Dubai's free market capitalism

[antagon]

rates are quoted on debt securities, not savings. by no means are 'people saving' the basis for supply in the debt market, either.

demand overrun for debt will drive up interest rates. it did that, hence the ARM 'crisis'.

 

[Bern80]

But are you more free than them. Look at all the regulations you have....

...and there are a tonne of happy Cubans - especially those who can remember Batista....

Of course we are more free than they are. We have the freedom and opportunity to achieve pretty much whatever we want. If a ton of Cubans are so happy explain the other 'ton' that make boats out of cars just to get here.

 

[Bern80]

Ohh it is quite obvious to me. Seriously.
I have seen all this coming since NAFTA. Although it is not the only cause by any means.
WE are also a big cause. LIving off of credit, upside down on our cars, using our home equitity to buy toys. Buying lots of cheap Chinese stuff just so we could have more stuff.

kinda butting in sideways here, but having seen NAFTA in action, I believe it to be a great policy for the US. Bush took office and knocked the wind out of it by extending the same benefits aimed at US/Mexico border commerce to china and india, et al. San Diego, for example, had tens of thousands of high-paying jobs in telecom, electronics, and biomed, which cooperated with maquilladoras for the labor-intensive assembly and packaging, while extrusion, boardprinting... the high-tech end, was handled stateside.

many of those US jobs vanished in the last decade. the mexican ones, too. theyre standing around at your local home depot. the US jobs went overseas.

How much money is enough has always been my query..

..there is a social cost that none of the uber capitalists take into account - but it has to be IMO

How much is enough is an irrelevant question. It is something that only matters if you believe that if one is accumulating wealth at a high level it must be inherently detrimental to someone else, that on some level that person's wealth is being attained by having it forcably removed by someone else. That simply isn't the case here.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

rates are quoted on debt securities, not savings. by no means are 'people saving' the basis for supply in the debt market, either.

demand overrun for debt will drive up interest rates. it did that, hence the ARM 'crisis'.

In Defense of Capitalism & Human Progress: Market Interest Rates Need to Tell the Truth, or Why Federal Reserve Policy Tells Lies by Richard M. Ebeling

That pretty well sums up the problems with artificially setting interest rates.

 

[Contumacious]

socialism recognises private personal property and the right to that property. Deprivation of that property occurs under capitalism .

huh?

Hit the books and re-post.

.

Socialism (generally, though not in all systems) recognizes personal property. Communism/Marxism does not.

Sue your school system and demand your money back. I'll back you up.

The Nature of Socialism

The essence of Socialism is this: All the means of production are in the exclusive control of the organized community. This and this alone is Socialism.All other definitions are misleading.

.

 

[Contumacious]

bear in mind that the g depression and the dmark inflation situation are examples of money supply issues in a gold-standard economy, not a fiat system.

A depression has nothing to do with the gold standard economy.


The Congresscritters decided in 1913, that by fucking around with the economy they could enhance their re-election chances. They created the federal reserve board and ordered it to inflate the currency . The fuckers totally forgot that in 1913 the US dollar was still redeemable in gold and silver. While the amount of paper notes were increasing the amount and gold and silver was not.

So gold and silver currency was not the problem. Stupid lowlife congresscritters were , are , the problem. Unfortunately, the victims of public education can't read.

.

 

[Diuretic]

Resources – the question of the the ownership of those resources goes to the heart of the differences between capitalism and socialism. I think we probably won't agree on that point so perhaps we declare that one as undecided?

Fine. Last shot. My question was, is it your position that all should have an equal claim to resources?

Planned economy/power/corruption – corruption occurs where there is a chance of personal benefit. It can be dealt with in the usual manner (I'm not advocating the Chinese method).

Right. As a general rule people consider it in their benefit to stay in power. When that corruption does rear it's head you want some entity to turn to to correct it. Since you seem to acknowledge that it will occur under a privitized system or government run one the question which is easier to deal with. My contention is that in a state run economy you have no one to turn to because THE STATE RUNS THE ECONOMY.



How do yo compensate those that provide those things?

Poor. Of course capitalism requires the poor. Someone has to be on the bottom of the heap. Capitalism requires class structure, the ones at the top get most, the ones at the bottom get the least, they're called the poor. An economy doesn't “punish” anyone, it's not a moral code.

Depends if you assume that 'bottom of the heap' is the same as poor. It isn't. Poor to me implies a difficulty in meeting day to day needs. Too many of that type and a capitalistic society fails. One of the obvious benefits of capitalism is that it has proven to be able to provide people far more than just the things we need. Along with providing those luxuries, jobs are produced to provide them. You may not find these 'things' produced to be socially valuable, but in this case the ends justify the means because the jobs created, and the high end salaries that go with them are extremely socially valuable to people. Socialism simply isn't capable of that wealth potential. Which goes back to what pros and cons you will accept. Socialism - relative safetery for all, but little opportunity to attain a high SOL or capitalism - more risk due to less social safety net, but opportunity for high SOL.

Standard of living pre and post socialism and healthcare. I know the US heatlthcare system has its problems but one characteristic of it is that it has to be paid for. It differs from socialism in that way. My reference to the Soviet Union and Cuba was to point out something much broader though. That is that socialism improved the standard of living in those societies.

Involuntary deprivation of property under capitalism happens when someone bigger than you wants what you have. Eminent domain.

I'm not up on the laws, but I don't believe a private company can claim eminent domain. If they can it is exceedingly rare and thus not a very good point. The only entity I've ever heard claim it is government for roads, infrastructure, etc.

Fine. Last shot. My question was, is it your position that all should have an equal claim to resources?

No, it's that there should be social ownership of the means of production, that includes resources.

Right. As a general rule people consider it in their benefit to stay in power. When that corruption does rear it's head you want some entity to turn to to correct it. Since you seem to acknowledge that it will occur under a privitized system or government run one the question which is easier to deal with. My contention is that in a state run economy you have no one to turn to because THE STATE RUNS THE ECONOMY.

If a system rewards those in power then they want to keep it. That's the case in capitalism and in fascism when capitalism becomes intertwined with the state. In a socialist system there is no benefit to those in power because there is no-one in a position of power as authority is diffused.

Depends if you assume that 'bottom of the heap' is the same as poor. It isn't. Poor to me implies a difficulty in meeting day to day needs. Too many of that type and a capitalistic society fails. One of the obvious benefits of capitalism is that it has proven to be able to provide people far more than just the things we need. Along with providing those luxuries, jobs are produced to provide them. You may not find these 'things' produced to be socially valuable, but in this case the ends justify the means because the jobs created, and the high end salaries that go with them are extremely socially valuable to people. Socialism simply isn't capable of that wealth potential. Which goes back to what pros and cons you will accept. Socialism - relative safetery for all, but little opportunity to attain a high SOL or capitalism - more risk due to less social safety net, but opportunity for high SOL.

As Lenin pointed out, those who don't work don't eat. We know that in a socialist society there should be no unemployment. So, theoretically at least, there should be no “poor”. Too many poor in any economic system is dangerous – witness the French Revolution and the 1917 revolution in Russia. Capitalism ensures that some are wealthy, many are able to get by pretty comfortably and some are poor. Capitalism is protected by the state by the state giving resources to the poor so that they won't chuck a revolution of their own. Capitalism requires consumers so it produces a varied range of goods to be purchased, much of which isn't needed. That's when advertising kicks in, to persuade people to buy useless goods. Socialism isn't about wealth potential, it's about meeting the needs of all. I suppose anything is a trade-off really.

How do yo compensate those that provide those things?

You pay them and you pay them at a rate which recognises their socially useful skills. Since those in the healing and teaching occupations are socially valuable they should be paid at a rate that recognises that value.

I'm not up on the laws, but I don't believe a private company can claim eminent domain. If they can it is exceedingly rare and thus not a very good point. The only entity I've ever heard claim it is government for roads, infrastructure, etc

I think you're right, but the point is that the state can do it in liberal democracies as well as in fascist, state capitalist totalitarian (eg China) and socialist societies. Its existence isn't unique to any one of those systems.

 

[Diuretic]

huh?

Hit the books and re-post.

.

Socialism (generally, though not in all systems) recognizes personal property. Communism/Marxism does not.

Sue your school system and demand your money back. I'll back you up.

The Nature of Socialism

The essence of Socialism is this: All the means of production are in the exclusive control of the organized community. This and this alone is Socialism.All other definitions are misleading.

.

Mises Institute on socialism? Soft of like NAMBLA on cougars.

 

[Dr Grump]

How much is enough is an irrelevant question. It is something that only matters if you believe that if one is accumulating wealth at a high level it must be inherently detrimental to someone else, that on some level that person's wealth is being attained by having it forcably removed by someone else. That simply isn't the case here.

And there's the rub...if somebody creates too much wealth and keeps it all for themselves and don't pay people what they are worth - or in some cases next to nothing - you get revolutions such as those in Cuba, France, China etc. You also get educated folk (think Ho Chi Minh), who look at a text book case of Communism and sell it to the people, who having lived the lives they have, and being promised much by such an economic system, fully embrace it. Of course by the time they have realised they've become pawns in just another fraud run by those who are just power hungry (although the cases involving both Castro and Minh would be hard to prove, but the likes of the Eastern Block countries during the cold war, a lot more easy), it's game over for Joe Average.

So it behooves Uber capitalists to share it around. I also find the argument that if you don't own the company, or you are a worker bee, that somehow you're a lazy bastard. I have a boss, and I work pretty hard for him IMO. The rewards are so-so.

There is a reason western societies generally succeed as nations- they are a mixture of capitalism and socialism. Either system left to its own devices is a disaster. Interesting point: Those on this board who hate socialism, fully embrace capitalism and resent 'handouts' of any description. The irony is not lost on me that if they had their way, the US would be a third world country within a decade....

 

[Dr Grump]

huh?

Hit the books and re-post.

.

Socialism (generally, though not in all systems) recognizes personal property. Communism/Marxism does not.

Sue your school system and demand your money back. I'll back you up.

The Nature of Socialism

The essence of Socialism is this: All the means of production are in the exclusive control of the organized community. This and this alone is Socialism.All other definitions are misleading.

.

Proletarian is right, and you are wrong. Maybe you should sue your school. Irony is your own post proves his point.

You talk about means of production. He talks about personal property. In socialism, the government owns and runs production, but doesn't own your house. In Communism, the govt owns and produces everything. That is why it is called Communism - look up related word 'commune' in dictionary...;O)

 

[Diuretic]

There's a larger irony Grump - those who support capitalism and denounce the state. Capitalism can't exist without the state.

 

[Contumacious]

Socialism (generally, though not in all systems) recognizes personal property. Communism/Marxism does not.

Sue your school system and demand your money back. I'll back you up.

The Nature of Socialism

The essence of Socialism is this: All the means of production are in the exclusive control of the organized community. This and this alone is Socialism.All other definitions are misleading.

.

Proletarian is right, and you are wrong. Maybe you should sue your school. Irony is your own post proves his point.

You talk about means of production. He talks about personal property. In socialism, the government owns and runs production, but doesn't own your house. In Communism, the govt owns and produces everything. That is why it is called Communism - look up related word 'commune' in dictionary...;O)

under socialism there is no private ownership, http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=600http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=600

.

 

[Contumacious]

There's a larger irony Grump - those who support capitalism and denounce the state. Capitalism can't exist without the state.

I believe you meant to say PARASITES can't exist without the state.

.

 

[Bern80]

Fine. Last shot. My question was, is it your position that all should have an equal claim to resources?

No, it's that there should be social ownership of the means of production, that includes resources.

Are you sure there's a difference? If all resources are socially owned. That means everyone in society owns them. For everyone to own them, everyone would have to have an equal share. You may say that's fair, but it is also going to be horribily inefficient. Maybe I don't want an equal share of some of those resources because I have no need for them. Or as I said before maybe there are certain members of society that are better equipped to supply those resources to the masses. I think you would acknowledge that, right?

Right. As a general rule people consider it in their benefit to stay in power. When that corruption does rear it's head you want some entity to turn to to correct it. Since you seem to acknowledge that it will occur under a privitized system or government run one the question which is easier to deal with. My contention is that in a state run economy you have no one to turn to because THE STATE RUNS THE ECONOMY.

If a system rewards those in power then they want to keep it. That's the case in capitalism and in fascism when capitalism becomes intertwined with the state. In a socialist system there is no benefit to those in power because there is no-one in a position of power as authority is diffused.

So why were those in control of the economy in the USSR corrupt? Planning the economy is power in of itself.

Depends if you assume that 'bottom of the heap' is the same as poor. It isn't. Poor to me implies a difficulty in meeting day to day needs. Too many of that type and a capitalistic society fails. One of the obvious benefits of capitalism is that it has proven to be able to provide people far more than just the things we need. Along with providing those luxuries, jobs are produced to provide them. You may not find these 'things' produced to be socially valuable, but in this case the ends justify the means because the jobs created, and the high end salaries that go with them are extremely socially valuable to people. Socialism simply isn't capable of that wealth potential. Which goes back to what pros and cons you will accept. Socialism - relative safetery for all, but little opportunity to attain a high SOL or capitalism - more risk due to less social safety net, but opportunity for high SOL.

As Lenin pointed out, those who don't work don't eat. We know that in a socialist society there should be no unemployment. So, theoretically at least, there should be no “poor”. Too many poor in any economic system is dangerous – witness the French Revolution and the 1917 revolution in Russia. Capitalism ensures that some are wealthy, many are able to get by pretty comfortably and some are poor. Capitalism is protected by the state by the state giving resources to the poor so that they won't chuck a revolution of their own. Capitalism requires consumers so it produces a varied range of goods to be purchased, much of which isn't needed. That's when advertising kicks in, to persuade people to buy useless goods. Socialism isn't about wealth potential, it's about meeting the needs of all. I suppose anything is a trade-off really.

Yes it is. I disagree with your advertising theory though. Advertising doesn't convince me what is fun. I play video games as a hobby for example. Sony or Microsoft didn't dupe me into liking videogames. I just like them cause their fun. People want to enjoy life, Di. Not just survive it. Is there something inherently wrong with companies that essentially trade money to people for enjoyment, through whatever good or service that may be. Hell I can argue that that makes those, what you call non-essential items, MORE socially valuable. Is it not of social value to have a happy society? After all going to the doctor doesn't make me happy. Having a roof over my head doesn't make me happy. Food at a neccessity level doesn't make me happy. What kind of a life is merely having my needs meat and little opportunity for anything more? What kind of life is a system that can't do any better than just insuring survivial. If the trade off is between some risk and at the very least the opportunity to experience all the world has to offer, the choice between the systems that allow that should be a no brainer.

[How do yo compensate those that provide those things?

You pay them and you pay them at a rate which recognises their socially useful skills. Since those in the healing and teaching occupations are socially valuable they should be paid at a rate that recognises that value.

Except you just said people shouldn't have to pay for those things.

[I'm not up on the laws, but I don't believe a private company can claim eminent domain. If they can it is exceedingly rare and thus not a very good point. The only entity I've ever heard claim it is government for roads, infrastructure, etc

I think you're right, but the point is that the state can do it in liberal democracies as well as in fascist, state capitalist totalitarian (eg China) and socialist societies. Its existence isn't unique to any one of those systems.

But you originally contened that capitalism can take property from people by force. In reality it is socialism and centrally planned government that would inherently have more authority to do that.

 

[Shogun]

kelo v new london was the direct product of capitalism. Of course, ole BE$N will just insist that he with the bigger bank account deserves it anyway. Everyone else can just be glad that they allowed to serve the hallowed wealthy and follow along the trail of crumbs. Hell, Beggars can't be Industrialists; two social roles that ole BE$N has not problem with. It's funny to watch capitalistas act like junkies over wealth as if the sum total of existence is maximizing the annual GDP and squeezing out as much profit for shareholders as possible... even if it means shitting in the same pool that he fishes from.

 

[antagon]

rates are quoted on debt securities, not savings. by no means are 'people saving' the basis for supply in the debt market, either.

demand overrun for debt will drive up interest rates. it did that, hence the ARM 'crisis'.

In Defense of Capitalism & Human Progress: Market Interest Rates Need to Tell the Truth, or Why Federal Reserve Policy Tells Lies by Richard M. Ebeling

That pretty well sums up the problems with artificially setting interest rates.

there cant be a 'sum' of problems without accounting for the role the private sector played in the bust. that sums up this guys assault on the fed, is all i read.

any price mechanism without a value constant is unstable. the same applies to market rate mechanisms based on two or three layers of interest rates. abolish the fed and back the buck with gold, and that reality remains.

if this is where you got your 'savings' idea from, it doesnt account for the fact that banks dont work like credit unions in a closed loop. consumer deposits wont create their own supply shortage any more than taking heinz of the shelf will empty a grocery store..

better monetary policy would have softened the recession, but eliminating monetary policy or gold standardizing currency does not circumvent the need to add cash to the market, and for that to be managed.

the US constitution places that obligation with congress. how do you keep interest, inflation, and liquidity in tune without astute management? what market will regulate 4 ways? <---- age-old paradox of the laisez-faire system.

bottom line to me... there's a recession on and every school of thought is clammoring for the 'i told you so' and the 'follow me next time'.. laisez-fairists, socialists, obama neo-keynesians, supply-siders, if it aint brokers (like me)... you name it.

some arguements like yours and eblings dont account for how some of a new paradigm's currency obligations, for starters, will be facillitated without the fed or something like it. 'a market dont cut it. there's too much to account for.

i say try your economics in mexico or somewhere the constitution doesnt otherwise direct government to stabilize the currency.

 

[Bern80]

How much is enough is an irrelevant question. It is something that only matters if you believe that if one is accumulating wealth at a high level it must be inherently detrimental to someone else, that on some level that person's wealth is being attained by having it forcably removed by someone else. That simply isn't the case here.

And there's the rub...if somebody creates too much wealth and keeps it all for themselves and don't pay people what they are worth - or in some cases next to nothing - you get revolutions such as those in Cuba, France, China etc. You also get educated folk (think Ho Chi Minh), who look at a text book case of Communism and sell it to the people, who having lived the lives they have, and being promised much by such an economic system, fully embrace it. Of course by the time they have realised they've become pawns in just another fraud run by those who are just power hungry (although the cases involving both Castro and Minh would be hard to prove, but the likes of the Eastern Block countries during the cold war, a lot more easy), it's game over for Joe Average.

I would agree. The operative word in what I said was 'inherently'. Yes it's been plastered all over the news about the huge bonuses some CEOs are giving themselves in a recession, but just because something is 'news' doesn't mean that it's an accurate reflection of how most businesses operate in this country. For the most part our country does pay what labor is worth. For the most part everyone in this country is employed in some fashion. For the most part everyone in this country enjoys a decent standard of living. The things that are common among our 'poor' would be considered a decent SOL even by some developed countries. I say for the most part because obviously we aren't at 100% employent and we aren't 100% free of corruption and we don't have 100% who have an SOL they deem adequate. The pont is we are close to 100% in those areas. Further I think it would be more detrimental to society as a whole to try to get a few more percentage points closer to 100% than it would be worth.

So it behooves Uber capitalists to share it around. I also find the argument that if you don't own the company, or you are a worker bee, that somehow you're a lazy bastard. I have a boss, and I work pretty hard for him IMO. The rewards are so-so.

I never made such an argument. The argument I have made is that people need to stop thinking about wealth accumlation in terms of working 'hard'. Ditch diggin for 40 hours a week would be 'hard' work. On the other hand ditch digging isn't a skill set that's in short supply which means it's probaably not the road to riches. The key to wealth accumulation is not working hard, it's working smart. Take a risk and and go into business for yourself. Or do some research, find an in demand skill set and learn it.

I would also contend that uber capitalists inherently spread it around simply by being uber capitalists through the jobs their business ventures create.

There is a reason western societies generally succeed as nations- they are a mixture of capitalism and socialism. Either system left to its own devices is a disaster. Interesting point: Those on this board who hate socialism, fully embrace capitalism and resent 'handouts' of any description. The irony is not lost on me that if they had their way, the US would be a third world country within a decade....

I would agree. Maybe some of our problems are the result of not haveing enough socialism in the mix. But most definately we have problems (i.e. health care reform) that could benefit from some capitalistic policy.

 

[antagon]

bear in mind that the g depression and the dmark inflation situation are examples of money supply issues in a gold-standard economy, not a fiat system.

A depression has nothing to do with the gold standard economy.


The Congresscritters decided in 1913, that by fucking around with the economy they could enhance their re-election chances. They created the federal reserve board and ordered it to inflate the currency . The fuckers totally forgot that in 1913 the US dollar was still redeemable in gold and silver. While the amount of paper notes were increasing the amount and gold and silver was not.

So gold and silver currency was not the problem. Stupid lowlife congresscritters were , are , the problem. Unfortunately, the victims of public education can't read.

.

you seem like an absolute putz, so i agree with you entirely, lest i lock horns with a total ignaramus.

 

[Contumacious]

kelo v new london was the direct product of capitalism. .

HUH?

Elaborate please - explain how eminent domain is a CAPITALISTIC concept.

I won't hold my breath.

.

 

[Contumacious]

bear in mind that the g depression and the dmark inflation situation are examples of money supply issues in a gold-standard economy, not a fiat system.

A depression has nothing to do with the gold standard economy.


The Congresscritters decided in 1913, that by fucking around with the economy they could enhance their re-election chances. They created the federal reserve board and ordered it to inflate the currency . The fuckers totally forgot that in 1913 the US dollar was still redeemable in gold and silver. While the amount of paper notes were increasing the amount and gold and silver was not.

So gold and silver currency was not the problem. Stupid lowlife congresscritters were , are , the problem. Unfortunately, the victims of public education can't read.

.

you seem like an absolute putz, so i agree with you entirely, lest i lock horns with a total ignaramus.

Complete and total surrender, I love it.

.