This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
What Can Hong Kong And Cuba Teach Us About Economic Policy?
Early this year, I shared an amusing but accurate image that showed an important difference between capitalism and socialism.
And in 2012, I posted a comparison of Detroit and Hiroshima to illustrate the damage of big government.
Well, if you combine those concepts, you get this very pointed look at the evolution of Cuban socialism and Hong Kong capitalism.
Some might dismiss these photos as being unrepresentative, and it’s reasonable to be skeptical. After all, I’m sure it would be easy to put together a series of photos that make it seem as if the United States is suffering from decay while France is enjoying a boom.
So let’s go to the data. In previous posts, I’ve shared comparisons of long-run economic performance in market-oriented nations and statist countries. Examples include Chile vs. Argentina vs. Venezuela, North Korea vs. South Korea, Cuba vs. Chile, Ukraine vs. Poland, Hong Kong vs. Argentina, Singapore vs. Jamaica, and the United States vs. Hong Kong and Singapore.
Now let’s add Cuba vs. Hong Kong to the mix.
Wow, this is amazing. Through much of the 1950s, Hong Kong and Cuba were economically similar, and both were very close to the world average.
Then Hong Kong became a poster child for capitalism while Cuba became an outpost of Soviet communism. And, as you might expect, the people of Hong Kong prospered.
What about the Cubans? Well, I suppose a leftist could argue that they’re all equally poor and that universal deprivation somehow makes Cuban society better Hong Kong, where not everybody gets rich at the same rate.
But even that would be a lie since Cuba’s communist elite doubtlessly enjoys a very comfortable lifestyle. So while the rest of the country endures hardships such as a toilet paper shortage, the party bosses presumably drink champagne and eat caviar.
The bottom line is that statists still don’t have an acceptable answer for my two-part challenge.
1. Can you name a nation that became rich with statist policies?
Before you say Sweden, or even France, note that I asked you to name a nation that became rich during a period when it followed policies of interventionism and big government. Countries in Western Europe became rich during the 1800s and early 1900s when government was very small. 
Indeed, government spending consumed only about 10 percent of economic output in Western Europe prior to World War I and there was almost no redistribution. That’s more libertarian than what you find today in places such as Hong Kong and Singapore.
Speaking of which, what I’m really asking my leftist friends is that they give me the left-wing versions of Hong Kong and Singapore. These jurisdictions were relatively impoverished at the end of World War II, but they are now both very rich by global standards. And libertarians and other advocates of small government and free markets can make a very strong case that good policy played a role in their amazing rise to prosperity.
So where’s the role model for statists? What nation can they put forth as a successful example?
I won’t hold my breath waiting for an accurate answer.
Now for the other part of the challenge.
2. Can you name a nation that with interventionism and big government that is out-performing a similar nation with free markets and small government?
Before you embarrass yourself by asserting that, say, Denmark is richer than Paraguay because of statism, you need to look at the data. Denmark has a bigger welfare state than Paraguay, but it’s much more pro-market in other respects. Indeed, it is ranked #14 in the Economic Freedom of the World, compared to #89 for Paraguay. You’d be more clever to ask why, for example, #42 Belgium is richer than #6 Mauritius.
But this is why I asked for a comparison of similar nations. In other words, find two countries that are, or were, roughly equal in terms of demographics, economic development, resource endowments, and other factors. And then I want an example of a nation with statist policy that has out-performed a nation that instead chose small government and free markets. Or the jurisdictions don’t even need to be that similar. Just show me a statist nation that grows faster, over a meaningful period of time, than a pro-market jurisdiction.
From a libertarian perspective, I can cite lots of examples, such as Chile vs. Argentina vs. Venezuela. Or North Korea vs. South Korea. Or Ukraine vs. Poland. Or Hong Kong vs. Argentina. Or Singapore vs. Jamaica. Or the United States vs. Hong Kong and Singapore. Or even Sweden vs. Greece. I could continue, but I think you get the point.
I will patiently wait for my left-wing friends to provide examples that support their perspective, but cobwebs will form before they fulfill my challenge.
In the meantime, here’s a video that explains the simple recipe that countries should follow if they want to enjoy growth and prosperity.
You’ll notice that the video heavily borrows from Economic Freedom of the World.
That’s no surprise. There’s no better source for making apples-to-apples comparisons to see whether countries are following good policy.
The bad news is that the United States has taken a dive in the wrong direction in these rankings.
When Bill Clinton left office, the United States had the world’s 3rd-freest economy. Today, thanks to years of statism under both Bush and Obama, we’ve dropped to #17.
This Lisa Benson cartoon is a very painful illustration of what’s happening.
America is copying the nations that are in deep trouble because of excessive government.
Which is the same message you find in this Glenn Foden cartoon and this Michael Ramirez cartoon.
But maybe some leftist can answer one or both of the questions above and we can stop worrying about the ever-expanding welfare state.
* * *
P.S. If you prefer stories rather than images or data, this updated version of the fable of the ant and the grasshopper makes a key point about incentives and redistribution. And you get a similar message from the PC version of the Little Red Hen.
P.P.S. Cuba’s system is so wretched that even Fidel Castro confessed it is a failure. So maybe there’s hope that Obama will have a similar epiphany about American-style statism!
- 47593 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -





Cuba has been under an economic embargo for 50 years. Hardly an analogous situation.
We embargoed some folks.
Just because the US doesn't trade with Cuba, doesn't mean there aren't dozens of other countries that do -- and their economy is still in shambles. Seems to me that the author is correct.
Socialism is always a failure, 100% of the time.
Damn Dan you on ZH now!
Don’t go pimping Reagan on ZH or it will be stage left.
Best bumper sticker for Libertarians:
My Enemy - The State.
Mitchel did not mention the difference in IQ also, 101 to 93, and climate. Good for him. At least he is pc these days.
And yet in the end, Cuba will remain while HK disappears.
Lao Tzu — 'The flame that burns Twice as bright burns half as long.'
The ChiComs don't want to screw it up,
but they will.
Free Cuba!
Difference between Hiroshima and Detroit?
One's poisoned on the outside thew other on the inside.
Houses are selling for two yankee dollah in..., wait for it,
Sicily.
Go for it knuks. I'm too old for that shit, or maybe I'm just not feeling lucky;)
And in 2012, I posted a comparison of Detroit and Hiroshima to illustrate the damage of big government.
Some might dismiss these photos as being unrepresentative
No, misrepresentative! That's not a picture of Hiroshima. Idiot socialists. Everything was rolling along fine until the assholes got greedy: the Fed, no more gold standard, repeal of Glass-Steagall, CDS's...........
Care to add any?
The United States to answer the question.
Look at the United States before the New Deal, and look at it after.
The US was a backwoods nothing of a nation until World War II. Then it became a superpower, then eventually a sole world hyperpower in 1991. Unfortunately, the neocons absolutely blew that superiority with their War on Terror, but that's a different discussion.
It's funny, I'm sending this comment out on the internet (A DARPA product). I typed this on a computer (thanks to R&D from the space race) I drove here on an Interstate highway, built by the federal government. The water out of my tap came from a canal built and maintained by the federal government. The Los Angeles Basin, the Las Vegas metro area, and the Phoenix and Tucson metro areas would not be as populated if it weren't for the federal management of the Colorado River and its dams and canals.
But according to Austrian school and other righty tighties, free market dictates the southwest should have just remained desert. Las Vegas should just be a train stop out in nowhere land. Oh wait, that rail was built by the government too. Ok scratch that, lol.
Government didn't build your business, but it sure built the highways, railroads, airports and water systems to it. The free market would have never have invested in such infrastructure. The free market would be happy with dirt roads and wagons. Anything else would have been too expensive.
The Colorado River Aqueduct was built in the bottom of the Great Depression, and didn't see a profit until the 1980s. No investor in existence would invest in a mega project that long term. Without it, The Los Angeles basin wouldn't have millions of people living in it today. The Austrian school and righties would love to just see LA as some orange orchards like it was in the 1930s, because that metro area is too "liberal". If they love regression so much and love the 19th century, become Amish and go live with them instead of whining on a computer about how things are falling apart.
They are so full of it, I don't know where to start sometimes.
I have plenty of criticisms of the State when it comes to civil liberties, unalienable rights, complex tax codes that are reverse-Robin Hood, and their love of war, but there is one thing the State gets right... building megaprojects for public use and preserving historical and wilderness areas for future generations. The righties and the Austrian libertarians want to destroy that and "privatize" it for Wall Street dirtbags because they worship some invisible hand that is just as fallacious as their sky wizard that they worship; even though the Objectivist economic policies they preach came from the atheist Ayn Rand.
Why can't I upvote on this post?
Hmm. I can't upvote it either.
Land with no infrastructure is cheap. People buy cheap land because it's cheap. When enough people begin living on the cheap land, they decide to build infrastructure.
Just because the Free Market didn't have a chance to do something, does not mean that it can't or wouldn't. It just means the government strongarmed it's way in and did it in the most wasteful and inefficient way possible(the only way government is capable of doing anything).
I don't trust wall st cronies any more than you do, but I trust even less, an illegitimate government that can drone me in my sleep any time they please. Destroy the omnipotence of government and you simultaneously destroy the power of cronies.
Hehe.
So where did all the money that the all mighty government use to built everything came from?
Taxpayers perhaps?
Perverse incentives that enriched politicians and bureaucrats.
We will now never know that analogs of these things that could well have been superior could have been created by truly free enterprise because of the intrusive nose of big government.
You make Lysander Spooner cry.
Check out Australian Telecom vs US telephone companies. What year did US finally get rid of its telephone operators?
You make the same mistake as the author : correlation is not causation (though I was thinking the same thing when I read the piece). Worse, you trot out the same old mega project arguments and attribute their success to the State (ignoring whether the private economy could have done it or even done it better, at lower cost and less cronyism) and never looking at the cost to society of the taxes used to build those projects and THE PROJECTS FOREGONE because the State believed it knows how to invest your wealth beter than you.
Further, the author never states the government is incapable of doing positive works (national parks), but you ignore the whole of their efforts, includng debt enslavement, war and moar war, drone murder, evisceration of the Constitution, a legal system which benefits a small class to the detriment of all the rest of us, etc.etc.etc.
MK Ultra, Paperclip, Gladios, Toxic waste in water (flouride, chlorine), scientific testing on soldiers, aerial spraying of civilian populations, Eugencs, brainwashing via education, media control, the NSA- the whole Amish thing doesn't start to sound too bad. I've never once heard an "austrian" speak of destroying anything, but the State, via the FED destroys our wealth every damn day.
Wall Street "dirtbags" exist and prosper BECAUSE of the State and its' protective policies towards them. Please cite any reference to skywizards in an austrian text- you might check the pledge of allegiance and the insertion by the State of that skywizard. Further, Rand was a believer in the State and socialism, but don't let real research stop you from spewing your State claptrap.
Here are some simple questions: do you wish to rule yourself or be ruled by others? I choose the former and reject the latter. Do you wish to own property free and clear? Would you prefer to be asked to contribute to community projects or forced with the threat of confiscation and incarceration? Do you wish to think for yourself or have someone else do it for you?
Finally, thanks for playing the State's game: allowing the inaccurate and poorly composed arguments of one side of the dialectic to play you and force your mind into the opposite dialectic for the purpose of creating discord and further brainwashing you to accept the States' transcendence in your life. Because, there obviously couldn't be some other path we might tread which alows for publicly financed projects, agreements to protect the commons ( which has been shown to improve under private ownership) while preserving our rights, our wealth and the ability to invest it in the ways we want, since we earned it after all...
Hey, 9th, are you Sally Kohn?
By the 'logic' presented here, as America becomes even more statist you'd think we'd become even more prosperous.
Instead, America's prosperity has about run dry and the leaves are changing. It's soon going to be someone else's turn.
Being more "big state" than you were before but still less than almost everyone else is not an argument in favor of the big state. All the way until about the late 70s, the US still rated very highly in economic freedom, so this argument fails.
I've been to cuba. It scares me to think what would happen to that country if they opened up like the rest of the Communist block. No morals. A friend said that a there is a 30% rate of theft of building materials on construction sites, and thats with security.
But it is the Peoples Democratic Republic of Cuba, so those building materials belong to their owners, the People. The State is the People. I cringe hearing that in the US anymore.
Where are you finding ChiComs?
deleted
Here's where all the ZH Professors come out to educate us about what socialism is to them, and how it's never really been tried.
Lazy MF'er flapping their lips and killing people to avoid work. Hows that?
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=confessions+of+an+economic+hitman
lol...Scandinavia!
I'm always like wtf, I've never heard of any country named Scandinavia, could you be more specific? Then they oblige and I say...oh you mean one of those dynastic monarchial family thingies where the commoners are taxed out the ass and the royal family skims a little off the top to keep themselves in the lap of luxury they've become accustomed to.
Yeah, thats socialism on steroids right there ;-)
A Danish gf explained "lagom" to me. It's a sort of social pressure on steroids.
In the Nordic countries, basicly large tribes, no one wants to be unusually successful or a failure. She who stands out gets wack a moled. There is enormous social pressure against being too different. It works much like an over sized extended family, but as soon as some real diversity creeps in..., it fails.
So they're not partial to folks doin' black face for shits and giggles?
Black folk don't get up that way much. Lack of natural anti-freeze or some damn thing.
It's the muzzies who are pissing in the soup.
Four family members are in Germany now. It will be interesting to hear about what has changed.
Death by diversity.
If diversity works so well, somebody explain the Tower of Babel to me...
As far as I understood the story, they hired some mexicans from behind the Home Depot to build the tower, but the blue prints were written in cuneiform, which the laborers (being from Oaxaca) were a little rusty on.
Chaos and hilarity ensued (Man the New International Version is sure taking liberties with the translation these days eh?).
I am delighted to learn that pure capitalism exists somewhere in this world, and not the crony capitalism that plagues the rest of the world. We can all rest easy, knowing that somewhere in this world the capitalist experiment is untarnished and a beacon of hope to us all. They probably don't have an evil government either. I mean, how could they possibly have any govt when they are so obviously successful? As all the productive Galters emigrate to Hong Kong and employ their entrepreneurial skills in productive endeavours, I expect the rest of the world to collapse and Hong Kong to pick up the scraps for pennies in the dollar, at which point pure anarcho-capitalism will enshrine the whole world in peace and prosperity for ever!
How come in writing this crap I feel like I'm some kind of "capitalist" version of MillionDollarBonus?
reading the crap you just wrote certainly brightened my weekend, after the let down of the article :)
Intelligence has at least as much to do with prosperity as the economic system. Scandinavians are very smart. Russians are smart too and managed to become a superpower despite the destructive Soviet economic system. It's a major misunderstanding that you can take a good economic system and automatically create prosperity with it. You need intelligence and work ethic. Capitalism doesn't create these conditions, it capitalises on them (pun not intended). Where these conditions are not prior to capitalism, it will be a moderate success or totally fail. It is one of the great fallacies of capitalist economic thought that a free market system will automatically make everyone work hard and organize things better. There is no guarantee it will do that.
Good point, but you also need some miminum level of respect for the rule of law.
Look at the chances Latin America has had over the centuries, and how little they have been able to sustain.
Lot's of smart, talented people, some hard workers, but corruption trumps everything.
True. Many things are required besides intelligence. One is a sense of fairness. Unless a large majority of the people see it as abnormal and shameful to live off the labor of others, that nation will fail. Impulse control is also important and is in fact the basis for the respect for the rule of law.
The entire comparison of Havana and Hong Kong is stupid. Cuba has been starved out by a trade embargo. China has been pumped to the moon with foreign investment.
The better comparison is to say, what if Cuba was allowed to be the world's cheap labor pool, with it's largest trading partner just a few miles away? If every fortune 500 company moved their operations to Cuba to avoid regulation and pay slave wages, Havana would be the modern city and Hong Kong would be a shit hole.
But hey, feel free to blame it on your favorite economic theory, or diversity, or some other stupid shit that doesn't matter.
Bingo! Winner! Your three paragraphs (well, one paragraph and 3 sentences) trumped the author's entire drawn out, Libertarian blah-blah.
If so why did Cuba not get the invesments needed? Maybe because they are not capitalist and drink from the socialist kool aid? With your argument you are actually admiting that it is the opening of the market what brings properity China did and it took 300 million people out of poverty. Cuba has not done it and continues stock. How nice it is for Castro to blame others for the mess they have created not only in Cuba but also exporting their damaging revolution to countries like Venezuela where the standard of living has plummeted
You seem to be supporting my view there: Cuba would be economic miracle if only they would let someone else build it from the ground for them. :)
You're not entirely wrong though. Hong Kong's and China's economic miracle is built on foreign technology and initial investment but there's energy in Chinese society you simply don't see all over the place. China had conditions for capitalism like no other country. They were destined to become an economic power on their own. All the investment and tech transfer only speeded up the process. Chinese economic policy has been all about speeding this up as much as possible. Conditions for Chinese majority ownership of ventures are designed to get their hands on tech for example. At the same time there has been little interest in Cuba getting investment from all the countries in the world that are not a part of the US embargo. The US is not the only country in the world that matters and there is no reason why you would need the US to build a prosperous economy.
Yes, but the more you allow markets to set prices of goods and services via supply and demand and favor profits and competition over monopolies the better any society will function. But without the cultural values of hard work, delayed gratification and personal responsi bility your results will be inferior to cultures (e.g. WASP) which emphasize these traits. Still, you'll be better off than with a top down system.
Seems to me the problem lies with trends and time lines. Systems that are organic thrive whether they be socialists or capitalists. Looking at the Israeli kibbutz I see socialistic systems that thrived in a very inhospitable climate. When I look at American small businesses and yeoman farms I see the same thing. In time, special interests become entrenched under both systems.
When I look at the opulent lifestyles of the children of the Chinese well connected, they look very similar to the children of the western .01%.
There are very few philosopher kings in either group. Having fallen victim to their parent’s success many succumb to the seductions of hedonism. Their irrational pursuits ultimately destroy the source of their wealth. One generation to earn it. One generation to burn it. One generation to lose it.
The hubris lies in the assumption by anyone individual or group that they have enough information , insight and wisdom to run infinitesimal interactions that are by their very nature organic.
From this video, it would appear that the Cubans have backed away from central planning out of necessity. http://www.google.com/url?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUWces5TkCA
The swedish royal family costs like $15 million a year or $1,50 per person.
The king is our number one ambassador and brings in much much more than that thru closing deals for our large corporations.
Also he has zero legal powers and never talks about political issues.
You need a "royal family" to close deals with corporations?
Huh, I guess thats where King Obama got his idea for negotiating my rates for health insurance.
The difference between the European Royal Heads of State and the US president is that the royals cost less than a tenth of what a president costs the US taxpayers on a per person basis. Obummer costs more for a single golfing vacation than a royal costs for a year.
The royals also bring in millions of tourists, don't make any Executive Orders and being above party politics they can act as mediators in hung parliaments. They are like elder statesmen whose influence is built on respect and not executive power.
Getting stuck with an all powerful presidente means America lost the revolution back in 1776.
I'd take back King George over this putrid stain at this point if I could. Of course, I'd readily accept sunsetting the Constitution of 1789, for a return to the Articles of Confederation.
So what you're saying is, socialists obviously believe being born into the correct family brings some sort of added societal value.
Indeed, their hypocrisy knows no bounds ;-)
The Yanks have Royalty envy. That is why they worship empty-headed starlets.
The problem with republics is that the Top Job is Not taken and so there is a surfeit of wanna-be s. "Just one more rival to knife in the back and I am gonna be King!! Yee Ha."
Psychopathy is a necessary atribute if you want to scramble to the top of the dung heap.
If the issue is settled by hereditry succession then the crown only has a 1 in 50 chance of being handed to a psychopath.
We get the psychopaths here in Australia trying to get rid of the monarchy for that very reason. They come their lies about how we should stand on our own two feet etc. What a load of horse shit.
No-knuckle head, You cannot have the Top Job. It is already taken.
hmmm maybe you have something here ...
create a bunch of phoney baloney offices like king, queen, prince ... have these offices have no power and trick the sociopaths into thinking they have won, earned, deserve the title.
norway, sweden, denmark. Mutually understandable languages {lesser sverige}, ethnicity, values, music.
Yep - they have socialism, and figurehead monarchs.
I'm gonna go ahead and assume you're speaking out of your colon on this matter.
First rule of semantics club: define your terms.
Scandinavian nations are socialist nation states. I'm not myself not necessarily advocating it - but that's what it is, baby.
"I'm gonna go ahead and assume you're speaking out of your colon on this matter. First rule of semantics club: define your terms."
If you can pull your head out your ass long enough, I am (as I always love doing) pointing out the total hypocrisy of socialists voluntarily supporting royal families (elites & oligarchs of the highest magnitude)...its why I have turned the phrase "welfare queens" on its head regarding them...lol.
And the first rule there is, they don't talk about their own hypocrisy, baby ;-)
Mmmmn, blondes! Makes up for the socialism.
This tired old debate about 'capitalism' against 'socialism' is useless (except for TPTB).
The devil is in the details, so TPTB craft satanic, anti-human policies that come in blue and red flavors, but in all cases it's just them using different language and ideologies to obfuscate fundamentally abusive practices.
So long as TPTB are running things, we'll NEVER get 'true', well-intentioned socialism OR capitalism, so pontificating about which is better is like a bad joke. But look at all the posters with their egos attached to the idea of 'winning' the absurd debate that drives the blue/red divide...
Tellya what, you work on getting RevCo (no, not the drugstore chain, the Revolution Communist Party-USA, affiliated with the Black Panthers) to stop inciting riots and burning down businesses and being a general pain in the ass, I'll work on trying to get business owners & cops (of all colors) to stop shooting them.
Deal? ;-)
Actually, I am not aiming at all for old-fashioned revolution, which is a dumb move that TPTB love to promote as an alternative to the current state of things, since they are so good at manipulating such movements.
I also don't think any top-down approach (ex: socialism/capitalism/etc.) will work, since we all know how much shit rises up hierarchies - much better is to work towards empowering yourself, freeing yourself from the system, and then teaching / sharing your solutions with like-minded people.
Things will change when enough people join us - and join they will, since life is so much better when free from an abusive system. And by 'free', I mean degrees of freedom: my finances are great, in large part because I now have such a simple, cheap life, free from the manipulation of TV, hollywood, etc., and enriched by all the cool solutions I am finding online :)
As a random example: http://sfhelp.org/ = an awesome, 100% FREE site with highly USEFUL psychological info, stuff that enormously helped me with procrastination, ADD, compulsive tendencies, and a number of other things I used to have difficulty dealing with... The best place to start with that site though is probably with the following video from the guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESRlV9xqXEc :)
"Actually, I am not aiming at all for old-fashioned revolution, which is a dumb move that TPTB love to promote as an alternative to the current state of things, since they are so good at manipulating such movements."
I'm not so sure, yes the young fall prey to the various manipulations more so than those who have "been around" so to speak. A little revolution every now and then isn't all bad, as Alinsky said, "'Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it." does work, its working regarding NSA spying (as far as the perception of the youths viewing it as the incarnation of Orwellian state) and the multitude of lies regarding ObamaCare certainly reinforce the notion they are being abused.
It takes time ;-)
"I also don't think any top-down approach (ex: socialism/capitalism/etc.) will work, since we all know how much shit rises up hierarchies..."
Yes but that is the fault of inferior people holding authority & power. There are people who value their own integrity more than any bribe or enumeration, believe it or not...lol. Its not a defense of statism on my part, its a recognition of the differences in values some people have.
"...much better is to work towards empowering yourself, freeing yourself from the system, and then teaching / sharing your solutions with like-minded people."
Yes, agreed.
"Things will change when enough people join us - and join they will, since life is so much better when free from an abusive system. And by 'free', I mean degrees of freedom:..."
I still believe the red-blue divide can be bridged but its going to take each side (and there are definite sides, some just like to play both sides) recognizing the limits of enforcing the unacceptable on the other.
Yes, it's useless.
I wonder how many people realize how "socialist" "ultra-capitalist" Hong Kong is. Almost free government-subsidised housing for one-third the population, free primary and secondary education if you want, free healthcare, if you want, 75% subsidy for university tuition, government subsidies for tourism, the arts, design, and loads of others, a massive, in many cases unnecessary, infrastucture programme to keep construction firms busy, minimum wage law that raised the minimum 50% two years ago.
The key is that taxes are only about 15%, despite all this, with no sales tax, and it costs almost nothing to set up a business. Very business-friendly government. Of course there's 1.4 billion people next door.
I don't think the authorities in Hong Kong would be happy with my gun collection, that's perfectly legal in my state.
Can I argue the other side that a real Constitutional Republic has never been tried.
Absolutely, I say it came under immediate attack upon formation, one arm was tied behind its back by England instituting an economy partially based on slave labor (which we were stuck with at inception), another arm was chopped off by the popular election of senators and standing there bleeding & almost defenseless, she was then gang-raped by Wilson & FDR (the creation of Fed, government monopoly of schools & re-write of the Commerce Clause).
Ironically enough, two of the presidents we currently idolize. The New Deal saved America nwen! It had nothing to do with being the last economy standing after the war.
As for your unjustified attack on Wilson, well he was just a kind hearted little ole progressive who wanted nothing but the best for the bank-errrrr I mean Americans, yeah those guys. You unpatriotic bastard! How can you live with yourself?
I think the pirates were on to something, take what they want when they want, live by their own "law" and make or break alliances at their leisure ;-)
Not to mention the democratic nature of their enterprise, as compared to the statist nightmare of a British ship of the line, or merchant marine.
We better sign on with some pirates soon, before we get Shanghaied and wake up wearing camo.
Yo-ho, Yo-ho a Pirates life for me.
Yes.
But lets not confuse the reader about their "democratic process". Everybody on the ship who voted was a member in good standing in order to vote.
Lay-abouts and useless eaters were thrown overboard ;-)
Aye matey, you earned your keep by procuring booty, or risked having yours procured.
It was a rough life, but a free one, worthy of a free-man (just don't forget the lemons).
Arrrgh, scurvy...lol.
Well it ultimately died during April 1865.
Because the Progressive of Amerika can do it better.
socialism has been tried with some real success in Scandinavia.
You either haven't heard this, or are laboring undert he misconception that what Sweden and Norway have isn't socialism.
Life, Liberty and Property
or
Death, Slavery, and Nothing
An American, not US subject.
no man, when us embargo a country, it means nobody is allowed to commerce with it.
and those who try, got serious problems.
Bollocks.I used to break embargo's and sanctions all the time,sometimes from necessity,
sometime by choice.
If the profit is big enough,nearly everyone has a price.
Smuggling is just the ultimate arbitrage.
Dude's never gone thru customs at Southend.
But do you use SWIFT?
The specific embargo on Cuba prohibits some direct trade from US companies with Cuba. It does not stop any other country from trading with Cuba.
overexposed
You have absolutely NO clue of what you're talking about.
That might actually be true, that socialism is always a failure. I just wonder whether high rises ever made anyone happy. I have only started enjoying my life in the earnest when i left the uninhabitable (without debt) concrete jungle.
In that light, Cuba looks definitely more appealing to me. Could grow my own tea and tobacco there...
Yeah, right. Based on the levels of the stock markets, the USA must be the freeest most capitalist country in the world.
DavidC
C’mon!
The writer (Daniel Mitchell) forgot the Detroit picture.
Anyway, it really shows that Mr. Mitchell really doesn’t know South America history under colonization and under an Empire.
Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent Paperback – by Eduardo Galeano
http://www.amazon.com/Open-Veins-Latin-America-Centuries/dp/0853459916/ref=pd_ybh_19
Michael Hudson:
As of 1976, Argentina had a total foreign debt of $18 million, 17 percent of GDP. The military came in in ’76 with U.S. government support, established a junta. By 1983, the debt had soared to $48 billion–by a factor of seven.
You had the U.S.-backed military dictatorship that ran the debt up into 1983, but then, in 1989, you had another neoliberal takeover with the Washington Consensus, and they adopted the U.S. dollar as their basic monetary reserves and tied their money supply to the dollar.
That essentially drove the country into debt because it brought on an economic collapse by 2002.
So you have a destructive neoliberal government coming in, driving the country into debt, ’cause that’s what neoliberals do.
http://michael-hudson.com/2014/07/vulture-funds-trump-argentinian-sovereignty/
Dont you think erroneous socialist and redistibutionist policies have cause already enough damaged to Latin America? Everytime state intervenes and causes a problem the latinamerican people think what they need is more governmet and more intervention creating and even worst problen. Look a Venezuela 40 years of socialism failed and people went for Chavez and after 15 more years of big governmet and Venezuela s economy is about to totally collapsed hyperinflation Zimbawe stile
There has not been any foreign intervention under Chavez...sorry my mistake fidel s stupid ideology has get their nose in there and advise the government what to do
This is also been seen in Bolivia, Ecuador and Argentina
Please tell me how is that the fault of something other than the immorality of Socialism that uses coercion to achiece their means
The US bankers finance the shit storm, military, and socialist agenda.
Simplified, but you’ll get it
I am dumbfounded of the misused of the words of the English language by many here.
I am a foreigner, don’t know how to write as well as many here, but I take the use of the any language, and its words, seriously.
Many here talk about ‘State’ (nation) intervention and ‘Socialism’ (bottom up capitalism) as one. Then, like the writer, start making stupid comparisons such as Empire (financial and military dominance) versus a very oppressed nation (Cuba) that, for the most part, it seems to me, lives under its means.
You cannot compare Hong Kong, London, New York, and Moscow; say with Rio de Janeiro, because these cities are the heartbeat of Empires (financialization and militarization dominance).
Keep in mind that I label cities like São Paulo, Buenos Aires, Tokyo, and many others collection and distribution centers (entrepôt) for the Empires.
So,
State intervention: Statism. That leads to cronyism (state favor schemes to get rich quickly and explore others). The G-20 nations are very good at that.
Socialism: Bottom up capitalism. And for this example I am going to use a Zero Hedge post.
swmnguy
Not everything Government does is Socialist by virtue of the Government having done it. In fact, your statement should read, "Bailouts are a GOVERNMENT action (subsidies), therefore they are classified under a socialist Fascist agenda."
The merger of corporate and State power, and the privatization of the public purse is Fascist, not Socialist. When people tell you it is Socialist, you need to look very closely at their motives. Almost every time, you will see that those spreading that tale in fact profit from the public purse, and they're using the fact that Americans hate "Socialism" without being able to define it, to mask their true agenda and how they are profiting from it.
For some weird-ass reason, Americans respond in a Pavlovian reflexive manner with negativity to the word "Socialist," but we don't seem to mind Fascism. Probably because we hate hippies and uppity intellectuals who call high-school football coaches and local Sheriffs "Fascists," which trivializes the word (though they are most likely indeed Fascists), so we don't understand what Fascism is and why it always, but always, destroys every society it infests.
No "Socialist" would ever bail out private industry to immunize private capitalists from losses and the consequences of their own actions. Socialists would do a lot of things none of us would want, but they wouldn't do that. That course of action is textbook Fascism.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-10-24/spanish-tenants-wake-horror-wall-street-landlord#comment-5376035
Escrava, we can go back and forth debating this point, but ultimately both socialism and fascism rely on the state. There is no such thing as "bottom-up Capitalism". What a fallacious point.
Yes, I understand that Capitalist systems do not do ethics well and socialism does, however, socialism empowers the state by opening the flood gates to publicly financing all sorts of activities which generate no economic output.
As the state grows.. and note this can be a function of a socialist, or a fascist system, it exerts increasing drag on economic growth and subsequently, the prosperity of its citizens.
And we can always talk about exceptions to the rule (see: Scandinavian nations) which are on top of large energy reserves, have small populations to keep their systems in check, and have a high level of education, BUT when deciding which system is ideal, we need to peg our system to the average (expected) experience, not statistical outliers.
History has shown that growing both socialism* and fascism has lead to unsustainability.
*Instituted originally by the Germans as a bulwark against a more absolute system- communism.
BrosephStiglitz, we don’t need to go back and forth debating these points at all.
Socialism, fascism, state, "bottom-up Capitalism" and “top-down Capitalism” are very easy to understand. Nothing fallacious about these words.
The problem will be with the word Socialism, because just like the word hero, are misused to manipulate. Both words have been so dumbdown that they lost their ‘real’ meaning; I believe.
Excerpts of what you wrote:
a) Publicly financing all sorts of activities which generate no economic output.
b) As the state grows.. and note this can be a function of a socialist, or a fascist system, it exerts increasing drag on economic growth and subsequently, the prosperity of its citizens.
c) History has shown that growing both socialism* and fascism has lead to unsustainability.
Now, we have Publicly Financing and Size of State as a drag, in additions to socialism and fascism unsustainability incorporated in this conversation.
So, please check these out against your believe:
1) US Private Debt (Not including financials and government) = $ 40.435.5 trillion dollars / 316 million Americans = $127 thousand for each man, woman, and child.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/Current/accessible/l1.htm
2) State is a drag. To whom? Have you seen how many private sector US small business was able to create before US started running deficits? Check the link yourself:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CIVPART/
3) Have you considered the destruction financialization does to the economy that makes everything else pale in comparison? Let me give you an example:
Margrit Kennedy on Usury [serfdom]
If Joseph the father of Jesus would have invested one penny at his birth at 5% interest, and Jesus would have returned to the same bank in 1990 - at the time of the German unification - he would have been able to buy, with the money accrued in the meantime, 134 billion balls of gold of the weight of the earth, based on the official price of gold at this time.
This shows mathematically that the continual payment of interest and compound interest over a longer period of time is practically impossible. And explains why we have economic and social breakdowns.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.converge.org.nz%2Fevcnz%2Fresources%2Fmoney.pdf&ei=YEUlVJKWN9CUsQS8qoG4Cw&usg=AFQjCNE5OvSWx2rSJhlyngc1nFrJFgV_1w&sig2=JFevCL8UtTx3uDHNC-ScJg&bvm=bv.76247554,d.cWc
Now, on Socialism (Bottom-up-Capitalism).
This time I am going to use a post at Zero Hedge by:
Really20
The implication that you are making is that private organizations cannot ever have coercive aspects to them based on their possession of an advantageous market position. Of course the common refrain among libertarians is that any coercion carried out by private parties is the result of "crony capitalism" or "corporatism", and not the all but inevitable result of private ownership of large amounts of capital.
Private ownership of the means of production should extend only to small and midsized businesses. Larger businesses should not, in general, be owned by the state in accordance to the failed Soviet model, but should rather be governed by a corporate board elected democratically by the workers (which would in turn choose executives) and involve elections for upper management as well at the presidential and vice-presidential level.
In fact, I would favor a downsizing of the state to about 5% smaller as a percentage of GDP than it is now, to be achieved by reducing military power to peacetime levels and reducing the number of working poor using public services through higher wages achievable in worker-managed companies.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-10-14/french-nobel-prize-winning-economist-slams-big-state-socialism-not-enough-money-pay-#comment-5331540
The last, but not the least important…. Financialization (Top-down-Capitalism)
Again, another Zero Hedge post.
Kobe Beef
I tend to agree, self-destruction is built into the system. I think it’s cyclical. To illustrate:
A modern nation under fiat debt control is akin to a people farm. In the initial part of the cycle, the extension of fiat credit allows for the expansion of the farm, investments in infrastructure, and progresses toward the rearing and shearing of greater numbers of consumer livestock. The farm grows. Debt grows. Payments received for debt grow. But, due to the laws of diminishing returns and compounding interest, the farm eventually reaches a point where shearing the existing stock no longer pays for the interest demanded by the creditors.
The farm, while remaining somewhat productive, is rendered unprofitable. In this phase of the cycle, the operations of the farm tends toward skinning the livestock, with no attention paid to growing the herd or maintaining its condition. At the final stage in the cycle, the farm and all its flock must be liquidated. The land is cleared, and the cycle can begin again.
The liquidation phase is called war. We are not seeing desperation here, but rather the planned liquidation of a farm by creditors who explicitly profess people to be nothing more than cattle. Our democratically-elected/creditor-selected managers are complicit in the process. End the credit, end the cycle. Eliminate the creditors, or be slaughtered anew.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-27/nato-deploy-tanks-eastern-europe-shortly-after-vp-europarliament-says-ukraine-russia#comment-5495497
"Excerpts of what you wrote:
a) Publicly financing all sorts of activities which generate no economic output.
b) As the state grows.. and note this can be a function of a socialist, or a fascist system, it exerts increasing drag on economic growth and subsequently, the prosperity of its citizens.
c) History has shown that growing both socialism* and fascism has lead to unsustainability.
Now, we have Publicly Financing and Size of State as a drag, in additions to socialism and fascism unsustainability incorporated in this conversation."
>No. I am saying that growing of socialist and fascist states have one thing in common- they both place increased POWER AND RESOURCES in the hands of state. Therefore consider both as an direct vehicle for state growth. The state funds plenty of non-productive activities such as:
- Arbitrage opportunities created by laws (see: criminal activities.)
- Funds stolen from the productive economy via trade barriers and tariffs.
- Rent-seeking behavior and corruption among the political ranks.
- Subsidization of failing businesses (the banking system, GM and many, many more.)
- Military conquest.
- Goosing of consumption by taxing productive and honest members of society into oblivion.
- Other means of wealth confiscation (seniorage, taxation, asset seizure.)
- Destruction of trust in other individuals via divisive politics, propaganda, spying and surveillance.
The list goes on, and on, and on.
"So, please check these out against your believe:
1) US Private Debt (Not including financials and government) = $ 40.435.5 trillion dollars / 316 million Americans = $127 thousand for each man, woman, and child.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/Current/accessible/l1.htm
>What does this have to do with anything? Under a free-market system, too much debt, or profligacy leads to bankruptcy. Whereas businesses can and will go bankrupt, the state can become the proverbial snake swallowing its own tail by enforcing wealth confiscation upon its citizens?
"2) State is a drag. To whom? Have you seen how many private sector US small business was able to create before US started running deficits? Check the link yourself:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CIVPART/
>To human progress. When the state subsidizes or interferes in the free-market mechanism by imposing taxes, legislation and so on, it raises the costs of setting up a business altogether. Not to mention the costs of inflation. It also diverts vital funds away from technological progress and R&D.
"3) Have you considered the destruction financialization does to the economy that makes everything else pale in comparison? Let me give you an example:
Margrit Kennedy on Usury [serfdom]
If Joseph the father of Jesus would have invested one penny at his birth at 5% interest, and Jesus would have returned to the same bank in 1990 - at the time of the German unification - he would have been able to buy, with the money accrued in the meantime, 134 billion balls of gold of the weight of the earth, based on the official price of gold at this time.
This shows mathematically that the continual payment of interest and compound interest over a longer period of time is practically impossible. And explains why we have economic and social breakdowns.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.converge.org.nz%2Fevcnz%2Fresources%2Fmoney.pdf&ei=YEUlVJKWN9CUsQS8qoG4Cw&usg=AFQjCNE5OvSWx2rSJhlyngc1nFrJFgV_1w&sig2=JFevCL8UtTx3uDHNC-ScJg&bvm=bv.76247554,d.cWc
>No need to talk to me about the costs of usury, and inflation, I have studied these phenomena in at University level. The fact is, without an army, or a body to enforce this (see: the state) these costs currently would not exist, unless the bankers bought a private army to enforce this themselves. Also possible, which is why I would keep a moderately sized state as a balance of power.
"Now, on Socialism (Bottom-up-Capitalism).
This time I am going to use a post at Zero Hedge by:
>Because ZH posters are clearly the font of all earthly knowledge. (No offense to these guys below who are well-informed, but ZH posters in general are hardly a credible source?)
Really20
The implication that you are making is that private organizations cannot ever have coercive aspects to them based on their possession of an advantageous market position. Of course the common refrain among libertarians is that any coercion carried out by private parties is the result of "crony capitalism" or "corporatism", and not the all but inevitable result of private ownership of large amounts of capital.
>I agree that the market system has flaws. Note- I do not argue for absolutely no state just a smaller, more streamlined, and honest state which has checks and balances. Currently the size of Govt. is out of control in many parts of the world. When these governments inevitably go bankrupt, a lot of people which your model [Escrava] is trying to help are going to suffer -badly-.
Private ownership of the means of production should extend only to small and midsized businesses. Larger businesses should not, in general, be owned by the state in accordance to the failed Soviet model, but should rather be governed by a corporate board elected democratically by the workers (which would in turn choose executives) and involve elections for upper management as well at the presidential and vice-presidential level.
>This is tricky. Corporate Governance is a very tough issue. I'd need to think about this more and study in more depth to give you an argument for, or against this system. Preferably I would also like to spend time on a board of governors for a corporate. I can give you my opinions on the above as a small business owner, and having worked in small/medium businesses my entire life. I cannot talk from the corporate perspective (yet).
In fact, I would favor a downsizing of the state to about 5% smaller as a percentage of GDP than it is now, to be achieved by reducing military power to peacetime levels and reducing the number of working poor using public services through higher wages achievable in worker-managed companies.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-10-14/french-nobel-prize-winning-economist-slams-big-state-socialism-not-enough-money-pay-#comment-5331540
>See nothing wrong with this. I don't know where the 5% figure comes from. It's an arbitrary number and needs a lot more study, and preferably study from a national perspective, rather than general. The situation will vary.
The last, but not the least important…. Financialization (Top-down-Capitalism)
Again, another Zero Hedge post.
Kobe Beef
I tend to agree, self-destruction is built into the system. I think it’s cyclical. To illustrate:
A modern nation under fiat debt control is akin to a people farm. In the initial part of the cycle, the extension of fiat credit allows for the expansion of the farm, investments in infrastructure, and progresses toward the rearing and shearing of greater numbers of consumer livestock. The farm grows. Debt grows. Payments received for debt grow. But, due to the laws of diminishing returns and compounding interest, the farm eventually reaches a point where shearing the existing stock no longer pays for the interest demanded by the creditors.
The farm, while remaining somewhat productive, is rendered unprofitable. In this phase of the cycle, the operations of the farm tends toward skinning the livestock, with no attention paid to growing the herd or maintaining its condition. At the final stage in the cycle, the farm and all its flock must be liquidated. The land is cleared, and the cycle can begin again.
The liquidation phase is called war. We are not seeing desperation here, but rather the planned liquidation of a farm by creditors who explicitly profess people to be nothing more than cattle. Our democratically-elected/creditor-selected managers are complicit in the process. End the credit, end the cycle. Eliminate the creditors, or be slaughtered anew.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-27/nato-deploy-tanks-eastern-europe-shortly-after-vp-europarliament-says-ukraine-russia#comment-5495497
> Yes, I also agree with this mostly, but why would you choose to go toward an increasingly socialist agenda? You understand my point yes? As growth flattens (the marginal product in terms of the factors of production reaches zero) you are probably going to be faced with two realistic options:
- Fascist states.
- Communist states.
I see neither as preferable*. Keep in mind also that aggregate debt levels have, in some part, been goosed by screwing with the base interest rates (not even remotely free-market). Which are a natural indicator of a market's health and so the third (most likely less realistic) option would be to take the state/central bank hand guiding the markets out of the equation altogether and let the chips fall where they may.
*However, I would point out that in a fascist state- some of that accumulated wealth is not part of an aristocratic legacy. It has been earned through capital investment, and genuine enterprise. In those instances, I would point out that the capital has not been invested/accumulated by accident. Successful entrepreneurs for the most part are very capable individuals. The risk you face by increasing the socialist portion of the economy (ie: tending toward a largely state run nation) is:
1. Massive capital misallocation, through many of mechanisms described above.
2. Gutting of property rights.
3. Disincentives for any individuals who actually want to rise to the top of the pile on their own steam.
4. Capital destruction.
And yes, I do also believe that Fascism has a very ugly side. As I say, neither are preferable. A free-market system is most humane, no matter what fascists, or socialists would argue. It offers the average citizen the best means of carving out his/her own future through personal enterprise, capital investment and the market mechanism are, for a large part, meritocratic.
Edit: and on top-down vs. bottom-up in terms of capital investment, I would ask you.. which system is going to be more effective in your opinion? A system which tosses money at everyone and hopes that some people are successful? Or a system which allows wealthy and/or intelligent entrepreneurs to "pick a horse"?
I suppose the answer is.. "It depends". My guess is, given especially high rates of bankruptcy in small business and new enterprise, that the latter is more effective, though there is certainly an argument for allowing diversity in investment.
Take a look at the articles on black friday though, and tell me if you would trust those fighting individuals to invest you money? Those people do not even understand the distinction between a productive vs. a non-productive asset. In order to provide "equal opportunities" your "bottom-up capitalism" would certainly expect my tax revenues to be placed in their hands, if they sought a business grant. Or even if they just wanted a new flat-screen.
Geez.....doesn't anyone know how to edit anymore?
Yes, Josef Stalin was most ethical.
Misnomer. Joseph Stalin was a totalitarian. Socialism =! Communism (which empowers the state entirely.) Socialism is Communism's less radical cousin right?
I do not like the notion of growing the state too much either way, because it inevitably leads to totalitarian regimes. It should at its biggest be a moderate threat against a private sector takeover* (Fascism) and at its smallest be just large enough to handle things I consider to be vital public functions like an adequate national defense force, high quality education, infrastructure upkeep, fundamental law and order (no murder, fraud, or counterfeiting, and enforcing basic property rights.) It should also have provision for natural disaster recovery and so on.
That's about it. Take a look around the world and tell me which state handles only those functions now? Maybe some of the Middle Eastern states.
*It should also have a system of strong checks and balances to avoid the private sector "buying" it. This part is the hardest to tackle. Perhaps the only way is with a very transparent system of public financing.
Slave Isaura:
You talk a lot like "Memento," the woman's "Surf" (Nics).
Two commentators "Rio" in Weblog.
She, a university professor with a PhD in France, he Economist of a multinational company.
A very intelligent couple and friend despite never physically meet.
I like your comment.
:-)
My experience is that blogging is less frustrating and more fulfilling than dealing with some of my friends and people that I meet.
The thing about blogging that I love is that help to organize my thoughts. You see, when I read, the information is not organized in my brain. But blogging helps organizing it, because I have to write, verify the sources, and in a way people can understand. You’re a professor, you get pay to write. Lucky you.
And I find blogging great complement while I am sipping Pinot Noir… but that’s me.
Let me tell you something really bad that I started doing lately. You see, when I go out I met people very easily. And they have the curiosity to ask me “Where did you learn/figure these things out?”
I tell them “Join me at Zero Hedge. I blog there.”
One evening while drinking I met this doctor and he knew Zero Hedge; so he said: “You’re a Libertarian.”
I told him: No I am not!
"I am dumbfounded of the misused of the words of the English language by many here.
I am a foreigner, don’t know how to write as well as many here, but I take the use of the any language, and its words, seriously."
I think the way you understand the words are different from most English-as a first language people. The way (it seems to me) most Americans, etc use the words:
The State is not The Nation. The State is the politicians, bureaucrats and connected people.
Socialism is when property is owned or controlled by the State, rather than by the private individuals. Of course, in the real world no place is ever 100% capitalist or socialist, but somewhere on a gradient inbetween. In theory, the ideal of socialism is for the greater good of the common people.
"No "Socialist" would ever bail out private industry to immunize private capitalists from losses and the consequences of their own actions. Socialists would do a lot of things none of us would want, but they wouldn't do that."
The problem here is that you are trying to discern the intentions of the State. If the bailout is to protect private businesses and people, then it is fascist? What if the bailout is to protect the common people from the consequences of a collapse caused by private businesses? Then it is socialist? What if the bailout is both to save rich, private people and the common people? Then it is fascist and socialist at the same time?
We can only know people's stated intentions, we have no way to determine if that is their true intention or not. That it why it is simpler to label them as Statists who seek to control and manipulate others through the power of the State, since we can judge them by their actions, rather than trying to discern their true intentions.
If you don't like the Cuban analogy, try the West Germany vs East Germany, N. Korea vs S. Korea.
Does happiness count?
Only in Bhutan.
Happiness is over-rated!
Happiness is great. It's the "pursuit" of happiness that sucks.
Happiness belongs to the self-sufficient.
-Aristotle.
Hell no, happiness? WTF is that? Two choices framed here like everything else... Either you grow exponentially forever and ever or suck shit in your Edsel.
There's never an in between with the status quo hacks.
Youre either working 70 hours a week or youre a loser on a beach somewhere!
Everyone is looking for what they don't have not what they need and are not thankful for what they have.
The idea the EU is socalist is bullshit. It's right wing just less right wing that the USA. It is by no means socalist.
You see, Socialism can mean different things depending on how much schooling you have. To smart people in the west, socialism is like a rainbow.
Funny you should bring up schooling. Every time I'm in here your ass is usually getting schooled by somebody. Hell compared to you everyone around here's a freaking genius.
School me, dog biter.
rotflmfao.
From "breathing space" to "just breathing period." Now be careful how you eat your food or you'll choke to death on a chicken bone.
Just like Momma Cass.
Is that "schooling enough" for you?
I'll have a go. Karl Marx! Did you shit your pants? Words like Marx and Socialism have a tendency to loosen the bowels of the morons who keep parroting capitalism as the one single philosophical ideal, as if they found monotheism for the first time and want everyone to obey their one true god. To be fair, we're all so completely indoctrinated to the idea that anything other than capitalism is bad, it has gotten to the ridiculous point when you can't even mention socialism without somebody shitting their pants. Honestly, how the fuck can you possibly define yourself by just one economic idea living in the 21st century? A socialist or a capitalist? Strawman much?
It should be apparent to even the most dimwitted observers that successful, modern democracies borrow ideas from the pages of Marx, Smith, Friedman, Weber and Von Mises to name but a few of the most influential. More importantly, it is the application of the philosophies and governance by the rule of law to purge corruption that are the most important to engender innovation, prosperity and justice. The same morons who use socialism as an insult have no qualms about supporting other collective, oppressive government run institutions like the military, police and intelligence agencies. Yet as soon as other collective efforts that take advantage of the economies of scale are mentioned, like universal healthcare, they start leaking from every orifice crying about "socialism". The adoption of many economic schools of thought in the modern world make the word, Capitalism, merely an archaic term of historical value. Whether nationalised (socialised) or in private hands, if it is run by honest decent people it works. If it is run by criminals and nepotists, not so much. :) It's just a pity that we seem to have run out of moral people in the world.
Pure, unencumbered capitalism without oversight to prevent fraud and corruption eventually ends up with a cartel of few feudal masters who own everything while giving the illusion of choice. It is no longer a hyperbole to suggest that Americans live in a neo-feudal world where everything they consume, watch, hear, feel and do are under the control of a handful of multinationals, including its political processes. Marx, for all his faults, was a genius for spotting the weaknesses in a capitalist world and his treatise is an enlightened way to have a better capital based society, if you ignore all the tiresome crap about the communist manifesto and the proletariat. In fact, it would have been better if his books weren't called Das Kapital, but "How to be a Better Capitalist". The final awakening for anyone who is tired of the bullshit and lies is the realisation that Marx's work wasn't some commie crap about collectivist thinking, but a detailed analysis of making a better society with capital. In fact some of his ideas have long since been adopted in modern management techniques to increase innovation and productivity - the idea that workers are not bonded slaves to be exploited and abused, but creative individuals whose talents and education should be nurtured and encouraged to increase competitive advantage in the market place. For all his faults, Marx's Vol.1 work did make the world a better place as old capitalism evolved to encompass his ideas in the 20th century like joint-stock companies, worker's protection leading to the rise of the middle classes, free competition and upward mobility from the class system. His work also did a lot of harm too by morons who used violence, but in the context of his time when the majority of the people were enslaved to the owner-capitalists during the industrial revolution, he changed the world for the better.
Absolute freedom of competition, so important to all of us as both producers and consumers, is always eliminated by a capitalist society, as the entity that accrues the most capital always grows bigger at the cost of everyone else until that entity controls everything, manipulates all markets, and corrupts all processes. That is the cost of having no limits to an individual's wealth in a finite world with limited resources and a growing population. It is time to rethink the limited virtues of capitalism and stop with the infantile monochromatic modes of thought that creates false paradigms for morons to bicker over. There are merits and faults in every great philosophical idea. Any mixture of ideas that elevates human dignity and human freedom is ok by me.
What system do we have now? You say Americans live in a neo-feudal world where everything they consume, watch, hear, feel and do are under the control of a handful of multinationals, including its political processes. Yes, our economy and society is controlled by international bankers called the FED. Is that what you call capitalism? Do we not have a centrally planned economic system right now, Professor? What controls our economy, the free markets or the words of the Fed Chairman? So I'm not sure what you would like to propose to an already centrally planned socialist system? A little Marxism to make it more fair?
I think you ought to know that the Federal Reserve is a private institution with private subscribers who own and control it. It is centrally controlled, but not by elected officials, IE they are not the government, but the squid banks that have the most capital lending out money to all of us at interest. Can you understand the distinction? Elected officials are in theory answerable to the electorate, private banks are not. As predicted, the ones who have the most capital ends up with all the control. That is the point of the exercise.
I don't think you understand the fun I am poking at the morons who are stuck in the binary world of the socialist or the capitalist. I am heartened by your request, but if you are asking me to come up with a proposal to replace the current system, you will have to pay me a lot of money to do it and give me a decade or two to sort it out.
Edit: Here's a useful video about the private central banks. You might then understand what I am writing about when I refer to the Fed lending money to all of us at interest. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfEBupAeo4
You can Nationalize banks but isn't Private vs Public just as binary as Socialist vs Capitalist. Here's a thought that may stop the global thievery before it gets to another country, during the coming world war, go find and arrest all the international bankers who stole the National Gold from Fort Knox along with all the progressive enablers in this country.
Now you're thinking! :). You're quite right to point out that private-v-public is just as binary as socialist-v-capitalist. Although, as I pointed out, the only distinction is that government institutions are in theory answerable to the electorate.
Anyway, the rest about the bankers and the gold you already know I heartily agree. If you really do want me to write a proposal to replace the current system, I will only accept payments in real money: gold. :)
You're wrong. Think of it like this:
On the far Right you have libertarian anarchy with small government, max freedoms and personal responsibility. A sort of Wild West. "Small Government"
On the far Left you have totalitarian government with laws/rules/regulations which govern every nook and cranny of your life. "Big Government"
Big government is socialism. Totalitarian government is communism or fascism (corporatism).
Now ask yourself where the EU-crats in Brussels fit onto this spectrum. It most certainly isn't on the Right given the countless Directives and regulations that spew out of that place like diarrhoea and the dubious links of Brussels top-brass with big money.
On the other hand USA is a Military Empire, that means NeoCon Orientation, that means Military Republic, that means US Democrats are Right Wing Actors... You can not even posit that the USA is a Liberal Country or a Democracy that recognizes Sovereignty of other countries... plus you have evidence that USA has had military expeditions to support corporations supplying fruit to the USA for like 150 years... and covert actions for regime change in foreign countries for nearly as long a time.
So Who Is America, the USA?
USA is a Military Republic, it serves those that are powerful, it serves both corporate needs and the needs of the Empire... like cheap produce, like cheap products, like cheap oil & gas, and like cheap military control over the globe.
Cheap Military Control over the Sea Shipping/Trade Routes... Quite a big picture here. It is a big Task. It is the Task of an Empire.
So... we are told if you like cheap produce, clothes, spices, oil, and furnishings... support the USA. But the problem is that few are getting rich, few have the careers, and few have the jobs... there are fewer jobs!!!
Think about it.
- So we have military control of sea shipping routes
- So we have a global military, hidden commercial, Global, Interests,
- Problem is Meme that Private Businesses have Moral High Ground, that Wall Street Banks have moral High Ground
- Problem is FED is Corporation with Stock Holders (European banks)
- Problem is that US Wall Street Banks can create Money out of thin air, with no controls, at their will, and have no responsibility to the country or economic growth
But could just be me...?
There is a much-peddled claim that any government which is militaristic and protective of its big money and multi-national corps is by definition "Right wing". This is a lie spread around by the Left to smear the Right.
Mao, Pol Pot, Kymer Rouge and many others in history were all variations of totalitarian hard-Left and they were very militaristic, so that claim doesn't stand up. At the same time, Mussolini by his own mouth was a lifelong socialist and he also snuggled up to big money in Italy. He called it "fascism" aka corporatism. Today, we see the American Democrats in the pocket of big money. And it is what we see in the EU, stuffed full of old commies and fascists.
When one sheds the brainwashing and propaganda that spews out of the Left and actually studies the actions of these people, not what they say because they are masters of disguise, it becomes clear that militarism, corporatism etc are ideologies belonging to the political Left, not the Right. The Right tends only to get involved in wars to protect itself from the nutters.
Empire itself is not a Right-wing ideology, it emanates from the fascist stable. That includes the British Empire, the modern day American Empire and of course the old Persian and Islamic Empires. A Right-wing approach is to engage in free trade with other nations, not to invade them and take control of their country and steal their resources and wealth.
Edward Griffin and Ron Paul and many others understand all this. But many people don't, due to brainwashing from childhood, thru college/uni and then by MSM's relentless Lefty propaganda.
The only difference, as highlighted in the pictures, is that one masks the true nature of your existence in the Matrix better than the other. In other words.....your slavery is more "truthy" on the surface than the other.
Otherwise....nothing different. You're still a slave in both systems.
Would you also liken the USSR to Cuba...embargoed so it lagged...unfairly at that?
correlation vs. causation.
We embargoed the iron Curtain. Cuba outlasted them.
Precisely.
Agreed - I had the same thought. The rest of the article is a bit of mush as well. Simpleton author.
Agreed - I had the same thought. The rest of the article is a bit of mush as well. Simpleton author.
Nice glittering pic for Hongkong. I'd rather live in Cuba(not Havana, though)
Far enough away, even hell is just a bright light.
Two sides of a different coin. I'd hardly call British (colonialism) capitalism.
I remember in 1999 when the Hong Kong lease expired, and the Chinese took over.
Is Hong Kong better or worse then(past tense) it was in 1999?
Hong Kong has a better airport. I miss "Kai Tak" though.
The economic system in Hong Kong was designed and implemented by a British civil servant and was intended to be a free market economy. It was not the typical model for British colonies and successive British Governors didn't intervene in that.
HK was handed back to China in 1997, not 1999 :-)
You're correct it was 1997. Are you speaking of the The Convention for the Extension of Hong Kong Territory in 1898?
The lease was 100 years minus (1) day.
I wasn't referring specifically to that convention because the economic model was a progressive introduction by the British of the free market economic system without social or corporate welfare. It was always intended to be a raw capitalist society because the British didn't want to spend - and didn't have - vast sums of money on the usual socialist welfare systems.
There's a book about how the British handled HK available methinks. Given its obvious success, one wonders why Brits didn't follow a similar model back home. It must be that socialism is an unavoidable mental disease.
Excellent comments. I would posit that money in politics, financial conflicts of interest, money in monarchy, Gift Giving, Regulation Capture, Swinging doors to Industry, Wealth & Revenue from Nebobs(fascism or money trust), control over the Bank of England (CB), and other local financial interest in London... ruled the decisions about the United Kingdom... or whatever you call that Cartel/Conglomerate.
Thankyou.
A lot of people who live outside of Britain who've seen all these things you mention creeping into their own systems of government for a coupla generations don't realise that it's been going on in Britain for about 800 years. Britain is possibly the world leader in corrupt systems of government, so much so that it is systemic, not just a modern day bolt-on problem. Cromwell tried to tackle it but alas, he died before any real change was effected (apart from executing Charles I) and the old system prevailed, albeit with a few less powers. Hence I have long said that the current system cannot be reformed, it will eventually have to be torn down.
Far Reaching Response here. Great. 800 years too long for a Systemic Corruption to continue UN-noticed.
We must post the features of this Systemic Corruption.
- Who are we, where does our Banking System come from?
- Where does our Political System come from, where does our Lobbying and Campaign raising system of Politics come from, Systemic Corruption is the best description
- We must Question who our Models are and where they come from;
- UK Monarchy, UK Banking System, Rothschild Banking System
- Another European Banking System
- What other Banking Systems & Political Systems can save our Colleges, Universities, and our Health Care System
- How can we Save our Political System
- How can we take the Risk out of our Justice System which is now so Corrupt?
Brilliant (!!)
If your concerns were presented to the incumbent British government of the day, it might deal with them by announcing an "Independent Public Inquiry".
An "Independent Public Inquiry" is defined as:
a) the relevant govt minister or even the Prime Minister himself would articulate the precise terms of the inquiry. So it isn't "Independent".
b) the public only have very limited access to such inquiries because they are held in small offices with limited seating and they are mostly pre-booked by MSM who suck at the teet of government. No TV cameras usually allowed. So it isn't "public".
c) the inquiry only has powers to investigate narrow aspects of the subject as previously defined. So it isn't an "inquiry".
The usual result is a cost of about GBP 20 million and an 800 page report which exonerates all the perps and is simply a whitewash. MSM suck it up. The whole subject is buried.
But the 800 page report makes a good doorstop.
Then we have the Criminal Prosecution Service (CPS) who are equivalent to a grand jury in the United States. They took a full 12 months to decide that the SO19 armed Met Police officer who fired 8 bullets into the head of Brazilian JC de Menezes at close range would not be charged with murder because he would use the defence of "honest belief". Legal experts say that this defence is very difficult to use in court since the perp has to produce solid evidence of his "honest belief". In this case he would never have been able to produce it since there wasn't any.
In this case the CPS made the announcement on the steps of their office on a Friday afternoon before a bank holiday by reading out a short statement and no questions allowed. MSM sucked it up. The whole matter was then forgotten about.
This refined government behaviour has been going on for centuries. Whenever a tiny hole is found in it, a new sticky plaster is applied and they carry on.
Cromwell and his followers were not much different to ISIS today. Not a lot of difference between their zealotry and persecution of those not following their puritannical/salafist doctrines. It is a good thing that he died.
That's a very interesting perspective on Cromwell. I agree with you.
I have often described Cromwell's civil wars as "one faction of the ruling elites (Cromwell and landed gentry) fighting with the other faction (the monarchy) for supremacy".
They were certainly not the people-vs-ruling elites but that's how current day political elites and many history books would have us believe. If that had been the case, we might have ended up with a proper Constitution. But we didn't. The civil wars delivered virtually nothing of note to the people, except a lot of deaths on each side in the fighting.
Cromwell came to believe that "the people" were incapable of being involved in decision-making or running the country's affairs, so he re-installed the monarchy with a slightly less powerful role and much of the power went across to the landed gentry as we see today.
Some time later, when democracy became fashionable, it was bolted on to the system like a Meccano set, but the power has remained in the hands of the elites to this day.
Obviously, Parliament loved Cromwell so much that they have a larger-than-life statue of him in front of their edifice.
Okay, let me get this straight. I'm not attacking you.
Your comment is self defeating. The economic model wasn't about free markets. It was about colonialism. (pure and simple) Britain wanted control of wealth in the South China Sea and "trade routes".
It was never meant to be a capitalistic society until the British were forced to pull back their empire during WWI. The British would have enslaved Hong Kong if WWI and the breakup of Europe hadn't taken place.
Look at how the Germans kicked the English out of Northern Africa.
I never even considered that you were attacking me.
It was all about creating a system of self-funding economics that wouldn't be a drain on the British Exchequer. Free markets and raw capitalism was the only solution. The colonialism you mention was an administrative system which hardly interferred with every day economic activity. That was left to the markets.
It was never about creating a system of "autonomous" economics. Hong Kong was just a supply route for the English empire through the South China Sea.
You're being misled. Hong Kong contains ZERO natural resources.
Hong Kong has a nice safe "deep water" harbor for trade ships. It's also naturally sheltered from cyclonic activity.
Hong Kong has and will continue to be a great place for trade across the Pacific.
Your comments (now) refer to the benefits of Hong Kong to the British Empire. Your earlier comments and my comments were related to the running of Hong Kong as a colony, ie: the people who live there had to be fed and watered etc. Free market capitalism was the chosen solution.
There is a difference doncha know.
And it had nothing to do with natural resources.
Based on Fiction, Historical type Novels with no notes or bibliography... neither the Chinese, the People who Traded along the Chines sea from Burma to Mongolia... people were all capitalistic in a way that would fix prices, change commodity prices, and capture the market in various places at various time.
But I'm not an expert or a professional.
UK & Chinese Motivations seem Identical to me.
- Motivations
- Principals
- Publicly State Goals of Lawyers or Politicians
- Wealthy or Commercial Interest in PR ices and Capturing Commodity Markets
The British system was never free enterprise, but Mercantilism (sp).
Thanks. My Timeline was all screwed up. My memory was of 1980 statements that hand-over could not be accomplished on time.
I see now I can't account for memories of the delay in hand over. Not clear what I remember, but it was a big deal as has to be tied up in Negotiations and public info releases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_of_sovereignty_over_Hong_Kong#Nego...
i know of a tiny country in asia and a large country in europe that have ce ntrally planned their economies into the 3rd and 4th largest economies in the world with trhe lowest unemployment rates in the first world. i believe the largest economy in the world is a centrally planned economy.
I think you should use per capita - not total economy.
The Cuban Government just needs to increase government spending, since that counts towards GDP. Must make The GDP higher! The GDP is the scoreboard of life!
On the other hand, who is better prepared for oil shortages? Hong Kong or Cuba? Who is better prepared for financial collapse?
It teaches me to hate road salt even more - look at how good those 50 year old Havanna cars look!