Dubai's free market capitalism

[Shogun]

Elite? You know that capitalism is run by and for elites don't you?

Capitalism is an economic system that is built on certain premises and operates in a certain fashion. It is a system that requires periodical failures, not just of individual actors but the system itself. Neat one eh? To operate it must fail from time to time. That works doesn't it?

The alleged failures of socialism are brought up time and time again but never really analysed properly. It could be a bit tedious I suppose but it would be worth a discussion.

Has it failed in Cuba? Think about it for just a minute or two because Cuba is probably an interesting example.

And just to finish off, capitalism cannot function without government. It has, as I have said before, shaped government to protect it and to enable it to continue to exist. Ironic but not surprising. The elites have to cloud people's thinking with propaganda so that the truth about capitalism isn't revealed to them. If they knew how it really operated they'd try to get rid of it.

The reason those other systems fail is because people tend to want freedom and those other systems are not free. Some others like Shogun and possibly yourself will CLAIM you want freedom, just so long as you dont have to be burdened by its inherent risks. Sorry freedom is one of those things you can't have both ways.

The problem with capitalism, which is simply economic freedom, is that it requires active participation and effort by everyone. It requires self accountability. The second we get people that piss and moan and complain about unfairness wear there is none or think it's someone elses job to provide for them, THAT is when capitalism fails.

I really don't understand why you and Shogun keep pointing to Cuba. Does it not bother you that their government sacrafices the very FREEDOM of its citizens to accomplish that?

System failures have their own reasons for failing. We should discuss some.

Freedom – an interesting concept. But what is “freedom”? It's worth a serious thread by itself. But for now let me argue that it is much more complex than it has been represented previously. Just as an example, it can be divided into “freedom from” and “freedom to”. We can go from there.

Capitalism isn't about “economic freedom”. It's an economic system that puts the means of production into private hands and by definition that means a few people in a society. That's not “economic freedom”, it's actually denying economic freedom to most people.

Yes, capitalism is unfair but that's not why it will eventually fail. It's unfairness makes it undesirable but it doesn't make the mechanism faulty.

Cuba is an interesting contemporary example because it has been a success for socialism and in doing so it has exposed capitalism for what it really is. And the concept of “freedom” is important in looking at Cuba because it helps to point out the complexity of the idea and the fact that “freedom' is very much socially defined.

what is funny is that ole BERN will hide behind the concept of FREEDOM like george bush begging for war but, as we all know, there is about as much plausable anarchic freedom as there is his eternally hypothetical free market carrot dangling on the stick of reality.


FREEDOM he says? freedom to shoot a neighbor in the fucking head because his dog shits in your yard? Of course not, he'd say. Thus, it's not really a matter of FREEDOM so much as it is the conformation to BERN'S opinions. Nothing more, nothing less. FREEDOM, he says? Freedom to walk into a store and TAKE merch off the shelf and walk out without paying? Of course not, he'd say. Laws ARE regulations on behavior. FREEDOM, he says? Freedom to choose a proactive method of plugging holes in the hull of our fucking economic hemorrhaging by the very people whose Standards of Living have been normalized with that of a Mexican pauper? OF COURSE NOT, he'd say! THAT is PROTECTIONISM! As if China, the very teet which he sickles, doesn't preserve THEIR fucking self interest while we allow people like BERN to place the knotted necktie around our throats while he masturbates to bullshit econ theories.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

The point is you have to be careful that social prorgrams don't socially engineer people into had behavior. You can take care of people too much to societies detriment to the point I think the people on the spaceships in Wall-E aren't too far fetched. Hi standard of living, yes. Extermely little drive or motivation.

BS! The people in these countries I mentioned aren't handed millions, they work for them - and unbeknowest to you, apparently, there is no cap on what you can make. Sheesh! I was pointing out that you can succeed and be as wealthy as you want to be without leaving everyone else out in the cold that doesn't have the same "ability" as you. There are lots of rich people in all of these countries - and there are less rich people, but you don't see many that are destitute like you do here. I think this is a terrific economic system.

 

[Diuretic]

Point being that systems based on the capitalist ideal are not failures.. while all governmental systems based on socialism, Marxism, and communism have been failure and will always be failures... they simply cannot and will not work unless you have the crushing power of the ruling elite forcing the ideals within those systems

Elite? You know that capitalism is run by and for elites don't you?

Capitalism is an economic system that is built on certain premises and operates in a certain fashion. It is a system that requires periodical failures, not just of individual actors but the system itself. Neat one eh? To operate it must fail from time to time. That works doesn't it?

The alleged failures of socialism are brought up time and time again but never really analysed properly. It could be a bit tedious I suppose but it would be worth a discussion.

Has it failed in Cuba? Think about it for just a minute or two because Cuba is probably an interesting example.

And just to finish off, capitalism cannot function without government. It has, as I have said before, shaped government to protect it and to enable it to continue to exist. Ironic but not surprising. The elites have to cloud people's thinking with propaganda so that the truth about capitalism isn't revealed to them. If they knew how it really operated they'd try to get rid of it.

Capitalism isn't run by any one person or group of people, it's run by the market. Supply and demand. It's when government gets involved that we have the corruption, and no government is not necessary for capitalism to function.

Has socialism failed in Cuba? It's a third world country with a stagnant economy. I'd call that a failure. And it's interesting, I believe Shogun brought up how it's our embargo on Cuba keeping them down, but it's the true free market economists, the Austrians, calling for the complete removal of that embargo.

The alleged failures of socialism? Socialism can't work because there is no profit and loss system, and thus no rational means of allocating resources. Had the U.S. not propped up the Soviet Union they would have collapsed earlier than they did. And let's note that all the socialist countries needed capitalistic reforms to get their economies moving again. China is the perfect example of this. There's nothing communist about their economy today. They're certainly not a free market but they have undergone many capitalistic reforms and are now poised as one of the economic powerhouses of the world.

Supply and demand are facets of a market economy. Capitalism requires a market economy to function but it's much more than both. Government is always involved in capitalist economies, without government involvement capitalist economies will collapse.

Socialism hasn't failed in Cuba. Read its history. Since European occupation it has been used by imperialists and later capitalists to produce for their needs, not its own. It has been an agrarian economy and we all know agrarian economies lag behind industrialised economies in terms of GDP. If you compare important characteristics of a society pre-revolution and post-revolution you will see that it has been a stunning success.

Socialism doesn't require a profit and loss system to operate. The rational means of allocating resources is by planning to meet needs, it doesn't require the haphazard nature of supply and demand and profit and loss to function. Supply and demand results in a severe waste of resources and since resources are getting more scarce all the time it should be an indicator as to where we should be going in terms of economic systems.

The embargo against Cuba is just an example of capitalism at work. Remember, it needs government to function. Government, not private corporations, have enforced the embargo, private corporations want to get into Cuba to exploit it, as they did before.

The US and Soviet Union are interesting examples. One nation rich in natural resources with a capitalist economic system which it developed after its revolution to free itself from colonialism. The other nation, not so rich in natural resources but not badly off, which overthrew a despotic aristocracy running a feudal economy and implemented socialism. The US did so in 1776, the Soviet Union in 1917. If you need an example of the power of socialism then there it is.

 

[Shogun]

Nice Wikipedia there earlier.

For the record, the Ludwig von Mises Institute isn't a blog.

wiki is sourced.. and were the TWO sources I provided on top of that from two of your own usual stomping ground.

oh my, an "institute". How impressive.

*yawn*


maybe I can get a shout out from a "Think Tank" next.

The point being that I never said China was a free market. They obviously are a centrally planned economy, even more so than the U.S. is. But you can't deny that their status as an economic power has gone up since they've introduced capitalistic reforms. They were a stagnant third world country under Mao and communism, but they've become what they are today thanks to capitalistic reforms.

Now you would rather attack my source as a "blog," despite the Mises Institute being one of the foremost economic resources on the web. Attacking the source means that you can't attack the information, which means you have no argument. If you did, you could discuss the information regardless of the source.

no, the POINT being that your kind always avoid the albatross of the very same COMMIE CHINA which benefits from your bullshit free market opinion. No, what I can't deny is that they are BENEFITING from your kind who are willing to sell out America for pennies on the Renminbi as long as if lines the pockets of a scant few in relation to the general population. They are a communist nation. Economically ans socially. THAT, despite the above insistance otherwise, is the cold, hard fact regarding this economic partner that you people hold so dear. Hell, if CUBA were treated like CHINA we'd see a fucking economic blossom in Havana too. You say "stagnant third world nation under mao communism"....


..... DESPITE THAT THEY ARE STILL A FUCKING MAO COMMIE NATION. They are what they are today because your kind keep making reasons to give them wealth under FMC as if they are not going to take it. Certainly, since they don't seem to have to trade on par with what they produce and sell to us, no less.

and no, attacking sources means that I hold a standard for information above some silly fucking www.Iagreewithmyself.com website that anyone can create. Hell, Nambla has as much online validity as what you've posted. Maybe instead of crying about my standard for evidence you should make some effort to find some that isn't so fucking pathetic that it looks like sean hannity citing drudge who picked up a story from newsmax.

 

[Diuretic]

but it's the true free market economists, the Austrians, calling for the complete removal of that embargo.

Austrians enjoy a very generous social safety net which includes free health care, as does Ireland, which, if I'm not mistaken, has more of a "free" market than our OWN. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, ALL of the top 12 have public health care provided for & or strong social safety nets. Why do you guys keep whining that we can't have both? Why can't we take care of our citezenry and prosper at the same time?

The 2009 Index of Economic Freedom » The Foundry

Gotta go get on the train now. Ta ta!

Ireland is in trouble, the bubble burst.

 

[Diuretic]

Despite what the Socialists/Communists keep telling everyone,Socialism/Communism does not = "Sharing the Wealth." In the end it always = Sharing the Poverty instead. Do the Socialists/Communists on this board really believe that the standard of living is higher in North Korea than it is in South Korea? This post is just more misguided fantasizing over a Non-Existent and Never-will-be Socialist/Communist Utopia. It is entertaining but it has very little to do with reality.

It's got nothing to do with "sharing".

 

[uscitizen]

Look out everyone.

Moodys is rating Spain, Equador, Dubai, and Greece as bad credit risks.
And keep in mind that moody rated subprime mortgages as low risk up till it all fell apart.

Conclude what you will from that.

 

[Diuretic]

I'm sorry Diuretic but you have it backwards. This is the hardest reality to accept but the reason only a few succeed is because there just aren't that many people driven to achieve it. There is a misconception that the reason there aren't more rich is because the rich must be holding them down. It's simply not true. The truth is observable all around you in the vast majority of people who will never come close to trying to find out what their potential really is. Capitalism doesn't fail people. People fail at capitalism.

Bern – rich people get rich by cornering the resources that create wealth. They then reproduce and hand their wealth and resources to their children. If someone wants to be rich they should choose rich parents. Most of the hard work has been done for them.

So.. it is then wrong to give things or pass things down to your children that are a result of your own decisions, own efforts, own ideas, own risks, etc???

Is it also then wrong for you to take the resources in your possession to then attempt to do better???

Are those said resources owed to you, at the expense of the person who has/had them in their possession, for nothing more than your motherfucking existence?

You also seem to be under the typical entitlement junkie delusion that 'rich people' got what they have for nothing.. and while there are the Paris Hiltons of the world, the vast majority of people who get more money EARN that money with their efforts, ideas, choices, etc....

No, it's not wrong to pass things down to your children. Socialism doesn't abhor private property.

The point about “attempt to do better” isn't relevant to the discussion. Socialism encourages people to do better by getting a better education and by getting a better job and getting a reward from that effort. It doesn't encourage lazy arses who won't work for a living.

If you believe that the means of production should be owned by individuals then it follows that those individuals can pass on ownership to their offspring. I happen to disagree that that is a good thing. Socialism doesn't allow private ownership of the means of production so inheritance of the means of production isn't an issue.

Most rich people inherited their wealth. The important point is how it was gained in the first place.

 

[antagon]

shogun: china's not communist.

 

[uscitizen]

shogun: china's not communist.

Especially not in their Businesses. Cons envy the chinese businesses. Not hardly any labor laws, cheap labor, no EPA, no FDA, etc...

 

[Shogun]

shogun: china's not communist.

I guess your Chinese to Engrish dictionary describes a STATE OWNED ENTERPRISE differently than mine does then.





ps...


The People’s Republic of China is the only global superpower still ruled by a communist party, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), as it has been since the communists came to power in 1949. Even so, the official Chinese version of communism—Maoism, or “Mao Zedong thought”—is a far cry from Marx’s original vision. Mao Zedong, the founder of the People’s Republic and China’s first communist leader, claimed to have “creatively” amended Marxist theory and communist practice to suit Chinese conditions. First, he invoked Lenin’s theory of imperialism to explain Chinese “backwardness” and to justify a revolution in a poor agricultural society without the sizable industrial proletariat that Marx believed was generally necessary to instigate a workers’ revolution. Second, Mao redefined or replaced key concepts of Marx’s theory. Most notably, he replaced the Marxist concept of a proletarian “class” of industrial wage labourers exploited by the capitalist ruling class with the idea of a proletarian “nation” of agricultural peasants exploited by capitalist countries such as the United States. Mao envisioned the proletarian countries encircling the capitalist countries and waging wars of national liberation to cut off foreign sources of cheap labour and raw materials, thereby depriving the capitalist countries of the ever-expanding revenues that are the lifeblood of their economies.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/129104/communism/276333/Chinese-communism

 

[uscitizen]

shogun: china's not communist.

I guess your Chinese to Engrish dictionary describes a STATE OWNED ENTERPRISE differently than mine does then.

It is how it functions not a dict definition.

I spent time in China 12 years ago. Even then it was becoming fairly capitalistic in it's business ventures.

 

[Toro]

Cuba has not failed. It is a remarkable success. The Soviet Union is more than the Stalinist years and bears examination beyond those excesses. China is very interesting. It's almost like looking at an experiment in capitalist development in a petrie dish.

Any economic system has to enforce its will to survive. Capitalism and imperialism have demonstrated an utter ruthlessness against domestic and foreign enemies.

The washing machine box isn't usually an option in a socialist economy but you're perfectly welcome to accept the risk of being forced to live in one if you wish.

Cuba has one of the lowest standards of living in the western hemisphere. They do a decent job of educating and keeping their population healthy, but the average Cuban has a lower standard of living than most countries.

 

[Toro]

The point being that I never said China was a free market. They obviously are a centrally planned economy, even more so than the U.S. is. But you can't deny that their status as an economic power has gone up since they've introduced capitalistic reforms. They were a stagnant third world country under Mao and communism, but they've become what they are today thanks to capitalistic reforms.

Now you would rather attack my source as a "blog," despite the Mises Institute being one of the foremost economic resources on the web. Attacking the source means that you can't attack the information, which means you have no argument. If you did, you could discuss the information regardless of the source.

China's remarkable growth began after it began opening up its economy.

It's not just in China, of course. It is all across Asia.

Generally, the more open and capitalistic the economy, the faster the economy grows.

 

[Diuretic]

Cuba has not failed. It is a remarkable success. The Soviet Union is more than the Stalinist years and bears examination beyond those excesses. China is very interesting. It's almost like looking at an experiment in capitalist development in a petrie dish.

Any economic system has to enforce its will to survive. Capitalism and imperialism have demonstrated an utter ruthlessness against domestic and foreign enemies.

The washing machine box isn't usually an option in a socialist economy but you're perfectly welcome to accept the risk of being forced to live in one if you wish.

Cuba has one of the lowest standards of living in the western hemisphere. They do a decent job of educating and keeping their population healthy, but the average Cuban has a lower standard of living than most countries.

"Who'd call that livin'
When no gal would give in
To no man that was nine hundred years?"

I think that's right, going from memory. Rep for anyone who identifies the song.

Now, free education, free health care, in a largely agrarian society that is beginning to develop industries that don't require the natural resources that it doesn't have. Sorry about mangling the language. Cuba will never manufacture cars, but it is beginning to develop a pharmaceutical industry, for example. Yes, it's material standard of living is lower than other countries but the question is, why is that? Is it a fault of socialism or is it a question of natural resources? Cuba isn't a capitalist, imperialist nation, it won't invade and subjugate other nations to rape them of their natural resources in order to improve the material living standards of its people. It relies on itself.

Socialism has given the Cuban people what they never had under capitalism and imperialism, a decent standard of living.

 

[Toro]

"Who'd call that livin'
When no gal would give in
To no man that was nine hundred years?"

I think that's right, going from memory. Rep for anyone who identifies the song.

Now, free education, free health care, in a largely agrarian society that is beginning to develop industries that don't require the natural resources that it doesn't have. Sorry about mangling the language. Cuba will never manufacture cars, but it is beginning to develop a pharmaceutical industry, for example. Yes, it's material standard of living is lower than other countries but the question is, why is that? Is it a fault of socialism or is it a question of natural resources? Cuba isn't a capitalist, imperialist nation, it won't invade and subjugate other nations to rape them of their natural resources in order to improve the material living standards of its people. It relies on itself.

Socialism has given the Cuban people what they never had under capitalism and imperialism, a decent standard of living.

Cuba sent thousands of troops to Africa to Ethiopia to sustain Mengistu, to Angola to assist in a civil war, and to various countries throughout Latin America. Cuba has had no problems sending its army offshore to advance its communist agenda. It doesn't anymore because the world has basically rejected the Cuban model.

In 1960, Chile and Cuba had roughly the same standards of living. Today, the average Chilean lives far better than the average Cuban.

Compare that to other standard of living metrics. I did this a few years ago but they basically still apply.

TE
From the CIA factbook online, Cuba does well in some areas and very poor in others.

Of eight major Caribbean nations - Barbados, Bahamas, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Jamaica, Trinidad, Puerto Rico and Cuba;

Cuba has the lowest infant mortality rate of 6.33 per 1000. Next lowest is Puerto Rico at 8.24.

Cuba's life expectancy is 77.2, in line with Jamaica at 76.3 and Puerto Rico at 77.6. Everyone else is lower.

Literacy is 97%, in line with Barbados at 97.4%, Bahamas 95.6%, Trinidad 98.6% and Puerto Rico at 94.1%.

Net migration in Cuba is -1.58 per 1000, Puerto Rico -1.34, Haiti -1.68 and Barbados -0.31.


GDP per capita

Bahamas $17,700
Puerto Rico $17,700
Barbardos $16,400
Trinidad $10,500
Dom. Rep. $6,300
Jamaica $4,100
Cuba $3,000
Haiti $1,500


Telephones per 1000 inhabitants

Barbados 0.98
Bahamas 0.84
Jamaica 0.68
Peurto Rico 0.65
Trinidad 0.63
Dom Rep 0.34
Cuba 0.05
Haiti 0.03

Cuba has all sorts of natural resources, including cobalt, nickel, iron ore, copper, manganese, salt, timber, silica, and petroleum. A Canadian company called Sherritt has been blacklisted for investing to mine these resources. Besides, Japan and Singapore have no natural resources and they became the richest countries in the world.

 

[Bern80]

If you only want wealth for a few then capitalism is the way to go.

I'm sorry Diuretic but you have it backwards. This is the hardest reality to accept but the reason only a few succeed is because there just aren't that many people driven to achieve it. There is a misconception that the reason there aren't more rich is because the rich must be holding them down. It's simply not true. The truth is observable all around you in the vast majority of people who will never come close to trying to find out what their potential really is. Capitalism doesn't fail people. People fail at capitalism.

Bern – rich people get rich by cornering the resources that create wealth. They then reproduce and hand their wealth and resources to their children. If someone wants to be rich they should choose rich parents. Most of the hard work has been done for them.

No Diuretic the reason many don't get rich is because they do what you're doing here. They make excuses. Your statement is categorically false. What resource has Donald Trump or Warren Buffett cornered. There are all kinds of ways to get rich and there are far more rich people than there are resources to monopolize

 

[Bern80]

System failures have their own reasons for failing. We should discuss some.

Freedom – an interesting concept. But what is “freedom”? It's worth a serious thread by itself. But for now let me argue that it is much more complex than it has been represented previously. Just as an example, it can be divided into “freedom from” and “freedom to”. We can go from there.

Capitalism isn't about “economic freedom”. It's an economic system that puts the means of production into private hands and by definition that means a few people in a society. That's not “economic freedom”, it's actually denying economic freedom to most people.

But these two parargraphs actually go hand in hand. And it is YOU who has set up a false premise. You were correct up to 'mean's of production in private hands. You neglected the part about how those resources got into private hands uin the first place. It isn't some straw pole or lottery as to who gets what resources (and even this resource concept you have contrived is a bit off base). I said this is tied to freedom. You brought up freedom from and freedom to. In capitilistic society you have the freedom to pursue whatever you like. You do NOT have freedom from having to work for things you want. Those that worked for it got the resources. Those of us that don't have them pay those that do for their efforts and not having to do the work ourselves. There is nothing unfair about that.

Cuba is an interesting contemporary example because it has been a success for socialism and in doing so it has exposed capitalism for what it really is. And the concept of “freedom” is important in looking at Cuba because it helps to point out the complexity of the idea and the fact that “freedom' is very much socially defined.

Diuretic come on. I used to think you were semi smart. Have you looked at that avg. standard of living of a Cuban by chance?

 

[Bern80]

Success and failure. Again, sorry to sound like a pedant Dave but they are words, concepts, that have to be examined in place. Capitalism does reward a few over the many. If success for one means failure for a thousand and you're happy with that then that's fine. I'm not.

Capitlaism rewards the motivated and driven. Capitalism is not some wheel of luck that lands on a few. If few have much it is because those few found a way to achieve that. That isn't really the central issue here. The central issue seems to be how you think the things you want should be provided to you. You must be of the belief - and I know you will say otherwise but the fact is it is the reality of your argument - that you should not have to work to attain the things you want.

Cuba has not failed. It is a remarkable success. The Soviet Union is more than the Stalinist years and bears examination beyond those excesses. China is very interesting. It's almost like looking at an experiment in capitalist development in a petrie dish.

You can honeslty sit there with a straight face and say a Cuban prefers the standard of living he has there over the opportunity to improve it here? Those rafts travel south to north, not the other way.

 

[antagon]

Success and failure. Again, sorry to sound like a pedant Dave but they are words, concepts, that have to be examined in place. Capitalism does reward a few over the many. If success for one means failure for a thousand and you're happy with that then that's fine. I'm not.

Cuba has not failed. It is a remarkable success. The Soviet Union is more than the Stalinist years and bears examination beyond those excesses. China is very interesting. It's almost like looking at an experiment in capitalist development in a petrie dish.

Any economic system has to enforce its will to survive. Capitalism and imperialism have demonstrated an utter ruthlessness against domestic and foreign enemies.

The washing machine box isn't usually an option in a socialist economy but you're perfectly welcome to accept the risk of being forced to live in one if you wish.

success for one means a job, customer, competitor, neighbor, supplier or benefactor to the thousand. i mean if cuba's a remarkable success, the US is heavens doorstep. thats the way lots of cubans see it.