In Reply to: Beware those promising Utopia posted by Capitan Freedom on July 25, 1996 at 23:25:47:
Beware those promoting capitalism!Who's promising Utopia?
> Quite correctly, a reader has observed that free market economies do not prosper out of thin air. The most accurate and simple answer is that they prosper due to hard work. But how can this be? Surely laborers in India work much harder than in the US or England.
I couldn't have said it better myself
>The answer lies in the system of government which both country has selected. India has a quasi-socialist, nationalist government which, at least while I lived there, relied heavily on central planning and extremely heavy (100% to 200% or more) import tariffs to encourage economic self sufficiency.
Countries don't 'choose' systems of government, systems of government evolve out of specific sets of circumstances, The government in India, to use your example evolved out of a harsh colonial rule which stripped the country bare to build a prosperous empire for england, they are hardly poor because of there system of government (which I wouldn't defend anyway) they are poor, because they industrialised too late, and were screwed over by empire builders and are still being kept poor by the richer nations of the world.
>Now, one of the primary goals of any organization is the reduction and elimination of redundancy in order to more efficiently allocate resources. A centrally planned economy takes on a similar goal, as it should theoretically, with the result being a series of monopolies established to meet the country's needs. Clearly, whoever is granted the monopoly stands to do very well for themselves. Politics, money, and human nature quickly become the dominant factors in awarding the monopolies and "the greater good of the citizens" instantly becomes a slogan and nothing more.
Are you agreeing with me here? ;-)
>So in the end, in the absence of competition, state controlled monopolies produce garbage - sandy soap, obsolete cars and trucks, 1950's era television sets - and the average annual income hovers around US$300 to US$500.
You seem to be saying, that because The Russian/Chinese Totalitarian state produced poor quality goods, centralism does not work - well, I agree, centralism does not work, but for different reasons, centralism does not work because it curtails the freedom of the people, anyone can produce crap goods if they try to do too much too quickly with too few resources.
And Russia produced crap consumer items because they tried to industrialise too fast, they came from what was pretty much a huge peasant nation to an industrialised economy - trying to produce all the consumer items of the west and build a high consumption economy (higher standard of living) in a fraction of the time it took other the western nations.
> Free market competition, on the other hand, leads to more jobs (provided no monopolies are allowed to develop)
And naturally they do, and only state intervention stops this.
>and higher wages. For example, we don't NEED 37 different brands and varieties of breakfast cereals, but if people actually buy enough of those 37 brands to keep them in business, then everyone wins.
Everyone? what about the devastating effect all this wasted effort has on the environment?
>The result is 37 different accounting departments, 37 different packaging departments, and 37 different factory floors with 37 different sets of factory workers.
and 37 times more inefficiency!
>Seemingly redundant, seemingly inefficient,
Seemingly?
>but in reality, a diverse industry focused on meeting customer demands
Consumer demands or advertising propaganda, russia never had so many people watching so much propaganda (and no I'm not defending russia here dumm ass)
>and earning some level of profit on investment. Each brand linked by an invisible hand to the other in establishing pricing. Kellogg, for example, was recently forced to cut prices across the board due to soaring competition from store brands and falling market share.
Yes, we all know how capitalism operates
>So this is not idle theory - this is actually the way it works. My experience in the American economy has so far given me no reason to think otherwise.
So what?
> As for the idea that the west/north profits by exploiting the east/south, a closer investigation effectively discredits such a notion. How do we explain the Japanese economy? Or South Korea, Thailand, Singapore, Taiwan?
Using the term 'south' is only a generalisation you prat, of course I'm not implying that everyone south of the equator is poor, just generally most of the poor nations are in the south, and most of the rich are in the north.
>Certainly western aid has helped them at different points in the past,
Did you know that for every $1 given in aid to 'the third world' $3 is taken back in debt repayments!
>but countries such as Pakistan and Liberia have received more foreign aid per capita in the last 40 years than all of the above but have essentially nothing to show for it. The answer again, is in the system of government, or lack thereof.
Yes, their corrupt governments are giving it all back to our corrupt governments to buy arms, this still does not make capitalism work!
> The idea that the west is somehow responsible for the general malaise of underdeveloped countries has some merit, however, due to the fact that Karl Marx and Jean Paul Sartre were both westerners.Oh my god I cant believe that you really think that countries are underdeveloped because of a middle class intellectual - get a sense of history man, these countries are underdeveloped because they never developed in the first place, and the US, UK etc have a vested interest in keeping it that way so they can continue to get dirt cheap labour.
>Western philosophical exports to Asia and Africa in the post world war 2 decades is the primary explanation for economic stagnation and human rights abuse during that period of time.
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha, why am I even bothering to reply to this drivel.
> So on that note, I would like to proffer my proposed Seven Pillars of Capitalism:
Oh, I cant wait....
> Freedom of the press
Hmmm Likely, the press is run by the stinking rich who have a vested interest in the status quo.
> Freedom of speech
as long as you don't speak out against the status quo too strongly, or they'll bomb your homes (MOVE anniversary anyone?)
> Freedom of religion
If your into that kind of thing (but I see Islam gets quite a bashing from the state lackeys)
> An impartial and honest judicial system
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.....
> A culture which places a high premium on honesty and integrity
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha..... (if only!)
> Low taxation
(No Welfare state!)
> Government intervention in the economy only for reasons of monopoly prevention, consumer safety, national defense, and of course oppression of eastern/southern countries.
Is there anything you didn't list there?
> And a final warning: Beware those promising utopia, death follows in their shadow.
Who's promising utopia?
Get a brain dummo.
Weaver
None.
