing nation in the world and capitalism was driving the country. Then the two world wars happened and the govt's foreign policy turned to global interventionism and the New Deal planted the seeds of socialism. Its interesting that a direct consequence of foreign interventionism implies domestic interventionism. Its as though the govt can't multi-task, so yes, I think Bear is correct, there can be no hybrid in a truly capitalist society. Its either capitalism or none.

[HDRoberts]

OK, care to name one example where public ownership of a few corporations directly lead to communism? The Eastern Bloc was by revolution and taking the spoils of war. China, Cuba, North Korea, and North Vietnam were by rebellion.

And if there is no socialism mixed with capitalism, care to name one truly capitalist country?

I loved the cartoon from last week, and it seems appropriate to my last question
http://www.caglecartoons.com/images/preview/%7Be6a31e70-7fd2-4cd9-89e1-cac324da78c9%7D.gif

[fallout2600]

And if there is no socialism mixed with capitalism, care to name one truly capitalist country?


USA prior to WWI. That's what set us apart and that's what made us the biggest producer of goods prior to WWI. Shortly after WWI, socialist revolutions began around the world. Today, there are no truly capitalist countries. None.

[HDRoberts]

USA prior to WWI. That's what set us apart and that's what made us the biggest producer of goods prior to WWI. Shortly after WWI, socialist revolutions began around the world. Today, there are no truly capitalist countries. None.

If that is the case, how do we we know capitalism is the way in the modern economy?

Things weren't all that great before WWI. They called it the "Guilded Age" as things appeared great if you are rich, but underneath it all, things were desperately bad.

That was followed by the administrations of T. Roosevelt and Taft. The former had to bust up giant monopolies strangling the public, while the latter bought us the 16th Amendment and those "evil" income taxes.

And the interests of capitalism and free trade, it what makes us no longer the biggest producer of goods.

[fallout2600]

If that is the case, how do we we know capitalism is the way in the modern economy?

Things weren't all that great before WWI. They called it the "Guilded Age" as things appeared great if you are rich, but underneath it all, things were desperately bad.

That was followed by the administrations of T. Roosevelt and Taft. The former had to bust up giant monopolies strangling the public, while the latter bought us the 16th Amendment and those "evil" income taxes.

And the interests of capitalism and free trade, it what makes us no longer the biggest producer of goods.

I'm not advocating that a pure truly capitalist system is the way. I'm simply saying that pure true capitalism died shortly after WWI when social revolutions began to seed and grow.

Concerning your Guilded Age comment, name me one period in American History where there hasn't been wealth envy by the working class.

[stevenl]

USA prior to WWI. That's what set us apart and that's what made us the biggest producer of goods prior to WWI. Shortly after WWI, socialist revolutions began around the world. Today, there are no truly capitalist countries. None.

First off we produced more and grew larger and faster after WW2 and the 'deal deal' then prior to WW1....

Also Hong Kong is a truly capitalist.

[Bear Paws]

I definitely agree. The people that can't see how far down the road we are are the ones that stick their heads in the sand. Like you said, once socialism enters the picture, capitalism is no longer capitalism. Unfortunately, capitalism is blamed for socialism's failures and most people are too economically ignorant to see the truth or take the time to find the truth. Just the way government likes it.


I'm not advocating that a pure truly capitalist system is the way. I'm simply saying that pure true capitalism died shortly after WWI when social revolutions began to seed and grow.

Concerning your Guilded Age comment, name me one period in American History where there hasn't been wealth envy by the working class.

And there in lies the problem...The every increasing vilification of capitalism to further the socialist agenda by blaming capitalism for socialism's failure. I can't stress this too much.. The ultimate end game of success of socialism is not capitalism, its Communism.

HDRoberts; You may not understand the cause and effect of the Bolshevik Revolution if that is what you where referring to..
One of the many effects was when they killed the evil farmers there was no one that knew how to farm the land the revolutionaries took from them. Just as the the Leninists killed the business class bakers, cobblers, and tailors there was no one that could bake bread or mend a shirt or fix a shoe.

That revolution was quick decisive and violent. The Communists learned a important and difficult lesson from that. It almost cost them their very society, country and lives even though they where victorious in the take over. The USSR never recovered from that revolution and for all intents became a poor third class living standard country even though prior to 1917 they where one of the most prosperous and richest nations on earth. As here today,the poorest there lived better than the wealthy in most countries before the Revolution... The lessons
they learned the hard way is you take over incrementally, infiltrating governments and schools and changing policy. That has been going on in this country since before the 20s.
http://www.google.com/archivesearch?scoring=t&um=1&lnav=ent4&sa=N&q=communist+party+of+america

You have heard the word "pragmatist" bandied about quite a lot lately. Its a code word used in a benign sounding fashion for those in understanding to signal the movement.. Then of course ignorantly repeated and disseminated by the lemmings of cult worship...

The Communists have had a number of advantages in the penetration of schools and colleges. Outstanding among these is the philosophy of pragmatism, as enunciated by Dr. John Dewey, which dominated the educational process who was a leading representative of the progressive movement in U.S. schooling during the first half of the 20th century.. Pragmatism is not a Communist philosophy, but it serves as a convenient cover under which the Reds may operate and also under which they may win many allies in the educational field.

The philosophy of pragmatism rejects the supernatural and declares there is no absolute good or absolute truth, and that morality is growth and growth is morality. The Communists believe that there is an absolute truth, Marxism-Leninism.

Now to tie it together.. There are Socialists and there are Communists. In their basic philosophy they are inseparable. The problem is that the Progressive Socialists don't understand the end game and are being led by the nose toward the ultimate end with the chum of the benevolent government engendered social welfare system . Generation by generation. Very insidiously intentionally and patiently.

Some of us for any number of reasons of study can look back on history and see the progression. I have an advantage over most historians. I studied them for years from within the beast's belly, often at the highest levels, looking outward, all the while knowing what our system was really like and not what they said it was like..

[fallout2600]

Also Hong Kong is a truly capitalist.

Wrong, the govt owns all the land in Hong Kong, that's not capitalism if the citizens have no property rights.

[stevenl]

Hong Kong is ranked THE freeest in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom_historical_rankings

[HDRoberts]

Fascinating rankings, Steven. Interesting many countries that people here consider "socialist" lie high on the list. Ireland and Australia rank above the US! New Zealand, Canada, Switzerland, The UK, Denmark, The Netherlands, et. al all rank pretty high.

The last few posts have made it clear that, in your definitions, you cannot point to a single successful capitalist society, because one hasn't existed for 80+ years (and even then, it had problems). All you have is economic theory. Yet we can point to several European countries where, despite high taxes, people are happier than we are in the US.

[fallout2600]

Hong Kong is ranked THE freeest in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom_historical_rankings

While that is true, the citizen cannot own property, all property is owned by the govt. True blooded capitalism allows the private citizen to own property rights. So while, they may have have freest economy, its NOT true capitalism by definition.


The most obvious starting place is the fact that the government owns all the land. To state the obvious, land nationalisation is hardly capitalistic. It is one of the reasons why its direct taxation levels are so low. As one resident points out:
"The main explanation for low tax rates . . . is not low social spending. One important factor is that Hong Kong does not have to support a defence industry . . . The most crucial explanation . . . lies in the fact that less than half of the government's revenues comes from direct taxation. "The Hong Kong government actually derives much of its revenue from land transactions. The territory's land is technically owned by the government, and the government fills its coffers by selling fifty-year leases to developers (the fact that there are no absolute private property rights to land will come as another surprise t boosters of 'Hong Kong-style' libertarianism) . . . The government has an interest in maintaining high property values . . . if it is to maintain its policy of low taxation. It does this by carefully controlling the amount of land that is released for sale . . . It is, of course, those buying new homes and renting from the private sector who pay the price for this policy. Many Hong Kongers live in third world conditions, and the need to pay astronomical residential property prices is widely viewed as an indirect form of taxation." [Daniel A. Bell, "Hong Kong's Transition to Capitalism", pp. 15-23, Dissent, Winter 1998, pp. 15-6]
The ownership of land and the state's role as landlord partly explains the low apparent ratio of state spending to GDP. If the cost of the subsidised housing land were accounted for at market prices in the government budget, the ratio would be significantly higher. As noted, Hong Kong had no need to pay for defence as this cost was borne by the UK taxpayer. Include these government-provided services at their market prices and the famously low share of government spending in GDP climbs sharply.


This means that the Hong Kong system of "laissez-faire" is marked by the state having close ties with the major banks and trading companies, which, in turn, are closely linked to the life-time expatriates who largely run the government. This provides a "point of concentration" to conduct negotiations in line with an implicit development strategy. Therefore it is pretty clear that Hong Kong does not really show the benefits of "free market" capitalism. Wade indicates that we can consider Hong Kong as a "special case or as a less successful variant of the authoritarian-capitalist state." [Op. Cit., p. 333]

[Bear Paws]

Fascinating rankings, Steven. Interesting many countries that people here consider "socialist" lie high on the list. Ireland and Australia rank above the US! New Zealand, Canada, Switzerland, The UK, Denmark, The Netherlands, et. al all rank pretty high.

The last few posts have made it clear that, in your definitions, you cannot point to a single successful capitalist society, because one hasn't existed for 80+ years (and even then, it had problems). All you have is economic theory. Yet we can point to several European countries where, despite high taxes, people are happier than we are in the US. Problems?? You have been taught the revisionist form of history written by those that would disparage capitalism for the sake of socialism.

A couple things about happiness. One, happiness is relative to the unknown and two, it is subjective to innocence. Again... people are not beating down the doors to go to the low water mark of Europe to live. Rather they are beating down our doors to for greater oppertunity than exists there.

Happier??.Than What??? ..I don't know how you measure that as a comparative to us. If you are unhappy here... I again suggest going over there and living amongst the natives as a native. Then you would have a relitive yard stick to measure life over there by.. You said you would if you had the money to take with you.... Well that's not how they live there and it would not be a honest measure. You might find out rather quickly the dead grass was painted.

[froggigger]

If that is the case, how do we we know capitalism is the way in the modern economy?

Things weren't all that great before WWI. They called it the "Guilded Age" as things appeared great if you are rich, but underneath it all, things were desperately bad.

That was followed by the administrations of T. Roosevelt and Taft. The former had to bust up giant monopolies strangling the public, while the latter bought us the 16th Amendment and those "evil" income taxes.

And the interests of capitalism and free trade, it what makes us no longer the biggest producer of goods.

The 100 years before WWI saw the world's wealth increase more than all preceding time. Business controlled the money, credit, and banking by laws of their own. That alone limited government's scope. The government could not create fiat money because it had to compete with sound money. When they tried, it was a miserable failure. They also could not manipulate money and credit. Private bankers did a better job because they had to keep their bank solvent. If a depositor wanted his money, the bank darn well better be able to hand it over. Sure he could create credit money but he couldn't pay off any depositors with it. That's just one example of why the free market is very capable of self-regulating.

You are correct that living conditions were dismal for most in the 1800's. The part of the story that is never told is that the people were already living in nearly sub-human conditions before capitalistic industries made an impact. One statistic refutes the so-called unspeakable horrors of early capitalism. The Industrial Revolution in England, around 1760-1830, had a population that doubled. People that would have died in preceding times lived longer and were productive. Capitalism improved their lot in life.

So can laissez-faire work in modern times? Hong Kong is not 100% laissez-faire but it came closer than any other country in history immediately after WWII. There was no minimum wage, low taxes that were simple, no tariffs, no capital controls, and the legal environment was stable. Public spending ranged from 13%-19%. There was no public debt and the government ran a surplus in 32 years between 1948-1985. Honk Kong was definitely a free market, limited government society.

When WWII ended, per capita income was $180. In 1982, it was $6000. The lowest 20% of households had $1300 per capita income by 1976. Unemployment was below 3%. GDP grew 7% per year from 1948-1960, 9% from 1961-1980, and 7.6% from 1979-1984. The 7.6% figure is especially stunning considering the world was in a recession at the time. All this with no foreign aid. Economic development benefited just about all the citizens of Hong Kong. Even the poorest of the poor had their living standards increase.

That's the power of freedom.

[fallout2600]

Great post frog, and as you said, that's the power of a self-regulating, minimal govt intervention market.

Except, what is your thought on the fact that the Hong Kong govt owns all the land and the citizens have no property rights? Has it worked in the favor of the people? Or has the true potential of their success not been realized?

[HDRoberts]

The 100 years before WWI saw the world's wealth increase more than all preceding time. Business controlled the money, credit, and banking by laws of their own. That alone limited government's scope. The government could not create fiat money because it had to compete with sound money. When they tried, it was a miserable failure. They also could not manipulate money and credit. Private bankers did a better job because they had to keep their bank solvent. If a depositor wanted his money, the bank darn well better be able to hand it over. Sure he could create credit money but he couldn't pay off any depositors with it. That's just one example of why the free market is very capable of self-regulating.

You are correct that living conditions were dismal for most in the 1800's. The part of the story that is never told is that the people were already living in nearly sub-human conditions before capitalistic industries made an impact. One statistic refutes the so-called unspeakable horrors of early capitalism. The Industrial Revolution in England, around 1760-1830, had a population that doubled. People that would have died in preceding times lived longer and were productive. Capitalism improved their lot in life.

So can laissez-faire work in modern times? Hong Kong is not 100% laissez-faire but it came closer than any other country in history immediately after WWII. There was no minimum wage, low taxes that were simple, no tariffs, no capital controls, and the legal environment was stable. Public spending ranged from 13%-19%. There was no public debt and the government ran a surplus in 32 years between 1948-1985. Honk Kong was definitely a free market, limited government society.

When WWII ended, per capita income was $180. In 1982, it was $6000. The lowest 20% of households had $1300 per capita income by 1976. Unemployment was below 3%. GDP grew 7% per year from 1948-1960, 9% from 1961-1980, and 7.6% from 1979-1984. The 7.6% figure is especially stunning considering the world was in a recession at the time. All this with no foreign aid. Economic development benefited just about all the citizens of Hong Kong. Even the poorest of the poor had their living standards increase.

That's the power of freedom.

Honestly? The time period from 1814-1914 was the best this country had to offer? Yeah, the great free market bought slavery to an entire race of people in the US (as my African American studies prof said, slavery was economic, not racial). Greedy Americans marched west, empowered by the Indian Removal Act to get natives to leave their land. After the Civil War came, and reconstruction, the Guilded Age I spoke about before came in, with robber-barons and the rich practically enslaving the poor. Think conditions improved? Try visiting a turn of the century meat packing plant. Next time your in New York, visit the Tenement Museum. It was an era of so much corruption, it bought the, get this, Progressive Era (that evil word) with new regulations to combat the non-existent "self regulation" of all the new industry cropping up. But since you include the progressive era in the good times, maybe you realize that a fully free market does not work.

I would also like to point out that expanding populations was not necessarily a sign of improving conditions. It was a sign of improving medical science. Just about any other improvements in their lives resulted from technological changes. And improvements are relative: double nothing is still nothing.

So I guess you found a solution. Hong Kong. I guess we should all give our land to the government! That is the capitalist way!

[froggigger]

Honestly? The time period from 1814-1914 was the best this country had to offer?

There you go playing wife again. Not going by what I say, but going by what you thought I meant by what I said. I said "The 100 years before WWI saw the world's wealth increase more than all preceding time". That's a far cry from "the best this country had to offer". It doesn't help your argument when you have to make stuff up.


Yeah, the great free market bought slavery to an entire race of people in the US (as my African American studies prof said, slavery was economic, not racial).

Congratulations. Your professor has succeeded in giving you only one side of the story, ie. the blame America first side. Nothing like having half an education. No one will argue that slavery was anything but economic, or that is was not horrible. What's not told is that slavery can only survive when it's propped up by institutional protections. Free labor is a lot more productive than slave labor. It was not moralizing or altruism that ended slavery, it was competition from free labor as capitalism grew in the Western world. Slavery still exists to this day, but not here. Hmmm, I wonder which countries still have slavery and what type of government they have.



Greedy Americans marched west, empowered by the Indian Removal Act to get natives to leave their land. After the Civil War came, and reconstruction, the Guilded Age I spoke about before came in, with robber-barons and the rich practically enslaving the poor. Think conditions improved? Try visiting a turn of the century meat packing plant. Next time your in New York, visit the Tenement Museum. It was an era of so much corruption, it bought the, get this, Progressive Era (that evil word) with new regulations to combat the non-existent "self regulation" of all the new industry cropping up. But since you include the progressive era in the good times, maybe you realize that a fully free market does not work.

The same professor must have taught you this, too. More one-sided history. Do you have any idea where thinking like yours began? Where the myth got its roots? Why capitalism has been so furiously attacked? I bet you think the people who lived under capitalism were the originators. It was actually the aristocracy, the wealthy, the nobility. You know, the rich folks that you have such a problem with today. Capitalism was blamed because it made things more difficult for them. The higher wages paid by industry forced equally higher wages to the agricultural workers so the aristocracy attacked the industries by criticizing the standard of living of the masses of workers. That ignores the fact that no one was forced to work in the factories. As bad as some early industry was, working there was still better than what they had. People went into industry because it paid higher wages and raised their standard of living to an unprecedented degree. Certainly compared to today the conditions were terrible but capitalism made conditions better over time.


I would also like to point out that expanding populations was not necessarily a sign of improving conditions. It was a sign of improving medical science. Just about any other improvements in their lives resulted from technological changes. And improvements are relative: double nothing is still nothing.

Improving medical science is not a sign of improving conditions?? A bit of a contradiction there don't you think? What were the conditions that allowed innovators to improve medicine science? Take off your blinders and look at the whole picture. It's a one-word answer but you'll likely never see it, or believe it.


So I guess you found a solution. Hong Kong. I guess we should all give our land to the government! That is the capitalist way!

I didn't say it was perfect. I said it was the closest that any country has ever come to laissez-faire. What's telling is that you have yet to explain their prosperity under mostly free market conditions. Anyone can see it works, but you say it can't work. So do you expect us to believe what you say, or do we believe what's before our eyes?