Fidel Castro:Cuban Model Not Working

[financeguy]

Unfortunately, those two arguments are what rich people tend to repeat, while nothing is further from the truth.

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.

First semester social studies gibberish.

Wealth is heavily concentrated in North America, Europe, and high income Asia-Pacific countries. People in these countries collectively hold almost 90% of total world wealth.

Hence, more free trade is needed to even out the gaps. More free trade, or if you prefer, more capitalism, not less.

Although North America has only 6% of the world adult population, it accounts for 34% of household wealth.

Indeed, America has been a remarkably successful and innovative society. If other societies follow its template they can become richer. If they want to stay poor, I recommend communism and Islam. Ideally, a combination of the two. Ask your self why is it that certain countries with few natural resources can become comparatively rich (Switzerland, Israel, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Singapore). What is it that these countries, in some cases thousands of miles apart, have in common?

Europe and high income Asia-Pacific countries also own disproportionate amounts of wealth. In contrast, the overall share of wealth owned by people in Africa, China, India, and other lower income countries in Asia is considerably less than their population share, sometimes by a factor of more than ten."[/B]

Asia has been held back by Islam, the caste system in some countries (especially India), and unfair anti-free trade (anti-capitalist) policies pursued by the West. Again, the solution is more capitalism, not less of it.

According to the Human Development Index, the average dairy cow in Europe in 2000 received $913 in subsidies, compared with an average of $8 per person in sub-Saharan Africa.

So, in critiquing capitalism, you draw attention to the quasi-socialist CAP and similar polices?

 

[financeguy]

Sorry I don't believe that for one second. Everytime it fails it comes back. Government can also be responsible for bad policies that capitalism gets blamed for. There's no reason to have 3% reserves at banks and there's no reason to have eternal low interest rates. It's the only system that allows people to make mistakes and pay the consequences until they learn because we are talking about humans right? We are also talking about new generations having to be introduced to civilization every time. It's better than philosopher kings running the show. How much history of despotism going back millenia do people need to learn that? Marxism is dry yes, but voting people out is much less violent than constant revolutions. There's just no comparison. The west developed a system that allows EVERYONE to take part because no leaders can concentrate all known knowledge in their heads to run our lives. You must be in some depressed mood of some kind that conservatives usually get into and you need to drink some coffee or something.

If there's a weakness to capitalism is that it was so successful and expanded human living standards beyond anything ever before in human history and now many ignorant people are taking it for granted but are even more empty because they have no solution. There has never been a system that didn't involve some competition and effort required. It's in humans already. The government has to make the rules and needs the private sector to fund it and if the rules are broken then reform is needed. It's always this way.

You have to look at examples of people who actually perform to break the cynicism you're in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tx723c9uBr0

See it's not all lost. There are still intelligent people left.

I'm better now. Very good post.

 

[financeguy]

After all, in your opinion, the "real world" is cruel and everyone steals from his neighbor - and that´s just natural, isn´t it?

I have not seen any posts advocating minarchism/anarchism.

Actually, one of the reasons societies such as American and Canada and Singapore and Hong Kong are so much more successful than Cuba and North Korea is the safeguards for property rights that exist in the former. That said, you wouldn't even bother stealing from your neighbour in North Korea He probably won't have anything worth stealing unless he's a high-ranking party official (but I guess capitalism's to blame for this, right?)

Socialism in the true sense and communism require legalised theft. State sanctioned, legalised theft (and murder) is absolutely fundamental to the communist system.

The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation.

- Ayn Rand

 

[anitram]

Actually, one of the reasons societies such as American and Canada and Singapore and Hong Kong are so much more successful than Cuba and North Korea is the safeguards for property rights that exist in the former.

Actually, Canada has no entrenched constitutional property rights. Quite unlike the US. Ayn Rand's quote is really silly, IMO.

 

[the iron horse]

press>>> l i s t e n


Well, my shoes, they comes from Singapore
My flashlight's from Taiwan
My tablecloth's from Malayisia
My belt buckle's from the Amazon
You know, this shirt I wear comes from the Philippines
And the car I drive is a Chevrolet
It was put together down in Argentina
By a guy making thirty cents a day.

Well, it's sundown on the union
And what's made in the USA
Sure was a good idea
'Til greed got in the way.

Well, this silk dress is from Hong Kong
And the pearls are from Japan
Well, the dog collar's from India
And the flower pot's from Pakistan
All the furniture it said "Made in Brazil"
Where a woman, she slaved for sure
Bringing home thirty cents a day to a family of twelve
You know, that's a lot of money to her.

Well, it's sundown on the union
And what's made in the USA
Sure was a good idea
'Til greed got in the way.

Well, you know, lots of people complaining that there is no work
I say, "Why you say that for
When nothing you got is US made ?"
They don't make nothing here no more
You know, capitalism is above the law
It say, "it don't count 'less it sells"
When it costs too much to build it at home
You just build it cheaper someplace else.

Well, it's sundown on the union
And what's made in the USA
Sure was a good idea
'Til greed got in the way.
Well, the job that you used to have
They gave it to somebody down in El Salvador
The unions are big business, friend
And they're going out like a dinosaur
They used to grow food in Kansas
Now they want to grow it on the moon and eat it raw
I can see the day coming when even your home garden
Is gonna be against the law.

Well, it's sundown on the union
And what's made in the USA
Sure was a good idea
'Til greed got in the way.

Democracy don't rule the world
You'd better get that in your head
This world is ruled by violence
But I guess that's better left unsaid
From Broadway to the Milky Way
That's a lot of territory indeed
And a man's gonna do what he has to do
When he's got a hungry mouth to feed.

Well, it's sundown on the union
And what's made in the USA
Sure was a good idea
'Til greed got in the way.


~Bob Dylan, from Infidels

 

[hiphop]

First semester social studies gibberish.

the caste system in some countries (especially India)

Peace to everyone and also to the next Pope
And to every rich sucker with his nose stuck in coke
You may joke, we both know that your time´s without meaning
When the third world unites, you be waking up screaming
(Pharmacarma)

Bankers, do me a favor, continue to cash off bonusses while easily dismissing everything social as gibberish. Here´s a Forbes India article for you to enjoy

Caste system bad I agree. Oops, you forgot the East India Company? Um, how many decades did the Brits rule India and how many millions died of malnutrition under the rule of the English crown?

Your post makes no sense at all.

I like Bob Dylan´s tune.

 

[hiphop]

Actually, Canada has no entrenched constitutional property rights. Quite unlike the US. Ayn Rand's quote is really silly, IMO.

Indeed. Also, the main reason why America and Switzerland (and many other EU countries) are so "successful" is because they forced poor countries to sell them raw materials extremely cheap for many decades and continue to do so. Every credit those countries take - and every "debt relief" program - is coupled with trade sanctions in favor of rich countries.

There are little differences though: while European leaders pushed for bloody fighting and hard wars over every single inch of land, the Americans stole a whole continent from the Native Indians - who believed that land itself was no one´s posession except of Manitou´s. Americans (first the Brits, French, Dutch until their colonies became independent U.S./Canada later) took a full continent for nearly nothing (except of a few comparatively little fights). You know, if you give me half Louisiana and enough slaves, it will be relatively simple to build my own wealth. Of course this will only work out when I have established basic property rights first, the land doesn´t belong to Manitou or everyone, that´s just social gibberish - it belongs to me, hah! And I´ll fucking kill every stranger who dares to enter! And everyone who thinks different is a thief!

That´s one of the great principles our capitalist society is built upon. Unfortunately, some people don´t have any knowledge of history and/or don´t give a shit when the poor majority suffers. They don´t acknowledge they haven´t created the land they live on. So who stole it first?

 

[financeguy]

Actually, Canada has no entrenched constitutional property rights. Quite unlike the US.

This is just legal semantics. No-one said property rights necessarily need to be codified into a constitution. The UK has no written constitution whatever yet no-one is going to argue decent protections for property rights do not exist here.

 

[financeguy]

Indeed. Also, the main reason why America and Switzerland (and many other EU countries) are so "successful" is because they forced poor countries to sell them raw materials extremely cheap for many decades and continue to do so.

There is no force involved. Even trade on unfair terms is much, much better than no trade at all. Give me some examples of economically successful protectionist countries.

Every credit those countries take - and every "debt relief" program - is coupled with trade sanctions in favor of rich countries.

Trade sanctions should be done away with. More capitalism is required.

There are little differences though: while European leaders pushed for bloody fighting and hard wars over every single inch of land, the Americans stole a whole continent from the Native Indians - who believed that land itself was no one´s posession except of Manitou´s. Americans (first the Brits, French, Dutch until their colonies became independent U.S./Canada later) took a full continent for nearly nothing (except of a few comparatively little fights). You know, if you give me half Louisiana and enough slaves, it will be relatively simple to build my own wealth. Of course this will only work out when I have established basic property rights first, the land doesn´t belong to Manitou or everyone, that´s just social gibberish - it belongs to me, hah! And I´ll fucking kill every stranger who dares to enter! And everyone who thinks different is a thief!

That´s one of the great principles our capitalist society is built upon. Unfortunately, some people don´t have any knowledge of history and/or don´t give a shit when the poor majority suffers. They don´t acknowledge they haven´t created the land they live on. So who stole it first?

You won't find an Irish person agreeing with colonialism but I'm still struggling to see relevance of any of this. If you're arguing for getting rid of socialist subsidies to first world farmers then I agree.

 

[hiphop]

There is no force involved. Even trade on unfair terms is much, much better than no trade at all. Give me some examples of economically successful protectionist countries.

Of course there is force involved where necessary. Whoever resists and is worth it, will be fought - first diplomatically and in the media towards public perception, then economically, then by military. Cuba is a good example. Venezuela is another.

As we know, capitalists actively supported lots of cruel dictators: whenever they were playing by their rules. When they don´t, the above happens. It´s as simple as that.

Trade sanctions should be done away with. More capitalism is required.

Erm, the capitalists that rule prefer to have trade sanctions. If not, those sanctions wouldn´t exist.

I'm still struggling to see relevance of any of this.

You may struggle all you want, I know it was very relevant for the Native Indians.

If you're arguing for getting rid of socialist subsidies to first world farmers then I agree.

Our main problem is one of definition: while you argue with your theory books and your head in the clouds, quoting the ideal, serene principles of your holy capitalism, I argue with facts. The fact is that we (U.S., Europe) live in a capitalist society. Fact is too that subsidies for first world farmers are many and we have import restrictions (not oil, coltan, diamonds, coffee or bananas - products we need; but products like milk, corn, etc.) while we export food that we produce which destroys local third world farmers.

I say I´m not a Marxist because I´m not arguing with the ideal, serene principles of Marxism. Fact is that in communism, people were totally controlled by secret police, fact is Stalin was another cruel dictator, fact is I wouldn´t have liked to live in the USSR. i´m not saying: aaaw, you know, in the USSR more communism was required, those apparatschiks all collected personal gains/profits which is principally a capitalist idea. So what?

You may argue all you want those subsidies are a socialist idea theoretically, but in fact we live in capitalism and capitalism makes it part of its strategy to profit as much as possible in every situation, whatever may come - hence the uber-protection of local economy. Same for trade sanctions. Just like capitalism (and its modern form, neo-liberalism) made it part of its strategy to get rid of all control of financial markets, which arguably has led to the disaster we have witnessed. Just like the world leaders, who work together with capitalist multi-nationals, are not afraid to send their fellow countrymen to unjust wars, if this is necessary to make more profits. Just like capitalists don´t care about other humans or nature suffering - their maxime is personal profit.

What´s next? Are you going to imply the recent bank bailouts and bonusses to incompetent managers are a socialist strategy to cash off?

 

[hiphop]

Give me some examples of economically successful protectionist countries.

China.

Whether a capitalist economy policy of a certain country is protectionist or not, or changes from being protectionist to non-protectionist and vice versa, depends on the possible profit of the situation (surroundings) the capitalist economy of this country is in.

Here´s a nice quote by Friedrich List:

"Had the English left everything to itself - 'Laissez faire, laissez aller', as the popular economical school recommends - the [German] merchants of the Steelyard would be still carrying on their trade in London, the Belgians would be still manufacturing cloth for the English, England would have still continued to be the sheep-farm of the Hansards, just as Portugal became the vineyard of England, and has remained so till our days, owing to the stratagem of a cunning diplomatist."

Former Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardoso:

* there is a financial and technological penetration by the developed capitalist centers of the countries of the periphery and semi-periphery;

* this produces an unbalanced economic structure both within the peripheral societies and between them and the centers;

* this leads to limitations on self-sustained growth in the periphery;

* this favors the appearance of specific patterns of class relations;

* these require modifications in the role of the state to guarantee both the functioning of the economy and the political articulation of a society, which contains, within itself, foci of inarticulateness and structural imbalance.

Poor nations are at a disadvantage in their market interactions with wealthy nations. There are several aspects to this. One is that a high proportion of the developing nation´s economic activity consists of exports and imports from the developed nations - in many cases with only one or a few developed nations. By contrast, only a small proportion of the economic activity of the developed nations consists of trade with the developing nations; a developed nation´s trade consists mostly of internal trade and trade with other developed nations. This asymmetry puts a poor nation in a weak bargaining position vis a vis a developed nation. There are also historical aspects: the poor nations are almost all former colonies of the developed nations; their economies were built to serve the developed nations in a twofold capacity: as sources of cheap raw materials and as highly populous markets for the absorption of the developed nation´s manufactured output.

 

[financeguy]

'Capitalists are bad', basically, is your argument.

Do you buy things in shops or work for a living? Do you own any assets or property?

 

[anitram]

This is just legal semantics.

No, it really isn't. For example, expropriation laws are quite different here than they are in the USA (and I'm willing to bet that you'd find them extremely unsatisfactory).

The point isn't that we don't have property rights, the point is that you lumped in a lot of countries that have rather disparate laws. And in fact, constitutional entrenchment of property rights has been a significant legal issue in Canada for many years (to the point where there have been efforts, in the past, to amend the constitution).

 

[financeguy]

^ I'm not entirely sure what these legal specifics have to do with the free markets-versus-communism debate. I'm not entirely sure what Hiphop's interesting dissertations on nineteenth century colonialism have to do with it either.

Canada is largely capitalist and very successful by virtue of being so. My argument is Canada and similar countries with so-called mixed economies are prosperous societies at least partially by virtue of subscribing to the free markets model. My argument is that it is the much-maligned capitalist elements of Canada (and similar economies) that they derive their prosperity from. Granted, you got lucky as regards the natural resources.

Ultimately, societies like Canada, Sweden and Denmark have much more in common with the US than they do with North Korea and Cuba.

 

[hiphop]

'Capitalists are bad', basically, is your argument. Do you buy things in shops or work for a living? Do you own any assets or property?

This is becoming a bit absurd, financeguy. While I replied to each and every of your arguments, you don´t answer any of mine. Instead (in case you´re not only playing with your rhetoric construction kit from kindergarten) you are asking me for personal details which I will not post here.

Now what about China? Protectionism currently works well for China. China´s not an Asian city without any agriculture, focused on trade from all the region around, like Singapore or Hongkong are; China is currently of the biggest countries on this planet with a billion people to feed.

I'm not entirely sure what Hiphop's interesting dissertations on nineteenth century colonialism have to do with it either.

You said:

the capitalism model doesn't seem to have worked out too well either.

I explained your assumption and went a step further: Capitalism in reality is a destructive system where only few people profit while many more suffer, a system that divides the world into classes.

I clearly described how capitalism works in past and present times. You haven´t been able to contradict my description. Snotty remarks on "interesting dissertations" don´t help anybody to understand anything at all.

 

[UberBeaver]

'Capitalists are bad', basically, is your argument.

Do you buy things in shops or work for a living? Do you own any assets or property?

At the height of the Nazi's powers, as well as the Communist's, and I think even today in Cuba, there were shops where people bought stuff. And those same people probably had jobs....what does that question mean?

 

[purpleoscar]

At the height of the Nazi's powers, as well as the Communist's, and I think even today in Cuba, there were shops where people bought stuff. And those same people probably had jobs....what does that question mean?

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. They don't know the difference between democracy and dictatorship. It's like trying to nail jello (their brains) and finding it futile. Their argument is that because capitalists aren't always capitalist therefore capitalism is bad. It's a vicious circular argument of two wrongs equaling a right where no headway is made.

 

[financeguy]

Indeed, some of the posts on the thread are indicative that some posters' knowledge of economics extends only to agitprop. There's also a certain hypocrisy in people who have benefited enormously from capitalism slagging it off at the first opportunity; surely it is more sensible to advocate for free trade (and vote accordingly) so that those who have not yet benefitted properly from capitalism do so in the future. The idea that capitalism (as opposed to some individual capitalists) is supportive of subsidies for first world agriculture is particularly hilarious, CAP and similar polices are ideas supported by the farmers lobby groups and by politicians for local electoral reasons, it's inherently dirigiste policy that goes against free market principles. Of course, big business may not always be morally pure, but cheap food benefits big business, so why would it argue for subsidies?

 

[financeguy]

Now what about China? Protectionism currently works well for China. China´s not an Asian city without any agriculture, focused on trade from all the region around, like Singapore or Hongkong are; China is currently of the biggest countries on this planet with a billion people to feed.

I will give you that up to a point. It is only because of its large size however. Protectionist policies certainly don't work for small countries. But actually China would be better off without protectionism. This is fairly simple stuff, Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage and all that.

 

[anitram]

FinanceGuy don't waste your time on people who say things like the above...it's like trying to nail jello (their brains) and finding it futile.

You seriously need to get over yourself.

 

[purpleoscar]

You seriously need to get over yourself.

Circular arguments are just agitprop. It has nothing to do with myself it has to do with ignorant people that can't get over their own ego's and admit they are in over their head. Do you think they will admit a mistake and say: "Hey FinanceGuy you might be right. Why don't I read some books on the subject and get back to you with better arguments or agreement?" That's not going to happen very often.

This is a more left-leaning site so conservatives get bashed with these kind of circular arguments that are more about brow-beating people than actual debate. Try and go to a conservative site and try and argue and I bet you'll get a swarm of arguments you find dumb and pointless.

 

[financeguy]

You seriously need to get over yourself.

The left wing started the uncivility in this thread - as is often the case on here, frankly.

 

[BVS]

This is a more left-leaning site so conservatives get bashed with these kind of circular arguments that are more about brow-beating people than actual debate. Try and go to a conservative site and try and argue and I bet you'll get a swarm of arguments you find dumb and pointless.

You often hide under this excuse. It really has nothing to do with which side outweighs the other, a weak argument is just that, a weak argument.

The left wing started the uncivility in this thread - as is often the case on here, frankly.

Yes, just look at the two most recent locked threads to see an example of that. Oh wait

 

[purpleoscar]

You often hide under this excuse. It really has nothing to do with which side outweighs the other, a weak argument is just that, a weak argument.

No I was pointing out a weak argument in my opinion. You think most conservative arguments are weak opinions in your opinion.

 

[BVS]

No I was pointing out a weak argument in my opinion. You think most conservative arguments are weak opinions in your opinion.

No, see this is false and frankly it's one of your biggest faults because it's been explained to you over and over yet it doesn't sink in. It's not your opinions that are weak it's often your lack of ability to explain how and why that opinion is valid and why it should be applied in the public sector.

 

[purpleoscar]

It's not your opinions that are weak it's often your lack of ability to explain how and why that opinion is valid and why it should be applied in the public sector.

Sometimes it's the lack of ability of those who read my posts to understand them or other conservative posters. I explain plenty (who are you fooling?) and when FinanceGuy was talking about simple concepts of private property it was obvious that the left-wing posters were clueless or just plain contrarian. This is the Cuba thread right?

 

[BVS]

If that's what you believe then there is no room for growth

So what about that communism?

 

[purpleoscar]

If that's what you believe then there is no room for growth of government

Hey I think we agree!

 

[UberBeaver]

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. They don't know the difference between democracy and dictatorship. It's like trying to nail jello (their brains) and finding it futile. Their argument is that because capitalists aren't always capitalist therefore capitalism is bad. It's a vicious circular argument of two wrongs equaling a right where no headway is made.

Seriously? You know, I've read your backpeddling, close minded nonsense for a while now, and I've never once felt the need to insult you. I asked Financeguy a question, because I respect what he says whether I agree with it or not. If he wants to waste his time on people like me (and usually he doesn't, and that's fine) then he can choose not to. So you didn't like the way I phrased my question, great - ignore it. It's not that hard, shit, even a moron like me can do it.

 

[purpleoscar]

Seriously? You know, I've read your backpeddling, close minded nonsense for a while now, and I've never once felt the need to insult you. I asked Financeguy a question, because I respect what he says whether I agree with it or not. If he wants to waste his time on people like me (and usually he doesn't, and that's fine) then he can choose not to. So you didn't like the way I phrased my question, great - ignore it. It's not that hard, shit, even a moron like me can do it.

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.