2 edits
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThere's no firm framework in place? I always understood the Chinese government to be run like a corporation that had the favored status above any other in the land, with everyone else being free only in as much as they follow certain well established guidelines. The other thing is their low ranking, is because of their large population, many of whom still live on the land using traditional means to plant and grow which may not be that productive, but overall, are you saying that the total productive capacity of China is a non event?
The Chinese economy is neither "heavily centralized" (since it is largely capitalist), nor highly productive (China's GDP per capita is low, around the 90-100 mark in terms of a country ranking).
1 edit
Originally posted by kmax87I am saying that the freer you make an economy the more productive becomes. They have freed up the system have they not even though it is still centralized planning?
there's no firm framework in place? I always understood the Chinese government to be rujn like a corporation that had a favored staus above any other in the land, with everyone else being free only in as much as they follow certain well established guidelines. The other thing is their low ranking, is because of their large population, many of whom still live ...[text shortened]... uctive, but overall, are you saying that the total productive capacity of China is a non event?
Originally posted by MelanerpesWhat about capitalism? Doesn't capitalism deserve some credit?
Okay -- there's a third reason why the dollar is the world reserve currency. The United States is an extremely large economy (much larger than Switzerland). So there's a lot more US currency in circulation than Swiss currency.
Of course, the larger size and diversity of the American economy also makes it a much bigger challenge to keep everything stable enough to make it attractive to investors.
Even Karl Marx acknowledged that capitalism is the most efficient system for production that he could think of. He just complained capitalism was not fair.
Originally posted by Metal BrainWhat is fair? Fair is just another way to say, "Now this is how I will do things."
What about capitalism? Doesn't capitalism deserve some credit?
Even Karl Marx acknowledged that capitalism is the most efficient system for production that he could think of. He just complained capitalism was not fair.
Originally posted by whodeyIt's rather amazing that you insist on tossing gratuitous lies into virtually every post you make.
Are there any other examples?
What you have there in China is a haevily centralized system that has been kept down for close to half a decade. Then when you give it some freedom by turning to capitalism it begins to blossom. However, had they been a free system all along and then introduce centralized planning I think you would have the reverse effect. The last scenerio is essentially what marauder wishes to do to the US.
2 edits
Originally posted by whodeyI think what Marx meant was that upon viewing a raw form of capitalism, he noticed that it created a small number of absurdly wealthy people - while the large mass of the population was working extremely long hours at dangerous, dirty, tedious jobs that paid them just enough to survive and report to the factory the next day.
What is fair? Fair is just another way to say, "Now this is how I will do things."
For the sake of argument, let's assume that this is indeed the best system if your only goal is absolute maximum economic productivity. But clearly, this arrangement is not "fair" by any reasonable definition of the word. I don't even believe that you would consider this to be fair.
This is why Marx predicted that the system would eventually implode. At some point the masses would unite together, form one big union, and call for a nationwide strike that would bring the whole thing down and create something better. A major reason why this did not happen is because "big government programs" helped to stabilize things by providing minimum wages, imposing regulations to protect workers, and providing a safety net to mitigate the worst effects of poverty.
Perhaps all of this has meant that the economy grows at a slightly slower pace (although the 20th century has clearly shown the economy is still capable of major growth and rapid technological innovation) - but for 90% of the population, it's a better deal than they had before.
And it's not like the free enterprise system has ever been shackled. The idea that the US is being smothered by runaway socialism is a myth that you really need to stop clinging to.
http://www.heritage.org/index/Ranking.aspx
The Heritage Foundation here has an Index of Economic Freedom in which the US ranks #8 (and it is #1 among nations with large populations). And even that paragon of socialism, Sweden, ranks #21 out of 179. Given that the Heritage Foundation is an ardent promoter of laissez-faire economics, the fact that it was unable to manipulate the data to push these countries further down in the rankings speaks very loud volumes.
Originally posted by kmax87What's a "firm framework"?
There's no firm framework in place? I always understood the Chinese government to be run like a corporation that had the favored status above any other in the land, with everyone else being free only in as much as they follow certain well established guidelines. The other thing is their low ranking, is because of their large population, many of whom still li ...[text shortened]... uctive, but overall, are you saying that the total productive capacity of China is a non event?
Their low ranking is not due to their population, the US has a large population but also a large GDP per capita (8th place in the same ranking - IMF 2009, China is 99th in this list). The total productive capacity of China is significant due to its large population, despite the fairly low GDP per capita. GDP per capita is however growing fast in China and if it continues to expand at the same rate will catch up with rich western countries at around 2060.
Originally posted by MelanerpesThe Heritage Foundation list has been skewed in favour of laissez faire systems like you say. If you look at how they calculate their list it's rather blatant.
I think what Marx meant was that upon viewing a raw form of capitalism, he noticed that it created a small number of absurdly wealthy people - while the large mass of the population was working extremely long hours at dangerous, dirty, tedious jobs that paid them just enough to survive and report to the factory the next day.
For the sake of argument, l ...[text shortened]... the data to push these countries further down in the rankings speaks very loud volumes.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraBeing "capitalistic" does not preclude a country from having a "heavily centralized" economy in the sense that economic decisions are largely made by a few. I would say that China is presently "largely capitalistic" (though not as much so as the US and Western Europe) but also "heavily centralized" in terms of economic decision making.
The Chinese economy is neither "heavily centralized" (since it is largely capitalist), nor highly productive (China's GDP per capita is low, around the 90-100 mark in terms of a country ranking).
Originally posted by no1marauder...wiki refers to it as a 'socialist market economy'
Being "capitalistic" does not preclude a country from having a "heavily centralized" economy in the sense that economic decisions are largely made by a few. I would say that China is presently "largely capitalistic" (though not as much so as the US and Western Europe) but also "heavily centralized" in terms of economic decision making.