Dubai's free market capitalism

[DiamondDave]

uhm.. where the hell would one have to live in order to see as many dem commercials as various drug commercials?


sometimes people say the goofiest shit.

Did not compare the quantity.. simply asked that if one complains about the private company that uses it's money for advertisement and says that a use such as that is wrong when prices are high... then why is there not complaints about the government and government supporters who pay for ads that call for a system that takes more monies from the public to pay for the 'entitlement' system they are promoting??.. when those monies could be used to support charities and/or to set up a not-for-profit company that would provide cheaper health insurance

 

[DiamondDave]

in 2003 16% of Pharma's money went to R&D. near 30% went to administrative overhead.

link

 

[Mr. Peepers]

in 2003 16% of Pharma's money went to R&D. near 30% went to administrative overhead.

And how many drug commercials are there today as opposed to 2003? There's one every other commercial, I've noticed. I dont' watch that much TV, so maybe I'm just not de-sensitized to the sheer volume of them.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

ps.. make sure you let them know how a STATE OWNED ENTERPRISE is, somehow, a step toward free market capitalism too.

State capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[☭proletarian☭]

in 2003 16% of Pharma's money went to R&D. near 30% went to administrative overhead.

Not that i doubt your claims, but could you link to your source?

 

[DiamondDave]

in 2003 16% of Pharma's money went to R&D. near 30% went to administrative overhead.

Not that i doubt your claims, but could you link to your source?

Then also please link comparisons to administrative overhead in the government and other industries

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

stormfront has all those things too. whooptyfuckingdo.

and you can email the encyclopedia Britannica, I guess, and let them know that they may have made a typo in their description of STATE OWNED ENTERPRISES.

Then it's your contention that the United States is communist as well?

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.

 

[Diuretic]

"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.

Cuba sent soldiers to help out allies. Yes, it did.

Average Cuban and average Chilean standard of living. I'm sure you're right.

Metrics. Again I'm sure you're right.

Resources. If they're not being exploited then there may be various reasons for that. Policy reasons might be just one. Socialists view natural resources differently from capitalists.

 

[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.

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

Those aren't excuses Bern, they're reasons.

Trump and Buffett have benefited from the system as rentiers. We need to go back well before them to see how it enabled the Trumps and Buffetts to do what they do today.

 

[Diuretic]

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?

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.

Work. Of course people have to work. Where this idea that socialism doesn't require work is beyond me. Socialist texts are full of mention of work.

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.

 

[Diuretic]

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.

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.

I haven't mentioned anything at all about how I think things should be provided to me. You've fallen foul of your own non-understanding of socialism and are displaying an acceptance of capitalist propaganda in ascribing a false position to me. I believe that may be called a strawman.

See previous posts about socialism and work.

Cuba. The point is often made about economic refugees fleeing from Cuba to the US but as an argument it's not convincing. Cuba is poor, the United States is rich. That some individuals seek to improve their material lot isn't at all surprising – nor does it have much of an impact on the discussion. I'm sure that if Batista was in power in Cuba that some people would still be trying to get to Florida for a better material life. But that would still be a fairly weak point to bring up to criticise imperialism and capitalism in Cuba.

 

[Diuretic]

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.

And I would think a lot of Cubans would understand the downside of living in a capitalist society.

 

[Shogun]

and, BE$N, before you start making assumptions about my motivations feel free to take your fucking ass to the midwest and get a job that isn't housed in a nice, warm office. You see, fuckwad, I've walked the path that I'm talking about and know exactly what the game from this end looks like. When you can do more than sit on your pedestal and cry foul let me know; This is about a standard of living for Americans... not your dusty fucking rhetoric that began to dull in the 90s.

This is really the only part of your blather that really warrants a response because standard of living is what is at the crux of the argument.

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth and one doesn't know what the other is saying. The facts simply don't jive for you Shogun. The FACT is you claim this is about a better standard of living for everyone in America. We already have a better standard of living than your pedastal countries of Cuba and China. Apparently the FACT that those two countries are communists and ours is a capitalistic one is just some amazing coincidence to you. The FACT is that on avg. people enjoy a better standard of living here than in those countries due to the fact that people are allowed to achieve whatever they want. The FACT is capitalism provides the best opportunity for job creation, thus wealth accumulation, thus improving standard of living. That has historically been proven time and again.

you can pick and choose what you want to reply to, BE$N, but it just illustrates what kind of a candy ass bitch you can be when I retort your silly economic opinions into oblivion.



and, YOU might have a better sol than those in china... but, again, since your kind act as if a dusty fucking desk top is the end of your white collar world you will have to excuse me for disregarding the bullshit you try to pass off as insight. I guarenfuckingtee you don't have a better standard of living than EVERY chinaman in China. Beyond your trite talking points there is class stratification there just as there is here. (which, should make your chins warm with glee to hear). That you pretend that every Chinese citizen works in a coal mine and eats rocks for lunch for some laughable notion that Chinese HATE their economic reality is just farcical. Indeed, it's the kind of cartoon input that makes your econ opinions so laughable.


And no, dummy, what clearly isn't a coincidence is how plastic your position is while both talking shit about China's economy AND THEN TURNING AROUND AND PRETENDING THAT A) China is not a communist nation and B) they are somehow economically disastrous for labor yet totally dominating the shit out of the US in regards to production and global trade. Tell me more about which of us is talking out of both sides of their mouths, BE$N.




No BE$N, what the FACT is, in regards to STANDARDS OF LIVING, is that YOUR kind are not why WE HAVE A HIGHER SOL THAN CHINA. What we have NOW is the aftermath of the greatest generation who would rather buy AMERICAN than foreign. It's the residual byproduct of a generation dead and buried by your FMC grave diggers. People don't have 2 cars and a nice house because of YOUR stupid fucking policy opinions, mr. "hey, your american labor is not as cheap as a mexican's". That you somehow claim our FORMER prosperity as the result of free market capitalism highlights how desperate you are to avoid reality. Like I stated above in the examples you chose to ignore: Back in the day America used to put a premium on retained opportunity and domestic products which caused all those AMERICAN PRODUCERS to be able to go buy goods and services, LOCALLY, which in turn meant that MORE AMERICANS HAD MORE CONSUMPTION POTENTIAL AND, consequently, MORE AMERICANS WORKED WITH A HIGHER STANDARD OF LIVING...


but hey... go ahead and ignore what you need to in order to force your square opinion through the circular hole of reality.

 

[Diuretic]

Ireland is in trouble, the bubble burst.

It's weathering the global meltdown a lot better than we are. I was there at the end of July.

Since the global meltdown emanated from the US I'm not surprised Ireland is doing better, relatively speaking. And being a smaller economy it should be easier to manage. But then perhaps not.

"It was very depressing when I left Ireland," said Lenehan, a communications graduate from Dublin City University and a professional Irish dancer. "The topic of conversation for everybody is jobs, paying bills, mortgages. I wasn't even able to get back the deli sandwich-making job I had all through college."

"There is no question that Ireland's desperate economic situation has brought lots more people to our center," said Brian O'Dwyer, a prominent New York lawyer and chairman of the immigration center. "For the first time in many years, people are showing up at our doorstep that have left Ireland in search of work."

Fleeing a troubled economy in Ireland, young newcomers are not having the luck o' the Irish

That's the problem with using one person's experience to make broader judgements about a situation.

 

[Shogun]

Then it's your contention that the United States is communist as well?

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.

 

[Diuretic]

China is not a communist country. It doesn't matter if the communist party is ruling the country - communist parties don't allow private property, private health insurance, large multinationals to set up shop and employ thousands, extraordinarily rich people. etc. Somewhere, I had read that the governments in China account for less of the economy than in America, though I don't know if that is true or not.

China has been transitioning from a communist, agarian society to a mixed economy while trying to emulate the Asian Tigers that have become wealthy. All successful economies are a mixture of private and public enterprise.

Cuba, on the other hand, is still a communist country.

China seems to have been a successful, in the material sense, state capitalist economy. They're smarter than the old Soviets too. Instead of going head to head with the west in a military build-up that the Soviet Union would never win, China has quietly built on its good economic relations with the west to simultaneously build its state capitalist economy and being able to do so because it is a totalitarian state (non-Chinese capitalists would be slavering over that). At the same time it has modernised and extended its military. I'm happy to say that it is neither socialist nor communist.

 

[Shogun]

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


yea BE$N! Unemplolyed, 55 year old former LATHE workers are just LAZY and make excuses for not going back to school and learning how to program with Java! For Realz!

 

[Diuretic]

Ireland is in trouble, the bubble burst.

It's weathering the global meltdown a lot better than we are. I was there at the end of July.

Man, what if the viagra factory there shuts down?

Guinness will increase its production to compensate.

 

[Bern80]

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

Those aren't excuses Bern, they're reasons.

Trump and Buffett have benefited from the system as rentiers. We need to go back well before them to see how it enabled the Trumps and Buffetts to do what they do today.

One can't benefit or not benefit from the system. I don't know how to word it but it is a concept that you need to get out of your head. The system does not work 'on' people. People learn the system and use their skills to succeed within that system. The system is not some invisible hand of destiny the bestows good or bad luck upon people. The best way maybe I can put was a quote told to me that has served well; Circumstances don't make a man. They reveal the man.

 

[Diuretic]

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

Those aren't excuses Bern, they're reasons.

Trump and Buffett have benefited from the system as rentiers. We need to go back well before them to see how it enabled the Trumps and Buffetts to do what they do today.

One can't benefit or not benefit from the system. I don't know how to word it but it is a concept that you need to get out of your head. The system does not work 'on' people. People learn the system and use their skills to succeed within that system. The system is not some invisible hand of destiny the bestows good or bad luck upon people. The best way maybe I can put was a quote told to me that has served well; Circumstances don't make a man. They reveal the man.

Capitalism is about benefiting the few over the many. If that suits someone then fine. If they're one of the few they'll be supportive. If they're one of the many then they may still support the system that benefits the few over the many. Why someone would do so I have no idea.