1 edit
Originally posted by FMFHey! Lay off my compliments!!! 🙂
Well stated?
How does this kind of sentimentality --- there is something about the USA. I can't really explain what it is, except that there is a notion that you don't have to do or think what you are told -- because a lot of what you are told is, frankly, crap. A notion that good things happen when everybody has as much freedom as they can handle, and mor necdote and dreamy musings, in any way, an answer to my concrete question?
Well stated?? 🙄
Originally posted by PalynkaMankiw, Auerbach, Solow, Ramsey, Varian, Mas-Colell etc. We are taught the same economics from the same books (although, the supplementary stuff was in Danish, so I guess that's different), and still we argue the theory of markets, trade policies, and government spending in the long run with the Americans, who have been taught the same economics. Why is that?
Can you say a bit more? I'm not sure what you mean...
Originally posted by LundosIf I remember Friedman well, he thought the government should maintain order and adjudicate contracts. That was about it.
Please, stop making this about socialism all the time. Even your hero Friedman acknowledged that a certain amount of government was neccesary.
[b]When was the US allegedly not capitalist in the last 200 years, which is actually since 1809, so sounds like a tough challenge to find.
Have you ever heard of the McKinley Act, the Fordney-McCumber Act, t ...[text shortened]... . And that's just scratching the surface. Funnily enough they are all republican. Imaging that.[/b]
He thought Hong Kong had the mix about right.
Friedman also had a heart, though, e.g. the Negative Income tax.
For me, there is also a government role in protecting the environment -- classify it as "protecting the nation" maybe. No individual has an adequate incentive to do that.
Encouraging competition also seems to be a government function -- when nothing else works. Monopolies get established easily, and lack of choice drives up cost. Capitalism thrives on choice. Tarrifs...w-e-l-l-l-l...yeah, a lot of people say high tarrifs were the key to US expansion and growth early on, establishing industry. Easy to over-do, though, in my opinion. Not EVERY local industry should be protected -- that's clear. How do you know which ones?
Originally posted by LundosI don't think that's the view of post-graduates, not anymore, at least.
Mankiw, Auerbach, Solow, Ramsey, Varian, Mas-Colell etc. We are taught the same economics from the same books (although, the supplementary stuff was in Danish, so I guess that's different), and still we argue the theory of markets, trade policies, and government spending in the long run with the Americans, who have been taught the same economics. Why is that?
Endogenous growth models, which (roughly) describe how it is investment in technology that drives growth, have developed enormously since the 1990s. The Aghion/Howitt quality-ladder model (where innovation replaces existing technologies with better ones) and the Romer variety model (where innovation creates new products and technologies) are the most common frameworks. In both these models it can be shown that there is scope for government subsidies in promoting growth and its benefits.
The problem is that the deeper you go, the harder it is for politicians to spend their time understanding these issues. Worse, some politicians have become so entrenched in their Friedman vs Keynes view of economics that they have become so dogmatic to the point that they refuse to listen to how both those views (in their traditional form) have been rejected as oversimplifications of reality.
Originally posted by spruce112358Hm, a toughie. Let me see. Har! Har!
What do you think would help Gaza more right now:
A) Socialism
B) Free access to markets (i.e. Capitalism)
C) World wide resource based economy without any dominant ambition-driven organised political or religious powerstructure in place
Originally posted by eljefejesusYes. You are declining to contribute to this debate, I understand. I also understand that you are a gadfly: nothingness here (e.g. "you are the child of stinking parents", as a DEBATE POINT! he he, a classic ), something internalized and memorized there, something cut and past here.
LOL... very well, let's leave that one at that.
Originally posted by spruce112358You have written better posts spruce. Especially about Israel. Sometimes about "capitalism". Er... NOT about homosexuality. This one was a puff piece. Come on. Answer my question. You know you are the one here who can.
Hey! Lay off my compliments!!! 🙂
Originally posted by scherzoTell me, if Marx was good for socialism, and Lenin was the application of Marx's theories, then why isn't Russia socialist anymore? Why did they dump 'Marxism-Leninism' after less than a century? 92 years after the Bolsheviks seized power, how many 'Marxist-Leninist' countries are there left in the world? As far as socialism is concerned, Marx and Lenin were disasters. Unless you consider the whole 20th century a necessary learning example of how NOT to go about applying socialism.
Marx=Good for socialism
Lenin=Marx's political theories applied to an actual country
That's why the philosophy is not called "Leninism;" it's called "Marxist-Leninism." Marxism is more an ideology than Marxist-Leninism, which is a school of political thought.
Originally posted by FMFThats when the marketing guru's will convince the GP to purchase Swoosh stencils, the slogan being BAREFEET- JUST DECAL IT.
When the sweat shops are no more, and the wages of shoe stichers go up from $1,200 p.a. to, let's say $20,000 p.a. - i.e. "capitalist prosperity" as roughly defined by what is going on in "the prosperous countries" you talked of, where "capitalism" is about self-direction and freedom of choice, and wearing the sports shoes of their choice - how will Americans pay for their sports shoes?
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettThe 20th century was just a dry run for the Oligarch express. Now that they've worked out all the capitalist bugs that undermine the socialist state, they have been actively bringing the system around for one last final go. If you don't believe it, ask yourself which national government, has more of a finger in the market than any other of late?
Tell me, if Marx was good for socialism, and Lenin was the application of Marx's theories, then why isn't Russia socialist anymore? Why did they dump 'Marxism-Leninism' after less than a century? ..... 20th century a necessary learning example of how NOT to go about applying socialism.
I quipped a throw away line to a friend way back in the 80's once, saying that the world will be a great place to live in when they finally get the US to sell socialism to its people. Twenty years on, its closer to that than most people realise!
Originally posted by PalynkaIndeed. For some reason, the absurd notion that the free market "creates" wealth and government spending "takes away" is still prevalent amongst libertarians and their friends.
But Norway's government spending is quite high, so even your good examples show that it's not necessarily the size that weighs down on the economy, but mostly about what governments are doing with that money.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraAgreed.
Indeed. For some reason, the absurd notion that the free market "creates" wealth and government spending "takes away" is still prevalent amongst libertarians and their friends.
However, I'd say a similar misconception afflicts socialists and their friends, regarding poverty. Some markets can also help reduce poverty and some types of government spending can also increase it. All is relative.
Originally posted by PalynkaYes, of course, having an army does not really reduce poverty, and the pointless market disturbances of, say, mortgage deductions and agricultural subsidies also increase poverty.
Agreed.
However, I'd say a similar misconception afflicts socialists and their friends, regarding poverty. Some markets can also help reduce poverty and some types of government spending can also increase it. All is relative.
Originally posted by kmax87I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. But if you're claiming that Obama is a socialist, then your definition of socialism is so broad as to be meaningless.
The 20th century was just a dry run for the Oligarch express. Now that they've worked out all the capitalist bugs that undermine the socialist state, they have been actively bringing the system around for one last final go. If you don't believe it, ask yourself which national government, has more of a finger in the market than any other of late?
I quipped ...[text shortened]... o sell socialism to its people. Twenty years on, its closer to that than most people realise!
Originally posted by rwingettThe USSR fell apart because of Stalin, and later Gorbachev. Neither were truly socialist. Lenin was.
Tell me, if Marx was good for socialism, and Lenin was the application of Marx's theories, then why isn't Russia socialist anymore? Why did they dump 'Marxism-Leninism' after less than a century? 92 years after the Bolsheviks seized power, how many 'Marxist-Leninist' countries are there left in the world? As far as socialism is concerned, Marx and Lenin wer ...[text shortened]... whole 20th century a necessary learning example of how NOT to go about applying socialism.
Today, there are few Marxist-Leninist countries left. Cuba, North Korea, and that's really about it.
Why you you have the IWW thing up if you're not Marxist-Leninist? Or Maoist? Or socialist in general?