Fidel Castro:Cuban Model Not Working

[BVS]

I think you've finally lost it. None of that rant rings true. I think you have thoroughly missed the point of the last few pages by MILES.

 

[UberBeaver]

I know which side is close minded. You're angry that I smashed your post but you deserved it. Conservatives on this site are tired of bullshit commentary that doesn't lead anywhere. I'm actually open minded enough to admit my mistakes and have done so in the past. I would like the left (especially when talking about economics) to do the same. If there's a huge gap then agreeing to disagree is even better. Bashing capitalism with the failings of mercantilism, colonialism, etc. is pointless and just agitation and large "pile-ons" that look more like bullying than discussion. I remember when I was defending the benefits of religion and philosophy and getting piled on as a religious fundamentalist. The fact you think I backpeddle already shows that bias. After the pages and pages of posts I'm definitely not guilty of that. I'm not allowing political threads to get derailed anymore because it's a waste of everybody's time.

If you don't like capitalism find actual examples that aren't criticisms of colonialism or mercantilism or bad regulations. That will actually add to the discussion in interesting ways. I don't believe capitalism should be worshipped or seen as infallible but I would like to see someone to come up with better ideas, ah there's the rub. It's not so easy to do that when professional economists/analysts/political scientists have trouble doing it themselves.

It's easy to spout stuff that the Castro brothers and Chavez would say but it's harder to go look at the downside of those regimes and then continue to criticize capitalism.

I am not on a side. I am liberal about somethings, conservative on others. Please stop assuming that everyone is on a side, it's silly and childish. I'm not angry that you "smashed" my post, because, in reality, you didn't address my post. I got upset that you said I had a brain made of jelly because I don't think Capitol ism is some happy happy joy joy system where everything is wonderful and sunny, double rainbow for everyone! WEEEEEEEE! I got upset because, in fact, you did not address my post.

I don't join in the piling on of you "conservatives". Why on earth would you think I do? I never bashed capitalism, why would you say I do? Who have I ever bullied? I defend religion and philosophy as well. What does your doing so have to do with anything?

I do like capitalism, and I think it works pretty well. But I don't think it's beneficial to just ignore and gloss over the awful things that are done in it's name. I think HipHop brought up some fine examples, if you want to go back and read. I think there is something inherent in Capitalism that allows few to become exorbitantly wealthy while others have little choice but to struggle, even though they work just as hard as those that are "successful." If you can't see something wrong with that, I can't understand you.

 

[Diemen]

You're angry that I smashed your post but you deserved it. Conservatives on this site are tired of bullshit commentary that doesn't lead anywhere.

He most certainly did not deserve to have his intelligence insulted as you did. That is not smashing a post, that's being immature.

 

[hiphop]

FinanceGuy don't waste your time on people who say things like the above. They don't even know the difference between a market and a command economy. They don't know the difference between mercantilism and capitalism.

Bashing capitalism with the failings of mercantilism, colonialism, etc. is pointless and just agitation

You need to get your facts straight and stop bashing this forum. Since you insist on a theoretical ivory tower discussion and insist that capitalism has nothing to do with mercantilism and colonialism, I will gladly offer all interested readers three links: a conservative, a non-conservative and a neutral link.

Here´s the conservative link and a few quotes:

History Of Capitalism

"Although there is only one official dark age in the history text, the disconnected ancient world used to go through dark ages much like the blackouts and brownouts that ripple across energy hungry states. In these dark areas, the people went back to securing enough food for themselves and surviving until the next powerful figure came along to claim them as his own."

"Mercantilism is now known as an attempt to create trade imbalances between nations, as well as between colonies and their imperial rulers, so that one nation prospers at the cost of others. It also has a less known usage simply meaning the principles and methods of commerce."

"It was Adam Smith who noticed that mercantilism was not a force of development and change, but a regressive system that was keeping the world from advancing. His ideas for a free market opened the world to capitalism."

"Industrial capitalism was the first system to benefit all levels of society rather than just the noble class. Wages increased, helped greatly by the formation of unions.."

Note how the author compares "energy hungry states" and "dark ages" (?), and how he insists on quoting Adam Smith (most conservative economists continue to quote two authors: Adam Smith and David Ricardo. it seems they have just read those two books.). Also note how he insists that mercantilism and capitalism are two different things. And finally, he ignores that the formation of unions was not powered by capitalists. As we all know, the truth is in the "dark ages" of industrial capitalism, capitalist rulers (ie. factory owners) fought unions with everything they could.


Here´s what conservatives might classify being a non-conservative link and a few quotes:

A Primer on Neoliberalism — Global Issues

"There is an important difference between liberal politics and liberal economics. But this distinction is usually not articulated in the mainstream."

"U.S. neo-conservatives, with their commitment to high military spending and the global assertion of national values, tend to be more authoritarian than hard right. By contrast, neo-liberals, opposed to such moral leadership and, more especially, the ensuing demands on the tax payer, belong to a further right but less authoritarian region. Paradoxically, the "free market", in neo-con parlance, also allows for the large-scale subsidy of the military-industrial complex, a considerable degree of corporate welfare, and protectionism when deemed in the national interest. These are viewed by neo-libs as impediments to the unfettered market forces that they champion." (source: The Political Compass)

"The underlying assumption [of neoliberalism] then is that the free markets are a good thing. They may well be, but unfortunately, reality seems different from theory. For many economists who believe in it strongly the ideology almost takes on the form of a theology. However, less discussed is the the issue of power and how that can seriously affect, influence and manipulate trade for certain interests. One would then need to ask if free trade is really possible.

From a power perspective, “free” trade in reality is seen by many around the world as a continuation of those old policies of plunder, whether it is intended to be or not. However, we do not usually hear such discussions in the mainstream media, even though thousands have protested around the world for decades.

(...) Unfortunately, for most people in the world there has been an increase in poverty and the innovation and growth has not been designed to meet immediate needs for many of the world’s people. Global inequalities on various indicators are sharp. For example,
* Some 3 billion people — or half of humanity — live on under 2 dollars a day
* 86 percent of the world’s resources are consumed by the world’s wealthiest 20 percent"

"Free markets were not inevitable, naturally occurring processes. They had to be forced upon people."

"A detailed insight into this process of transformation [towards free trade in 18th century England] is revealed by Michael Perelman, Professor of Economics at California State University. In his book The Invention of Capitalism (Duke University Press, 2000), he details how peasants did not willingly abandon their self-sufficient lifestyle to go work in factories.

*Instead they had to be forced with the active support of thinkers and economists of the time, including the famous originators of classical political economy, such as Adam Smith, David Ricardo, James Steuart and others.
*Contradicting themselves, as if it were, they argued for government policies that deprived the peasants their way of life of self-provision, to coerce them into waged labor.
*Separating the rural peasantry from their land was successful because of “ideological vigor” from people like Adam Smith, and because of a “revision of history” that created an impression of a humanitarian heritage of political economy; an inevitability to be celebrated."

Adam Smith describes mercantilism for us:

[Mercantilism’s] ultimate object… is always the same, to enrich the country [city or state] by an advantageous balance of trade. It discourages the exportation of the materials of manufacture [tools and raw material], and the instruments of trade, in order to give our own workmen an advantage, and to enable them to undersell those of other nations [cities] in all foreign markets: and by restraining, in this manner, the exportation of a few commodities of no great price, it proposes to occasion a much greater and more valuable exportation of others. It encourages the importation of the materials of manufacture, in order that our own people may be enabled to work them up more cheaply, and thereby prevent a greater and more valuable importation of the manufactured commodities.

William Appleman Williams describes mercantilism at its zenith: “The world was defined as known and finite, a principle agreed upon by science and theology. Hence the chief way for a nation to promote or achieve its own wealth and happiness was to take them away from some other country.”

[Rooted in Mercantilism] "When the injustice of mercantilism was understood, it became too embarrassing and was replaced by the supposedly just Adam Smith free trade. But free trade as practiced by Adam Smith neo-mercantilists was far from fair trade. Adam Smith unequal free trade is little more than a philosophy for the continued subtle monopolization of the wealth-producing-process, largely through continued privatization of the commons of both an internal economy and the economies of weak nations on the periphery of trading empires. So long as weak nations could be forced to accept the unequal trades of Adam Smith free trade, they would be handing their wealth to the imperial-centers-of-capital of their own free will. In short, Adam Smith free trade, as established by neo-mercantilists, was only mercantilism hiding under the cover of free trade."

As European and American economies grew, they needed to continue expansion to maintain the high standards of living that some elites were attaining in those days. This required holding on to, and expanding colonial territories in order to gain further access to the raw materials and resources, as well exploiting cheap labor. Those who resisted were often met with brutal repression or military interventions. This is not a controversial perception. Even U.S. President Woodrow Wilson recognized this in the early part of the 20th century:

Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed against him must be battered down. Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process. Colonies must be obtained or planted, in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or left unused. Woodrow Wilson, President of the United States, 1919

[Colonialism] "The Depression of 1873 revealed another big problem with capitalist expansion and perpetual growth: it can continue only as long as there is a ready supply of raw materials and an increasing demand for goods, along with ways to invest profits and capital. Given this situation, if you were an American or European investor in 1873, where would you look for economic expansion?

The obvious answer was to expand European and American power overseas, particularly into areas that remained relatively untouched by capitalist expansion — Africa, Asia, and the Pacific. Colonialism had become, in fact, a recognized solution to the need to expand markets, increase opportunities for investors, and ensure the supply of raw material."

One question to our dear conservatives: if Adam Smith started capitalism, while colonialism and mercantilism came before of that, why was Africa colonized in the 19th century?

Here´s another link to what we all might call a neutral cource, wikipedia:

History of capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Crisis of the 14th Century and the "Pre-History of Capitalism"
Merchant capitalism and mercantilism
Enclosures and the transition from feudalism
Industrial capitalism and laissez-faire
Nineteenth century
Twentieth century

Just quoting the chapters brings up the term "Merchant capitalism".

We conclude that mercantilism and colonialism indeed are forms (or integral parts) of capitalism.

It seems that purpleoscar and financeguy confuse capitalism with neo-liberalism.

Maybe it would be a good idea to read up on 20th century theories like the dependency theory instead of continuing to quote Smith and Ricardo who had their heyday in the 18th century.

I think HipHop brought up some fine examples, if you want to go back and read. I think there is something inherent in Capitalism that allows few to become exorbitantly wealthy while others have little choice but to struggle, even though they work just as hard as those that are "successful." If you can't see something wrong with that, I can't understand you.

UberBeaver.

Back to the facts, ladies and gentlemen.

 

[purpleoscar]

He most certainly did not deserve to have his intelligence insulted as you did. That is not smashing a post, that's being immature.

http://www.u2interference.com/forum...n-model-not-working-207665-4.html#post6961151

I'm still sticking with this post.

I do like capitalism, and I think it works pretty well. But I don't think it's beneficial to just ignore and gloss over the awful things that are done in it's name. I think HipHop brought up some fine examples, if you want to go back and read. I think there is something inherent in Capitalism that allows few to become exorbitantly wealthy while others have little choice but to struggle, even though they work just as hard as those that are "successful." If you can't see something wrong with that, I can't understand you.

Are you kidding me? People do not work equally hard and many underestimate how hard it is to make lots of money. There's also a difference between working harder and working smarter. The risks that people take to start a business and the hours they work are most certainly more than the average.

 

[BVS]

http://www.u2interference.com/forum...n-model-not-working-207665-4.html#post6961151

I'm still sticking with this post.

Do you realize how childish this is?

Are you kidding me? People do not work equally hard and many underestimate how hard it is to make lots of money. There's also a difference between working harder and working smarter. The risks that people take to start a business and the hours they work are most certainly more than the average.

Wait, what? What do you mean by people don't work equally hard?

Are you saying it's not true that two people can work just as hard and not be equal in pay?

 

[purpleoscar]

It seems that purpleoscar and financeguy confuse capitalism with neo-liberalism.

Maybe it would be a good idea to read up on 20th century theories like the dependency theory instead of continuing to quote Smith and Ricardo who had their heyday in the 18th century.

An so your solution is :

Also, capitalism (or competition, if you meant that) is not "human" at all - our body, soul and mind work well without it. Capitalism per se isn´t vital. No one needs capitalism to survive, but mankind basically needs food, water, a roof or a place to stay, education, electricity and medicines. Capitalism´s wealthy individuals continue to rob billions of people of those basic needs. Mankind doesn´t need borders or nations or political worldwide economic systems - not so long ago mankind and the planet as a whole were much better off without all that crap.

BTW we don't only quote from Adam Smith. There are political parties and politicians that don't fit into your cookie cutter versions and you still make the mistake of comparing mercantalism/colonialism/capitalism because it's an easier target for you than to actually talk about what we should do next. Why don't you keep on the topic or start a new topic called:

"The errors of mercantalism & colonialism"?

Capitalism can exist without monopolies and often governments foster monopolies. Democratic capitalism is the best system we have because the other forms have even more crisis including your golden period you describe above. Your tactic is to argue with the recent past and ignore how hard it was much farther in the past and even call competition not human. Who are you fooling? You're so far out on a limb. If I'm FREE with my paycheque I will go to stores and choose what is best for me and my family. If I don't have that freedom (most importantly responsibility) then I'm not actually free. It's just another circular argument that would lead us back again to despotism. We better have competition or power and capital will be concentrated in a few hands much more than anything in the U.S.

The reason why markets are best is because it allows economic decision making to filter to the entire population precisely because no human or collective government has enough knowledge to administer a national economy. Even China figured this out partially and maybe Cuba will start to delegate some of that responsiblity.

 

[purpleoscar]

Do you realize how childish this is?

I'm not being childish I'm trying to point out exactly what your posts are proving to be. You want to send it into a train derailment and talk about anything other than the failure of Cuba and make the thread into a pig fuck. Welcome to the world of "Free your mind". More like "Flood Conservative Posts" with side arguments.

Wait, what? What do you mean by people don't work equally hard?

Are you saying it's not true that two people can work just as hard and not be equal in pay?

No, working harder isn't working smarter and there is no efficient way to make every non-gifted person or non-skilled person be equal in result. The best way is to reward initiative. Did you even read the bolded part above in my prior post?

There's also a difference between working harder and working smarter.

This is what I'm talking about. Are you even trying to understand the other side?

 

[UberBeaver]

http://www.u2interference.com/forum...n-model-not-working-207665-4.html#post6961151

I'm still sticking with this post.



Are you kidding me? People do not work equally hard and many underestimate how hard it is to make lots of money. There's also a difference between working harder and working smarter. The risks that people take to start a business and the hours they work are most certainly more than the average.

LOL. Wow. And I'm the jelly head. Love that. Do you really believe this nonsense? Why do you give answers to questions no one is asking? And why can't you answer questions people ask? And how can you do both of those things and then claim others are derailing the thread? It's like a Kafka novel.

 

[BVS]

I'm not being childish I'm trying to point out exactly what your posts are proving to be. You want to send it into a train derailment and talk about anything other than the failure of Cuba and make the thread into a pig fuck. Welcome to the world of "Free your mind". More like "Flood Conservative Posts" with side arguments.

My post does NONE of this. It IS childish to "stick" to a post that insulted another poster after a mod points out that it was uncalled for.

How can you accuse people of derailing a thread when you are notorious for such a thing? How many times and how many posters have asked you to actually answer the post at hand? Be honest...

I've come to the conclusion one I've been thinking for a long time but you've solidified today, you're not intellectually or emotionally equipped for such discussions. You're a nice guy most of the time, but you just aren't equipped for this.

No, working harder isn't working smarter and there is no efficient way to make every non-gifted person or non-skilled person be equal in result. The best way is to reward initiative. Did you even read the bolded part above in my prior post?

I did read the bold, but you're honestly telling me that it's ALWAYS about how hard and smart you work? You can't think of one instance where two people of equal skill and work ethic don't get rewarded the same? Not one?

This is what I'm talking about. Are you even trying to understand the other side?

Honestly, and this is why I say you're not equipped, I really don't see this discussion as "sides". This is not a right or left discussion, this is not a communist vs capitalist discussion. Honestly this discussion came down to some finding faults in all systems and some pretending there aren't. No one here was trying to abandon capitalism. But you aren't equipped enough to see this.

 

[Diemen]

To be fair, BVS:

I think you've finally lost it.

This certainly isn't helpful, either.

 

[hiphop]

Are you kidding me? People do not work equally hard and many underestimate how hard it is to make lots of money. There's also a difference between working harder and working smarter. The risks that people take to start a business and the hours they work are most certainly more than the average.

Now you´re kidding me. I run my own business so I know what it takes. Your opinion again shows that you are only thinking along the lines of rich, first world countries - your own little world. I´m not wondering about your ideological defense plus repetition propaganda techique of capitalism at all - you´ve been fine with it, and probably you never saw anything else. Probably you have never been to a poor country where juveniles work at a garbage dump to collect plastic garbage which they recycle and sell. That kind of work is harder than the work of a businessman or a lawyer - it always stinks all around you, more than 10 hours a day.

There are people who need to walk for 4 hours to get to their job. They can´t afford any other means of transportation. I will always remember the 16 yr old pilot of a small local boat I met in Indonesia. I asked him if he liked his job, and he replied, yes of course I do - it´s just that I don´t get a lot of sleep. He got up at 4 a.m., walking through the jungle to the lake, starting work at 8 a.m., finishing at 7 p.m. and walked back for 4 hours. Each and every day.

Have you ever constructed a building? With your hands and, of course, the help of machines. Do you know how hard being a construction worker is?

I also think that 10 year old kid in the sweat shop in India works harder than the average businessman. Same for Toiling in India's ship graveyard for £1 a day | World news | The Guardian

In my opinion, starting a business when you are a small entrepreneuer certainly includes risks and hard work. The fresh entrepreneur may work more hours per week than, say, a parliament member. On the other hand, most of the work he does is head work. It´s not that he´s a factory worker.

You ignore the fact that most young entrepreneurs who start a business don´t make a lot of money and often go bankrupt. Instead, managers who work in established blue chips companies make the real cash. I really don´t think it´s such hard work to cash of millions of bonusses for firing thousands of employees. Imho, most speculating bankers also aren´t really working hard. I also don´t think it´s really hard to sell arms when you have enough customers. Dealers also make a lot of money and they don´t really work hard, do they? And trust me, this officiating notary really makes a lot of money, while his office does most of the head work.

It would broaden your horizon to see a bit more of the world - not on a luxury resort or cruise ship trip, but to see the real world, to stay in small local motels, to talk to the locals (in case you have studied any other language). Unfortunately, if you are white, most poor people will only see the rich gringo with a dollar bill on his head. Well, this unpleasant assumption probably wouldn´t be that far from reality.

If I'm FREE with my paycheque I will go to stores and choose what is best for me and my family.

Right, YOU will. But the majority of people WON`T because they don´t get a paycheque.

It´s interesting you equate freedom with having money to buy things.

It´s interesting you don´t waste a single thought on people who produced all the products for you, and we can assume they often worked under shitty hard conditions.

But finally we get to see your point of view: YOU are thinking about YOURSELF and YOUR paycheque and YOUR family. Nothing else. Fraternity is just a vague concept, basically reserved for idiots.

Thank you for illustrating your view. You´re not the only one - be assured. This is precisely why our planet is fucked up beyond comparison by mankind.

 

[BVS]

To be fair, BVS:



This certainly isn't helpful, either.

Fair enough...

 

[anitram]

Are you kidding me? People do not work equally hard and many underestimate how hard it is to make lots of money.

And then there are those of us who understand this concept very well (probably better than you), live it every day, and still don't hold your extreme, dismissive views and don't see the world as simple and black & white. Surely our brains are made of jello.

 

[financeguy]

And then there are those of us who understand this concept very well (probably better than you), live it every day, and still don't hold your extreme, dismissive views and don't see the world as simple and black & white. Surely our brains are made of jello.

There's a massive disconnnect goin' on here somewhere. Have you spotted it yourself yet? Just curious.

 

[purpleoscar]

And then there are those of us who understand this concept very well (probably better than you), live it every day, and still don't hold your extreme, dismissive views and don't see the world as simple and black & white. Surely our brains are made of jello.

No they are made of criticisms that lead to little useful discussion because people cannot agree between the differences between the U.S. and Cuba. I've talked to a socialist guy that was a friend of my brother and he seriously said that Canada (especially Alberta) was worse than North Korea. How can people say stuff like this with a straight face? That's like a Pakistani co-worker who said in a nonchalant way that all we need is Sharia Law instead of Democracy.

My post does NONE of this. It IS childish to "stick" to a post that insulted another poster after a mod points out that it was uncalled for.

Did you read what I quoted from him?

How can you accuse people of derailing a thread when you are notorious for such a thing? How many times and how many posters have asked you to actually answer the post at hand? Be honest...

I've answered the posts but they either didn't get it or it wasn't what they wanted to hear. I'm pretty sure in economics we've gone over much of the same ground and repeated many of the same arguments precisely because that's where everyone else is right now. But yes I've derailed some but it takes two to tango and I'm tired of it. I've noticed that it's also getting more derailed with this election coming up precisely because the majority on here are probably not happy with the results or are scared.

I've come to the conclusion one I've been thinking for a long time but you've solidified today, you're not intellectually or emotionally equipped for such discussions. You're a nice guy most of the time, but you just aren't equipped for this.

And your conceited attempt to say I'm not equipped. Obviously I'm equipped. You must have people who listen to you for guidance all the time to even talk this way.

I did read the bold, but you're honestly telling me that it's ALWAYS about how hard and smart you work? You can't think of one instance where two people of equal skill and work ethic don't get rewarded the same? Not one?

It certainly works better. Can someone figure out a better way? People must have some motivation to do what they do and when they get results they often evangelize it to others. It's not perfect because humans aren't but then how are top down solutions from HUMANS going to be better? That's actually a difficult question and I don't see anyone getting near it.

Honestly, and this is why I say you're not equipped, I really don't see this discussion as "sides". This is not a right or left discussion, this is not a communist vs capitalist discussion. Honestly this discussion came down to some finding faults in all systems and some pretending there aren't. No one here was trying to abandon capitalism. But you aren't equipped enough to see this.

Capitalism was successful only for a small group of people - the ones that got rich. Sometimes with hard work, most of the time with stealing resources from the poor, from nature. Capitalism is a system of exploitation that divides the workd in classes. Fraternity is not possible in capitalism.

Also, capitalism (or competition, if you meant that) is not "human" at all - our body, soul and mind work well without it. Capitalism per se isn´t vital. No one needs capitalism to survive, but mankind basically needs food, water, a roof or a place to stay, education, electricity and medicines. Capitalism´s wealthy individuals continue to rob billions of people of those basic needs. Mankind doesn´t need borders or nations or political worldwide economic systems - not so long ago mankind and the planet as a whole were much better off without all that crap.

Oops. I'm not equipped to see what? Being coy and saying that Communism is bad but competition is not human and that we were better off before capitalism?

Trying to paint me as "batshit insane" isn't going to work. I'm on to you guys.

 

[financeguy]

You need to get your facts straight and stop bashing this forum. Since you insist on a theoretical ivory tower discussion and insist that capitalism has nothing to do with mercantilism and colonialism, I will gladly offer all interested readers three links: a conservative, a non-conservative and a neutral link.

Here´s the conservative link and a few quotes:

History Of Capitalism

"Although there is only one official dark age in the history text, the disconnected ancient world used to go through dark ages much like the blackouts and brownouts that ripple across energy hungry states. In these dark areas, the people went back to securing enough food for themselves and surviving until the next powerful figure came along to claim them as his own."

"Mercantilism is now known as an attempt to create trade imbalances between nations, as well as between colonies and their imperial rulers, so that one nation prospers at the cost of others. It also has a less known usage simply meaning the principles and methods of commerce."

"It was Adam Smith who noticed that mercantilism was not a force of development and change, but a regressive system that was keeping the world from advancing. His ideas for a free market opened the world to capitalism."

"Industrial capitalism was the first system to benefit all levels of society rather than just the noble class. Wages increased, helped greatly by the formation of unions.."

Note how the author compares "energy hungry states" and "dark ages" (?), and how he insists on quoting Adam Smith (most conservative economists continue to quote two authors: Adam Smith and David Ricardo. it seems they have just read those two books.). Also note how he insists that mercantilism and capitalism are two different things. And finally, he ignores that the formation of unions was not powered by capitalists. As we all know, the truth is in the "dark ages" of industrial capitalism, capitalist rulers (ie. factory owners) fought unions with everything they could.


Here´s what conservatives might classify being a non-conservative link and a few quotes:

A Primer on Neoliberalism — Global Issues

"There is an important difference between liberal politics and liberal economics. But this distinction is usually not articulated in the mainstream."

"U.S. neo-conservatives, with their commitment to high military spending and the global assertion of national values, tend to be more authoritarian than hard right. By contrast, neo-liberals, opposed to such moral leadership and, more especially, the ensuing demands on the tax payer, belong to a further right but less authoritarian region. Paradoxically, the "free market", in neo-con parlance, also allows for the large-scale subsidy of the military-industrial complex, a considerable degree of corporate welfare, and protectionism when deemed in the national interest. These are viewed by neo-libs as impediments to the unfettered market forces that they champion." (source: The Political Compass)

"The underlying assumption [of neoliberalism] then is that the free markets are a good thing. They may well be, but unfortunately, reality seems different from theory. For many economists who believe in it strongly the ideology almost takes on the form of a theology. However, less discussed is the the issue of power and how that can seriously affect, influence and manipulate trade for certain interests. One would then need to ask if free trade is really possible.

From a power perspective, “free” trade in reality is seen by many around the world as a continuation of those old policies of plunder, whether it is intended to be or not. However, we do not usually hear such discussions in the mainstream media, even though thousands have protested around the world for decades.

(...) Unfortunately, for most people in the world there has been an increase in poverty and the innovation and growth has not been designed to meet immediate needs for many of the world’s people. Global inequalities on various indicators are sharp. For example,
* Some 3 billion people — or half of humanity — live on under 2 dollars a day
* 86 percent of the world’s resources are consumed by the world’s wealthiest 20 percent"

"Free markets were not inevitable, naturally occurring processes. They had to be forced upon people."

"A detailed insight into this process of transformation [towards free trade in 18th century England] is revealed by Michael Perelman, Professor of Economics at California State University. In his book The Invention of Capitalism (Duke University Press, 2000), he details how peasants did not willingly abandon their self-sufficient lifestyle to go work in factories.

*Instead they had to be forced with the active support of thinkers and economists of the time, including the famous originators of classical political economy, such as Adam Smith, David Ricardo, James Steuart and others.
*Contradicting themselves, as if it were, they argued for government policies that deprived the peasants their way of life of self-provision, to coerce them into waged labor.
*Separating the rural peasantry from their land was successful because of “ideological vigor” from people like Adam Smith, and because of a “revision of history” that created an impression of a humanitarian heritage of political economy; an inevitability to be celebrated."

Adam Smith describes mercantilism for us:

[Mercantilism’s] ultimate object… is always the same, to enrich the country [city or state] by an advantageous balance of trade. It discourages the exportation of the materials of manufacture [tools and raw material], and the instruments of trade, in order to give our own workmen an advantage, and to enable them to undersell those of other nations [cities] in all foreign markets: and by restraining, in this manner, the exportation of a few commodities of no great price, it proposes to occasion a much greater and more valuable exportation of others. It encourages the importation of the materials of manufacture, in order that our own people may be enabled to work them up more cheaply, and thereby prevent a greater and more valuable importation of the manufactured commodities.

William Appleman Williams describes mercantilism at its zenith: “The world was defined as known and finite, a principle agreed upon by science and theology. Hence the chief way for a nation to promote or achieve its own wealth and happiness was to take them away from some other country.”

[Rooted in Mercantilism] "When the injustice of mercantilism was understood, it became too embarrassing and was replaced by the supposedly just Adam Smith free trade. But free trade as practiced by Adam Smith neo-mercantilists was far from fair trade. Adam Smith unequal free trade is little more than a philosophy for the continued subtle monopolization of the wealth-producing-process, largely through continued privatization of the commons of both an internal economy and the economies of weak nations on the periphery of trading empires. So long as weak nations could be forced to accept the unequal trades of Adam Smith free trade, they would be handing their wealth to the imperial-centers-of-capital of their own free will. In short, Adam Smith free trade, as established by neo-mercantilists, was only mercantilism hiding under the cover of free trade."

As European and American economies grew, they needed to continue expansion to maintain the high standards of living that some elites were attaining in those days. This required holding on to, and expanding colonial territories in order to gain further access to the raw materials and resources, as well exploiting cheap labor. Those who resisted were often met with brutal repression or military interventions. This is not a controversial perception. Even U.S. President Woodrow Wilson recognized this in the early part of the 20th century:

Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed against him must be battered down. Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process. Colonies must be obtained or planted, in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or left unused. Woodrow Wilson, President of the United States, 1919

[Colonialism] "The Depression of 1873 revealed another big problem with capitalist expansion and perpetual growth: it can continue only as long as there is a ready supply of raw materials and an increasing demand for goods, along with ways to invest profits and capital. Given this situation, if you were an American or European investor in 1873, where would you look for economic expansion?

The obvious answer was to expand European and American power overseas, particularly into areas that remained relatively untouched by capitalist expansion — Africa, Asia, and the Pacific. Colonialism had become, in fact, a recognized solution to the need to expand markets, increase opportunities for investors, and ensure the supply of raw material."

One question to our dear conservatives: if Adam Smith started capitalism, while colonialism and mercantilism came before of that, why was Africa colonized in the 19th century?

Here´s another link to what we all might call a neutral cource, wikipedia:

History of capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Crisis of the 14th Century and the "Pre-History of Capitalism"
Merchant capitalism and mercantilism
Enclosures and the transition from feudalism
Industrial capitalism and laissez-faire
Nineteenth century
Twentieth century

Just quoting the chapters brings up the term "Merchant capitalism".

We conclude that mercantilism and colonialism indeed are forms (or integral parts) of capitalism.

It seems that purpleoscar and financeguy confuse capitalism with neo-liberalism.

Maybe it would be a good idea to read up on 20th century theories like the dependency theory instead of continuing to quote Smith and Ricardo who had their heyday in the 18th century.



UberBeaver.

Back to the facts, ladies and gentlemen.

So, in other words:

Murcans bad.

Cap'lists bad.

Whitey bad.

Fuck me, I thought Austria had an ok education system these days, guess I was wrong.

 

[purpleoscar]

Now you´re kidding me. I run my own business so I know what it takes. Your opinion again shows that you are only thinking along the lines of rich, first world countries - your own little world. I´m not wondering about your ideological defense plus repetition propaganda techique of capitalism at all - you´ve been fine with it, and probably you never saw anything else. Probably you have never been to a poor country where juveniles work at a garbage dump to collect plastic garbage which they recycle and sell. That kind of work is harder than the work of a businessman or a lawyer - it always stinks all around you, more than 10 hours a day.

There are people who need to walk for 4 hours to get to their job. They can´t afford any other means of transportation. I will always remember the 16 yr old pilot of a small local boat I met in Indonesia. I asked him if he liked his job, and he replied, yes of course I do - it´s just that I don´t get a lot of sleep. He got up at 4 a.m., walking through the jungle to the lake, starting work at 8 a.m., finishing at 7 p.m. and walked back for 4 hours. Each and every day.

Why don't you use your scrutinization capabilities on those poor countries and see what policies they propose?

Have you ever constructed a building? With your hands and, of course, the help of machines. Do you know how hard being a construction worker is?

I also think that 10 year old kid in the sweat shop in India works harder than the average businessman. Same for Toiling in India's ship graveyard for £1 a day | World news | The Guardian

In my opinion, starting a business when you are a small entrepreneuer certainly includes risks and hard work. The fresh entrepreneur may work more hours per week than, say, a parliament member. On the other hand, most of the work he does is head work. It´s not that he´s a factory worker.

You ignore the fact that most young entrepreneurs who start a business don´t make a lot of money and often go bankrupt. Instead, managers who work in established blue chips companies make the real cash. I really don´t think it´s such hard work to cash of millions of bonusses for firing thousands of employees. Imho, most speculating bankers also aren´t really working hard. I also don´t think it´s really hard to sell arms when you have enough customers. Dealers also make a lot of money and they don´t really work hard, do they? And trust me, this officiating notary really makes a lot of money, while his office does most of the head work.

It would broaden your horizon to see a bit more of the world - not on a luxury resort or cruise ship trip, but to see the real world, to stay in small local motels, to talk to the locals (in case you have studied any other language). Unfortunately, if you are white, most poor people will only see the rich gringo with a dollar bill on his head. Well, this unpleasant assumption probably wouldn´t be that far from reality.

Right, YOU will. But the majority of people WON`T because they don´t get a paycheque.

It´s interesting you equate freedom with having money to buy things.

It´s interesting you don´t waste a single thought on people who produced all the products for you, and we can assume they often worked under shitty hard conditions.

But finally we get to see your point of view: YOU are thinking about YOURSELF and YOUR paycheque and YOUR family. Nothing else. Fraternity is just a vague concept, basically reserved for idiots.

Thank you for illustrating your view. You´re not the only one - be assured. This is precisely why our planet is fucked up beyond comparison by mankind.

Same question:
Why don't you use your scrutinization capabilities on those poor countries and see what policies they propose?

Conservatives are sick and tired of leftists (apparently even business owner leftists ) bashing the U.S. for being successful and ignoring what other poor countries are doing to themselves. There seems to be a mentality where people in poor countries can do no wrong and the West is always guilty. Those countries have their own responsibilities. India is synonymous with red tape in economic circles for a reason.

 

[financeguy]

But finally we get to see your point of view: YOU are thinking about YOURSELF and YOUR paycheque and YOUR family. Nothing else.

I would sincerely hope so, I think that is deeply weird to think of anything else, quite frankly. Yourself, your family, and your paycheque - these are the most important values, and the best ones. I can't wait to have a great brood of kids and outbreed the socialists and Islamofascists.

Fraternity is just a vague concept, basically reserved for idiots.

Fortunately. I hate fraternity.

 

[BVS]

Did you read what I quoted from him?

I've read the whole thread... Just because you missed his point doesn't mean you can attack him.

I've answered the posts but they either didn't get it or it wasn't what they wanted to hear.

Actually you don't, and you've been called out on it for years by posters on all sides. Stop hiding behind this victim conspiracy theory BS.

It certainly works better. Can someone figure out a better way? People must have some motivation to do what they do and when they get results they often evangelize it to others. It's not perfect because humans aren't but then how are top down solutions from HUMANS going to be better? That's actually a difficult question and I don't see anyone getting near it.

Yes it's a fallible system, one that's manipulated. But your solution is a black and white one, for you live in some odd black and white world. The rest of us don't. You worship the idea of capitalism, but in reality the US and Canada aren't pure capitalism systems. A pure capitalism system will not work. It needs those pesky checks and balances that you hate.

Oops. I'm not equipped to see what? Being coy and saying that Communism is bad but competition is not human and that we were better off before capitalism?

Trying to paint me as "batshit insane" isn't going to work. I'm on to you guys.

I'm talking about the general consensus in here.

And once again drop the conspiracy BS.

 

[anitram]

I would sincerely hope so, I think that is deeply weird to think of anything else, quite frankly. Yourself, your family, and your paycheque - these are the most important values, and the best ones.

I think that this is a deeply weird and even disturbing way to think.

I also think that it reflects the fact that you and I have lived extremely different lives. If everyone thought the way you do, I would not be where I am today. Fact. I am grateful for the fact that this is seemingly not the general view of the public.

 

[anitram]

I've talked to a socialist guy that was a friend of my brother and he seriously said that Canada (especially Alberta) was worse than North Korea.

So what? I've talked to conservatives who have said all gays are pedophiles. Is that suddenly my barometer for you?

Why can't you reconcile yourself with the idea that there are people who don't believe that capitalism is saviour OR scourge? That it's a flawed system like all the others - it has its good and it has its bad and it's served some people and nations exceptionally well and it has also cost others in tangible, measurable ways?

How can people say stuff like this with a straight face? That's like a Pakistani co-worker who said in a nonchalant way that all we need is Sharia Law instead of Democracy.

You can at least be honest about the fact that it's the conservatives in the West who constantly push religion into the social realm and think that it's a virtue to believe in a creature in the sky. I highly doubt that your theocracy-loving co-worker was a leftist or socialist, frankly it's completely antithetical. Unless somehow in your world it's Communists who are suddenly in favour of religious-based laws. I mean, really.

 

[hiphop]

So, in other words: Murcans bad. Cap'lists bad. Whitey bad. Fuck me, I thought Austria had an ok education system these days, guess I was wrong.

What a compelling argument.

I can't wait to have a great brood of kids and outbreed the socialists and Islamofascists.

I sincerely hope you never go into politics - you´d be quick to promote an eugenic sterilisation law. Many leaders weren´t ashamed to use breeding as a weapon of war.

Just out of interest, does your girlfriend/woman know in which way you plan to abuse her womb?

Your view would have been popular around 1900, when Edward A. Ross, a founding member of the American Economic Association, said that the "native" Anglo-Saxon stock was biologically well-adapted to rural, traditional life, but less well-suited to the new urban milieu of industrial capitalism. In his opinion, the racially inferior immigrant races, "Latins, Slavs, Asiatics, and Hebrews," were better adapted to the conditions of industrial capitalism and thus would outbreed the superior Anglo-Saxon race.

 

[hiphop]

Those countries have their own responsibilities.

If you had read/watched the links I posted, you would have found out I share the same opinion. Unfortunately you don´t - i.e. you haven´t read the article about Angola. Of course, poor countries have their own responsibilities. Many inhabitants of the poor countries also share this opinion. Africans would prefer if they were left alone to foster their own local economy, instead of having corrupt dictators being fueled with arms and money from capitalists, in return for oil, coltane, diamonds, raw materials.

But where would that leave us? I never heard of tantalum for my mobile, my DVD player and my computer being stoped in the U.S. or France or Ireland.

Conservatives are sick and tired of leftists (apparently even business owner leftists)

"apparently even", what? It´s called social responsibility. Ah, I forgot, you´re can´t let go of the 18th century and your all time hero Adam Smith, while all you think about is your paycheck and your great freedom to buy everything you want.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I sincerely hope you never go into politics - you´d be quick to promote an eugenic sterilisation law. Many leaders weren´t ashamed to use breeding as a weapon of war.

Just out of interest, does your girlfriend/woman know in which way you plan to abuse her womb?

Your view would have been popular around 1900, when Edward A. Ross, a founding member of the American Economic Association, said that the "native" Anglo-Saxon stock was biologically well-adapted to rural, traditional life, but less well-suited to the new urban milieu of industrial capitalism. In his opinion, the racially inferior immigrant races, "Latins, Slavs, Asiatics, and Hebrews," were better adapted to the conditions of industrial capitalism and thus would outbreed the superior Anglo-Saxon race.

I think that your irony detector is broken.

 

[hiphop]

I think that your irony detector is broken.

Watch more TV. Cuba enforced a UN resolution against ironic neo-libs. If you fail to comply, you will be banned.

 

[Diemen]

I sincerely hope you never go into politics - you´d be quick to promote an eugenic sterilisation law. Many leaders weren´t ashamed to use breeding as a weapon of war.

This is going too far, hiphop.

It's getting a bit too contentious in here, gang. Let's all stick to the debate at hand rather than trying to guess what horrible thing the other poster would be in favor of.

 

[financeguy]

I think that your irony detector is broken.

Actually, more hyperbole for the sake of a reaction than irony per se.

 

[coolian2]

how to beat communism: see also; china.

 

[hiphop]

This is going too far, hiphop.

It's getting a bit too contentious in here, gang. Let's all stick to the debate at hand rather than trying to guess what horrible thing the other poster would be in favor of.

No problem piano man, you´re the boss.

Per historical context, you may acknowledge that I react a bit allergic when someone brings up vocabulary like "outbreed". I also don´t think this discussion is particularly funny or ironic. I´m not impressed by paychecks, hyperboles, or the religion of free trade.

I do know I´ve made my point so it´s up to the estimated reader to decide if he believes the neo-libs who recently ripped everyone off - or the hiphop.

It makes sense to shut up but the rappers keep rhyming
As if peace could be promoted by applying wicked timing
By green berets or by twenty four carats from Angola
Kids inherit civil war, you just pimp your motorola
(Pharmacarma, "Unite")