Dubai's free market capitalism

[Bern80]

It would be interesting to to work out how those resources got into private hands. I have a sketchy idea but nothing solid, it would be interesting to bat it around a bit.

Hard to say. I'm not sure it's relevant though. The only way I can think that it would be is you wondering under the premise that it somehow isn't fair that one has a resource like coal for example and can make people pay to get it from him. So follow me on this make believe society. How is everyone going to get their goal? Well one way would be the collectivists way. Everyone is only alotted so much coal and everyone has to go dig their own. Johnny over here though has a way of mining more coal than Joe. Why he can His ration of coal AND Joe's in the same time it takes Joe to just his. But since Johnny is only allowed his 'fair' share there is no point in using this ingenuity.

Now the free market way: Johnny still has better means of obtaining coal. Maybe he lives closer to the source. Maybe he invented a way to mine it faster, who knows. Regardless, it doesn't make much sense for everyone to keep digging their own when with a little investment Johnny could free up people's time by having them pay him to do the work for them. People will sbstitute work for convenience more often than not. This is where the 'evil corporate America' crowd jumps in and says Johnny isn't is always gonna gouge people for the coal. But the reality is most businessmen are a bit smarter than that. Johnny can't charge more than what someone can pay. And he can't charge such a high amount that people's money only goes toward coal. If he did the people that can't heat their homes die and Johnny has no market.

Cuba. It's a poor country, its standard of living is below that of many industrialised countries. But then it doesn't have the sort of poverty that can be found in somewhere like Detroit or in various aboriginal camps in outback Australia.

That is the trade of right there. We'll use the extremes for examples sake. In a more social or collectivist society things will definately be 'safer' for everyone. The best to look at it is on spectrum of standard of living the system would afford. One one end you would have a poor SOL, middle mediocre SOL and right high SOL. Collectivist societies are going to do their best to make sure no one winds up on the poor side of the spectrum. That I guess is a good thing. I think it is far outweighed by the negatives however. The fact that such a system requires considerable government control and they fact that it takes human behavior for worse AND for better off the table. Their is no initiative to achieve more because there is nothing more to be gained by doing so. There is liklihood of sustained job growth, this less liklihood of wealth accumlation thus less liklihood of SOL improving for people. It would be an all around mediocre or just 'okay' society.

Free market society is the opposite using the extreme unregulated kind as an example. There is no safety net. Without some kind of system in place to protect them people that for whatever reason simply aren't able to contribute to their SOL they would slip through the cracks and be at the poor end as would the people that simply don't want to put forth the effort or rise to their potential. I don't think you would have a lot of that in the extreme cases because the options are basically work to survive or die. You also have the positive opportunity for people to attain as much wealth as they want. That would create jobs for other people and the possibility of wealth accumulation for them. More likely than not you are going to end up, similar to our society, with a few people in the poor SOL side, a lot in the middle and a lot on high SOL side.

The question boils down to what you're more comfortable with? A society where can you feel safe an knowing that everyone is going to be okay SOL wise (also knowing there is little opportunity to improve it? Or a society where your SOL is only limited by you, know that there are risks involved for failure?

Capitalism rewards the capitalist. The motivated and driven can be anyone, from a labourer to a doctor. If greed is the motivator and driver then the best economic system to use those motivators in is capitalism. If being socially useful is the motivator then socialism is the best economic system for someone who has those particular drives.

See here's the paradox I am seeing in you and Shogun. You claim you want a decent SOL for everyone. Then you complain about the so called greedy people actually improving there SOL and about the system that provides the best opportunity for doing so. Are doctor's not socially useful/ Do other countries have more socially useful people than we do? What does that even mean - socially usefull? That they improve society? Isn't a measure of whether people have improved society, societies SOL?

Their is also the topic of greed. People want capitalism because they are greedy, eh? Sorry Di. WRONG. People want capitalism because they want freedom. They want as much control over their own lives as possible. They want to be able to achieve whatever they want. Amazingly and unarguably that method here has still provided more 'social usefullness' than most any other country.

 

[DiamondDave]

It would be interesting to to work out how those resources got into private hands. I have a sketchy idea but nothing solid, it would be interesting to bat it around a bit.

Hard to say. I'm not sure it's relevant though. The only way I can think that it would be is you wondering under the premise that it somehow isn't fair that one has a resource like coal for example and can make people pay to get it from him. So follow me on this make believe society. How is everyone going to get their goal? Well one way would be the collectivists way. Everyone is only alotted so much coal and everyone has to go dig their own. Johnny over here though has a way of mining more coal than Joe. Why he can His ration of coal AND Joe's in the same time it takes Joe to just his. But since Johnny is only allowed his 'fair' share there is no point in using this ingenuity.

Now the free market way: Johnny still has better means of obtaining coal. Maybe he lives closer to the source. Maybe he invented a way to mine it faster, who knows. Regardless, it doesn't make much sense for everyone to keep digging their own when with a little investment Johnny could free up people's time by having them pay him to do the work for them. People will sbstitute work for convenience more often than not. This is where the 'evil corporate America' crowd jumps in and says Johnny isn't is always gonna gouge people for the coal. But the reality is most businessmen are a bit smarter than that. Johnny can't charge more than what someone can pay. And he can't charge such a high amount that people's money only goes toward coal. If he did the people that can't heat their homes die and Johnny has no market.

Cuba. It's a poor country, its standard of living is below that of many industrialised countries. But then it doesn't have the sort of poverty that can be found in somewhere like Detroit or in various aboriginal camps in outback Australia.

That is the trade of right there. We'll use the extremes for examples sake. In a more social or collectivist society things will definately be 'safer' for everyone. The best to look at it is on spectrum of standard of living the system would afford. One one end you would have a poor SOL, middle mediocre SOL and right high SOL. Collectivist societies are going to do their best to make sure no one winds up on the poor side of the spectrum. That I guess is a good thing. I think it is far outweighed by the negatives however. The fact that such a system requires considerable government control and they fact that it takes human behavior for worse AND for better off the table. Their is no initiative to achieve more because there is nothing more to be gained by doing so. There is liklihood of sustained job growth, this less liklihood of wealth accumlation thus less liklihood of SOL improving for people. It would be an all around mediocre or just 'okay' society.

Free market society is the opposite using the extreme unregulated kind as an example. There is no safety net. Without some kind of system in place to protect them people that for whatever reason simply aren't able to contribute to their SOL they would slip through the cracks and be at the poor end as would the people that simply don't want to put forth the effort or rise to their potential. I don't think you would have a lot of that in the extreme cases because the options are basically work to survive or die. You also have the positive opportunity for people to attain as much wealth as they want. That would create jobs for other people and the possibility of wealth accumulation for them. More likely than not you are going to end up, similar to our society, with a few people in the poor SOL side, a lot in the middle and a lot on high SOL side.

The question boils down to what you're more comfortable with? A society where can you feel safe an knowing that everyone is going to be okay SOL wise (also knowing there is little opportunity to improve it? Or a society where your SOL is only limited by you, know that there are risks involved for failure?

 

[Diuretic]

It would be interesting to to work out how those resources got into private hands. I have a sketchy idea but nothing solid, it would be interesting to bat it around a bit.

Hard to say. I'm not sure it's relevant though. The only way I can think that it would be is you wondering under the premise that it somehow isn't fair that one has a resource like coal for example and can make people pay to get it from him. So follow me on this make believe society. How is everyone going to get their goal? Well one way would be the collectivists way. Everyone is only alotted so much coal and everyone has to go dig their own. Johnny over here though has a way of mining more coal than Joe. Why he can His ration of coal AND Joe's in the same time it takes Joe to just his. But since Johnny is only allowed his 'fair' share there is no point in using this ingenuity.

Now the free market way: Johnny still has better means of obtaining coal. Maybe he lives closer to the source. Maybe he invented a way to mine it faster, who knows. Regardless, it doesn't make much sense for everyone to keep digging their own when with a little investment Johnny could free up people's time by having them pay him to do the work for them. People will sbstitute work for convenience more often than not. This is where the 'evil corporate America' crowd jumps in and says Johnny isn't is always gonna gouge people for the coal. But the reality is most businessmen are a bit smarter than that. Johnny can't charge more than what someone can pay. And he can't charge such a high amount that people's money only goes toward coal. If he did the people that can't heat their homes die and Johnny has no market.

Cuba. It's a poor country, its standard of living is below that of many industrialised countries. But then it doesn't have the sort of poverty that can be found in somewhere like Detroit or in various aboriginal camps in outback Australia.

That is the trade of right there. We'll use the extremes for examples sake. In a more social or collectivist society things will definately be 'safer' for everyone. The best to look at it is on spectrum of standard of living the system would afford. One one end you would have a poor SOL, middle mediocre SOL and right high SOL. Collectivist societies are going to do their best to make sure no one winds up on the poor side of the spectrum. That I guess is a good thing. I think it is far outweighed by the negatives however. The fact that such a system requires considerable government control and they fact that it takes human behavior for worse AND for better off the table. Their is no initiative to achieve more because there is nothing more to be gained by doing so. There is liklihood of sustained job growth, this less liklihood of wealth accumlation thus less liklihood of SOL improving for people. It would be an all around mediocre or just 'okay' society.

Free market society is the opposite using the extreme unregulated kind as an example. There is no safety net. Without some kind of system in place to protect them people that for whatever reason simply aren't able to contribute to their SOL they would slip through the cracks and be at the poor end as would the people that simply don't want to put forth the effort or rise to their potential. I don't think you would have a lot of that in the extreme cases because the options are basically work to survive or die. You also have the positive opportunity for people to attain as much wealth as they want. That would create jobs for other people and the possibility of wealth accumulation for them. More likely than not you are going to end up, similar to our society, with a few people in the poor SOL side, a lot in the middle and a lot on high SOL side.

The question boils down to what you're more comfortable with? A society where can you feel safe an knowing that everyone is going to be okay SOL wise (also knowing there is little opportunity to improve it? Or a society where your SOL is only limited by you, know that there are risks involved for failure?

Too interesting to rush a response. I've got to get ready to head off to a commitment at the Academy. Second day of my annual leave but I agreed to do this presentation because it's something of a labour of love for me. I'll try to come up with some reasonable responses to your points there a bit later if I may.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Not at all... but that doesn't keep your kind from crying MARX every time the President tries to retain the effect of a stimulus package by applying such to DOMESTIC LABOR, eh? You want to remind me how YOUR KIND reacted to stimulus moneys hinted at being directed at DOMESTIC JOBS?


See, this is a good example of how weak ass your argument is; pretending that China is NOT communist while your lips are firmly planted on its nipples for no other reason than to keep from feeling like an ass over the type of standard you apply to Cuba. SERIOUSLY.



hey, maybe the fucking ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA just doesn't have a good of an education as the typical free market capitalist. I'm sure thats it.

Then you'll have no problem where I said that President Obama is a communist, a socialist, a Marxist, or any combination there of on this board, correct? The answer is no. You're attributing what others have said to me, and that is not correct. I am not responsible for what others who oppose Obama's policies say, only what I say. And I have never called Obama a socialist, a communist, or a Marxist. Now it has been your contention that China is communist. Using your logic, since the U.S. and China both have mixed economies, then the U.S. must be communist as well.

This may come as a shock to you but I don't really care what labels your kind need to used to get through your day. Seriously. If you want to think Obama is a Kenyan Muslims feel free. It only makes you look like an ass.

and, if you think he is a socialist for trying to preserve America's economy then so be it. I'd rather have 5 of him than a thousand of you around.


and, I'll point out that every time (and let me just say that it's fucking hilarious to see you advocate a "mixed" economy this side of crying that the fucking sky is falling over health care) your side sees the slightest iota of movement towards policy that benefits the population rather than some lardass capitalista we hear day in and day out about how Socialist we ahve become. NONE of this "well, we both have a mixed economy" bullshit. I'm totally find with a regulated form of capitalism that respects private property while taxes the shit out of foreign imports. But, that is not the kind of compromise that your side every tries to consider outside of screaming FREEE EMARRRKET WILL SAAAAVE THE DAAAAAY. Indeed, and just look at the reaction to the same type of health care found in western nations all over, we hear about how socialist and communistic we are becoming without you highlighting the punchline.

So in other words, you have no evidence that I've ever referred to Obama or our economy as socialist, communist, or Marxist, but you're going to continue to lump me in with those who have. That's fine, you obviously have a habit of lumping people and nations into black and white collective groups, despite all evidence to the contrary. You keep clinging to them talking points, bud.

 

[Shogun]

Then you'll have no problem where I said that President Obama is a communist, a socialist, a Marxist, or any combination there of on this board, correct? The answer is no. You're attributing what others have said to me, and that is not correct. I am not responsible for what others who oppose Obama's policies say, only what I say. And I have never called Obama a socialist, a communist, or a Marxist. Now it has been your contention that China is communist. Using your logic, since the U.S. and China both have mixed economies, then the U.S. must be communist as well.

This may come as a shock to you but I don't really care what labels your kind need to used to get through your day. Seriously. If you want to think Obama is a Kenyan Muslims feel free. It only makes you look like an ass.

and, if you think he is a socialist for trying to preserve America's economy then so be it. I'd rather have 5 of him than a thousand of you around.


and, I'll point out that every time (and let me just say that it's fucking hilarious to see you advocate a "mixed" economy this side of crying that the fucking sky is falling over health care) your side sees the slightest iota of movement towards policy that benefits the population rather than some lardass capitalista we hear day in and day out about how Socialist we ahve become. NONE of this "well, we both have a mixed economy" bullshit. I'm totally find with a regulated form of capitalism that respects private property while taxes the shit out of foreign imports. But, that is not the kind of compromise that your side every tries to consider outside of screaming FREEE EMARRRKET WILL SAAAAVE THE DAAAAAY. Indeed, and just look at the reaction to the same type of health care found in western nations all over, we hear about how socialist and communistic we are becoming without you highlighting the punchline.

So in other words, you have no evidence that I've ever referred to Obama or our economy as socialist, communist, or Marxist, but you're going to continue to lump me in with those who have. That's fine, you obviously have a habit of lumping people and nations into black and white collective groups, despite all evidence to the contrary. You keep clinging to them talking points, bud.

I don't care enough to comb through your years of forum participation to find an example; like I said, use whatever nomenclature you want to use. Suffice it to say, I'll be sure to remind you of this conversation the next time Obama pushes for a public option.


But, if you insist that you are outside the typical FMC circle i'll take your word on it. To be honest, I don't keep track of how many capitalistas are around regurgitating the same ole shit that causes BE$N's breath to smell like crap. So, if I've erroneously labeled you as such I apologize.


Regardless, if you are willing to consider a mixed economy then why the hell are you standing in front of my path of fire anyway? I'm aiming at BE$N. Go ahead and dive out of the way.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

This may come as a shock to you but I don't really care what labels your kind need to used to get through your day. Seriously. If you want to think Obama is a Kenyan Muslims feel free. It only makes you look like an ass.

and, if you think he is a socialist for trying to preserve America's economy then so be it. I'd rather have 5 of him than a thousand of you around.


and, I'll point out that every time (and let me just say that it's fucking hilarious to see you advocate a "mixed" economy this side of crying that the fucking sky is falling over health care) your side sees the slightest iota of movement towards policy that benefits the population rather than some lardass capitalista we hear day in and day out about how Socialist we ahve become. NONE of this "well, we both have a mixed economy" bullshit. I'm totally find with a regulated form of capitalism that respects private property while taxes the shit out of foreign imports. But, that is not the kind of compromise that your side every tries to consider outside of screaming FREEE EMARRRKET WILL SAAAAVE THE DAAAAAY. Indeed, and just look at the reaction to the same type of health care found in western nations all over, we hear about how socialist and communistic we are becoming without you highlighting the punchline.

So in other words, you have no evidence that I've ever referred to Obama or our economy as socialist, communist, or Marxist, but you're going to continue to lump me in with those who have. That's fine, you obviously have a habit of lumping people and nations into black and white collective groups, despite all evidence to the contrary. You keep clinging to them talking points, bud.

I don't care enough to comb through your years of forum participation to find an example; like I said, use whatever nomenclature you want to use. Suffice it to say, I'll be sure to remind you of this conversation the next time Obama pushes for a public option.


But, if you insist that you are outside the typical FMC circle i'll take your word on it. To be honest, I don't keep track of how many capitalistas are around regurgitating the same ole shit that causes BE$N's breath to smell like crap. So, if I've erroneously labeled you as such I apologize.


Regardless, if you are willing to consider a mixed economy then why the hell are you standing in front of my path of fire anyway? I'm aiming at BE$N. Go ahead and dive out of the way.

I'm not willing to consider a mixed economy. A free market would lead to greater wealth creation than a mixed economy would, and raise everybody's standard of living. However, I'm not prone to call something other than what it is. The U.S. has a mixed economy, not a communist or socialist economy, and the same is true of China.

 

[Shogun]

So in other words, you have no evidence that I've ever referred to Obama or our economy as socialist, communist, or Marxist, but you're going to continue to lump me in with those who have. That's fine, you obviously have a habit of lumping people and nations into black and white collective groups, despite all evidence to the contrary. You keep clinging to them talking points, bud.

I don't care enough to comb through your years of forum participation to find an example; like I said, use whatever nomenclature you want to use. Suffice it to say, I'll be sure to remind you of this conversation the next time Obama pushes for a public option.


But, if you insist that you are outside the typical FMC circle i'll take your word on it. To be honest, I don't keep track of how many capitalistas are around regurgitating the same ole shit that causes BE$N's breath to smell like crap. So, if I've erroneously labeled you as such I apologize.


Regardless, if you are willing to consider a mixed economy then why the hell are you standing in front of my path of fire anyway? I'm aiming at BE$N. Go ahead and dive out of the way.

I'm not willing to consider a mixed economy. A free market would lead to greater wealth creation than a mixed economy would, and raise everybody's standard of living. However, I'm not prone to call something other than what it is. The U.S. has a mixed economy, not a communist or socialist economy, and the same is true of China.

then stop crying when you get hit with shrapnel, dude. Your OPINION that a free market leads to better wealth means two things. I'm sure you know what they are.

As far as China.. well, again, I'll tell you to do the same thing I've invited Toro and BE$N to do: go email the encyclopedia Britannica and tell them how wrong they are. Indeed, it's fucking hilarious still to watch you people insist that China's economy is NOT socialist with STATE OWNED ENTERPRISE when we all know goddamn that such is exactly how you'd describe the same here in the US. Jesus fucking christ, it's not as if we've not all been muting the dull roar of that exact same accusation since day fucking one of the nationalized healthcare debate. If all you wanted to do was score a cheap point about nomenclature describing China's nomenclature then so be it. I'm sure you silly lil guys need as many scraps as you can get these days.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

A truly 'free' (unregulated) market leads to greater wealth for the wealthy. Everyone else gets screwed. History has shown this time and again.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

The government established diplomatic relations with the U.S. in 1979. Since the late 1970s the economy has been moving from central planning and state-run industries to a mixture of state-owned and private enterprises in manufacturing and services, in the process growing dramatically and transforming Chinese society.

China -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

Third paragraph, near the end

 

[Shogun]

The State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council (SASAC; simplified Chinese: 国务院国有资产监督管理委员会; pinyin: guówùyuàn guóyǒuzīchǎnj iāndū guǎnlǐ wěiyuánhuì) is a special commission of the People's Republic of China, directly under the State Council. It is responsible for managing China's state-owned enterprises, including appointing top executives and approving any mergers or sales of stock or assets, as well as drafting laws related to state-owned enterprises.
State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



1China National Nuclear Corporation
2China Nuclear Engineering & Construction (Group) Corporation
3China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation
4China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation
5

China Aviation Industry Corporation Ⅰ

6


China Aviation Industry Corporation Ⅱ
7
China State Shipbuilding Corporation
8

China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation

9


China North Industries Group Corporation

10


China South Industries Group

11


China Electronics Technology Group Corporation

12


China National Petroleum Corporation

13


China Petroleum & Chemical Corporation

14


China National Offshore Oil Corp.

15


State Grid Corporation of China

16


China Southern Power Grid Co., Ltd.

17


China Huaneng Group

18


Datang Telecom Technology and Industry Group

19


China Huadian Corporation

20


China Guodian Corporation

21


China Power Investment Corporation

22


China Three Gorges Project Corporation

23


Shenhua Group Corporation Limited

24


China Telecommunications Corporation

25


China Network Communications Group Corporation

26


China United Telecommunications Corporation

27


China Mobile Communications Corporation

28


China Electronics Corporation

29


China FAW Group Corporation

30


Dongfeng Motor Corporation

31


China First Heavy Industries

32


China National Erzhong Group Co.

33


Harbin Power Plant Equipment Group Corporation

34


Dongfang Electric Corporation

35


Anshan Iron and Steel Group Corporation

36


Baosteel Group Corporation

37


Wuhan Iron and Steel (Group) Co.

38


Aluminum Corporation of China Limited

39


China Ocean Shipping (Group) Company

40


China Shipping (Group) Company

41


China National Aviation Holding Company

42


China Eastern Air Holding Company

43


China Southern Air Holding Company

44


Sinochem Corporation

45


China National Cereals, Oils & Foodstuffs Corp.

46


China Minmetals Corporation

47


China General Technology (Group), Holding, Limited

48


China State Construction Engineering Corp.

49


China Grain Reserves Corporation

50


State Development & Investment Corp.

51


China Merchants Group Limited

52


China Resources (Holdings) Co., Ltd.

53


China Travel Service (Holdings) H.K., Ltd.

54


State Nuclear Power Technology Corporation Ltd.

55


China Commercial Aircraft Corporation Ltd.

56


China Energy Conservation Investment Corp.

57


China Gaoxin Investment Group Corporation

58


China International Engineering Consulting Corporation

59


China National Packaging Corporation

60


China Commerce Group

61


China Huafu Trade and Development Group Corp.

62


China Chengtong Holding

63


China Huaxing Group Company

64


China National Coal Group Corp.

65


China Coal Research Institute

66


China National Machinery Industry Corporation

67


China Academy of Machinery Science & Technology

68


Chinese Academy of Agricultural Mechanization Sciences

69


Sinosteel Corporation

70


China Metallurgical Group Corp.

71


China Iron & Steel Research Institute Group

72


ChemChina Group Corporation

73


China National Chemical Engineering Group Corp.

74


China National Light Industry (Group) Corp.

75


China Light Industrial Corporation for Foreign Economic and Technical Co-operation

76


China National Arts & Crafts (Group) Corporation

77


China National Salt Industry Corp.

78


Huacheng Investment & Management Co., Ltd.

79


China Hengtian Group Co.

80


China Textile Academy

81


China National Materials Industry Group

82


China National Building Material Group Corporation

83


China Nonferrous Metal Mining (Group) Co., Ltd.

84


General Research Institute for Nonferrous Metals

85


Beijing General Research Institute of Mining & Metallurgy

86


China International Intellectech Corporation

87


China Far East International Trading Corporation

88


China International Enterprises Co-operation Corp.

89


China National Real Estate Development Group

90


China Academy of Building Research

91


China North Locomotive and Rolling Stock Industry (Group) Corporation

92


China South Locomotive and Rolling Stock Industry (Group) Corporation

93


China Railway Signal and Communication Corporation

94


China Railway Engineering Corporation

95


China Railway Construction Corporation

96


China Communications Construction Company, Ltd.

97


China Putian Corporation

98


China National Postal and Telecommunications Appliances Corporation

99


China Satellite Communications Corporation

100


China Academy of Telecommunications Technology

101


CHINA WATER INVESTMENT GROUP CORP.

102


China National Agricultural Development Group Corporation

103


China State Farms Agribusiness Corporation

104


China National Textiles Group Corporation

105


China National Foreign Trade Transportation Corp.

106


China National Silk Imp. & Exp. Corp.

107


China National Light Industrial Products Imp. & Exp. Corp.

108


China National Complete Plant Import & Export Corporation (Group)

109


China National Service Corporation for Chinese Personnel Working Abroad

110


China National Biotec Corporation

111


China Forestry Group Corporation

112


China National Pharmaceutical Group Corporation

113


CITS Group Corporation

114


China Xinxing Corp. (Group)

115


China Poly Group Corporation

116


China New Era Group

117


Zhuhai Zhenrong Company

118


China Architecture Design and Research Group

119


China Electronics Engineering Design Institute

120


Sino-Coal International Engineering Design & Research Institute

121


China Haisum International Engineering Investment Corp. (Group)

122


China Metallurgical Geology Bureau

123


China National Administration of Coal Geology

124


Xinxing Ductile Iron Pipes Group Co., Ltd.

125


China Travel Sky Holding Company

126


China Aviation Oil Holding Company

127


China Aviation Supplies Holding Company

128


China Power Engineering Consulting (Group) Corporation

129


China Hydropower Engineering Consulting Group Co.

130


Sinohydro Corporation

131


China National Gold Group Corporation

132


China National Cotton Reserves Corporation

133


China Printing (Group) Corporation

134


Panzhihua Iron and Steel (Group) Company

135


Luzhong Metallurgical Mining Group

136


Changsha Research Institute of Mining and Metallurgy

137


China Lucky Film Corporation

138


China Guangdong Nuclear Power Corp.

139


China Changjiang National Shipping (Group) Corp.

140


Shanghai Ship and Shipping Research Institute

141


China Hualu Group Co., Ltd.

142


Alcatel Shanghai Bell Co., Ltd.

143


IRICO Group Corporation

144


Wuhan Research Institute of Posts & Telecommunications

145


Shanghai Institute of Pharmaceutical Industry

146


Overseas Chinese Town Enterprises Co.

147


Nan Kwong (Group) Company Limited

148


Xian Electric Manufacturing Corporation

149


China Gezhouba Water & Power (Group) Co., Ltd.

150


China Railway Materials Commercial Corp.

Central SOEs

 

[antagon]

it doesnt take an encyclopedia shogun. i was in shanghi and nanjing in 2002.

i dont think any of those buildings are public. the people FLOODING the streets below are paid in cash by companies and individuals, and the occasional lamborghini gave the rest away. there is certainly capitalism thriving in china.

i was there on business, fancy that.

 

[DiamondDave]

A truly 'free' (unregulated) market leads to greater wealth for the wealthy. Everyone else gets screwed. History has shown this time and again.

No.. it leads to greater wealth and advancement for those who actually accomplish... and those who do nothing, get nothing

 

[Rozman]

If this system heralded by "conservatives", republicans and corporatists is so unshakably sound and the best system out there - and self-correcting... what the heck happened? Dubai is the "shining Jewel" of free market capitalism in the middle east. Now it is pretty much bankrupt and having to be bailed out by the Saudis.

Also, this came out today:

BBC NEWS | Special Reports | Free market flawed, says survey

So your answer to fix the world's problem is what .....Socialism?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

If this system heralded by "conservatives", republicans and corporatists is so unshakably sound and the best system out there - and self-correcting... what the heck happened? Dubai is the "shining Jewel" of free market capitalism in the middle east. Now it is pretty much bankrupt and having to be bailed out by the Saudis.

Also, this came out today:

BBC NEWS | Special Reports | Free market flawed, says survey

So your answer to fix the world's problem is what .....Socialism?

I propose a federated social democracy with a mixed economy

 

[☭proletarian☭]

A truly 'free' (unregulated) market leads to greater wealth for the wealthy. Everyone else gets screwed. History has shown this time and again.

No.. it leads to greater wealth and advancement for those who actually accomplish... and those who do nothing, get nothing

In other words, the haves get richer and the have nots get screwed

kinda like sharecropping, the feudal system, robber barons...

 

[antagon]

I'm not willing to consider a mixed economy. A free market would lead to greater wealth creation than a mixed economy would, and raise everybody's standard of living. However, I'm not prone to call something other than what it is. The U.S. has a mixed economy, not a communist or socialist economy, and the same is true of China.

OH GAHD! its the kevken show again.

fine, youre not willing...

but the US and all other capitalist mixed economies are a testament to how false your...

'A free market would lead to greater wealth creation than a mixed economy would'

... statement is.

i'd accept that a free or freer market would beget faster growth in the economy, but that growth will not disperse sufficient to forge a middle class.

the middle class is the linchpin of the highest-functioning economies in the world where 'greater wealth creation' is realised.

your free market developing economies rely on developed nations for their economic growth, as they simply lack consumers en masse.

wealth creation in capitalism occurs when there is consumption and the cost of production is lesser than the realized price.

again, dont claim that austrian garbage as fact. people arent stupid; there's no merit to it.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

?!

I happen to be an adherent of the Austrian school...

I recommend this book

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1596985879?ie=UTF8&tag=thomacom-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=1596985879]Amazon.com: Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse (9781596985872): Thomas E. Woods Jr., Ron Paul: Books[/ame]

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Austrian business cycle theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Have you been paying attention the last few years?

 

[DiamondDave]

A truly 'free' (unregulated) market leads to greater wealth for the wealthy. Everyone else gets screwed. History has shown this time and again.

No.. it leads to greater wealth and advancement for those who actually accomplish... and those who do nothing, get nothing

In other words, the haves get richer and the have nots get screwed

kinda like sharecropping, the feudal system, robber barons...

You seem to like to put words into people's mouths that they don't say, to try and make it fit your argument




Try and understand the difference between having and doing... I know it's hard for someone with a limited cranial capacity, as shown by their love and support of communism, but do try

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Nice. When you have no rebuttal, you attack a poster based on your misrepresentation of their political beliefs