capitalism, by definition, is a stupid and foolish human system by 1kiki

Yes, to form a legal corporation as dictated by the State. What is your point?

You still can't change those laws to steal peoples business from them.

si shen

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 23, 2014 2:17 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

My point is that SignyM is right and you're wrong, once again.

SignyM: In the economic sense, to incorporate means "to form a legal corporation"- to make a synthetic human being (incorporare, to make a body). There is nothing natural about corporations

Query: supreme court corporation rights

Corporate personhood

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

TH: "Incorporation means to join with something that already exists."
And you are so very, very wrong.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 23, 2014 2:28 PM

What a moron, you are using a very narrow interpretation to make an invalid point.

Here is the problem with you signym and you 1kiki. You are both Socialists and are continually complaining about capitalism. Much of the complaint is justified. It is when you interject personal feelings about making it better that you run amuck.

Example:

You complain about the injustice of the way resources are distributed. Rightfully so, but then you imply we should take from the few and give it to fewer as though that will show them. Being Socialists you believe this can be done. It can not. Again, Russia post Gorbachev.

Your both nuts.

si shen

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 23, 2014 2:33 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

So, you think that when people are talking about economic and legal topics we shouldn't use the appropriate definitions, we should use irrelevant ones, like you do. Ones you base your entire argument on. Got it.

"... but then you imply we should take from the few and give it to fewer ..."

Where did I imply that? Find a quote anywhere.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 23, 2014 2:55 PM

Holly Shit, 1kiki you keep agreeing with signym and her you. If you don’t agree with her posts or her yours then you both need to stop defending each other’s points.

You want to take away profit.

Quote:
…1kiki

We need to get rid of the idea of PROFIT.

Even government cannot get rid of profit. Somebody always gets something. Especially in a democracy, it cannot be done. To determine there is to be no profit, you must own the business or declare it a non-profit which means tax exempt. No profits, no taxes, eventually no government. (I.E Russia, post Gorbachev)

There seems to be a theme here, yet I can’t quite put my finger on it? …..

Here we go round the mulberry bush....

And here's where I bid you adieu. You want a socialist country and I do not. Here is a current list of socialist countries. Take your pick and send me a post card.

Sorry the list of failed states was too long to cut and paste so here is the link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_countries

People's Republic of China 1 October 1949 Communist Party of China Xi Jinping
(since 2012) Li Keqiang
(since 2012)
Republic of Cuba 1 July 1961 Communist Party of Cuba Raúl Castro
(since 2006)
Lao People's Democratic Republic 2 December 1975 Lao People's Revolutionary Party Choummaly Sayasone
(since 2006) Thongsing Thammavong
(since 2010)
Socialist Republic of Vietnam 2 July 1976 Communist Party of Vietnam Nguyen Phu Trong
(since 2011) Truong Tan Sang
(since 2011) Nguyen Tan Dung
(since 2006)

si shen

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 23, 2014 5:02 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"Somebody always gets something."

Yes, if you work you should get rewarded with the value of your labor. Hm. How MANY times have I made that point? If you invest you should be able to get your investment back plus interest for inflation. I KNOW I made that point at least once. Where have I said nobody gets anything? I even said EVERYTHING ELSE STAYS THE SAME. Private ownership? check. Corporate ownership? check. Public owner ship? check. Stock market? check. Banks? check. I'm not sure I can be more explicit when I say EVERYTHING.

" You want a socialist country ..." nice lie. I have never posted that (which is why you couldn't come up with a quote) or even implied it. I asked you to prove that claim of yours. You failed completely. Because, why again? I never posted or even implied such a thing.

The problem with profit - as I pointed out earlier, a shortcoming real economists have been trying to fix for over 100 years - is that eventually all the money ends up in the hands of investors and none in the hands of workers/ consumers. I think the way to fix this problem is to get rid of the idea of profit. IE: people don't get free money just because they put some money into something a long time ago. I think my solution could keep an economy rolling along indefinitely without crashing into that endpoint so many economists have been struggling over.

So, I gotta ask, how does it feel to be a chronic liar? And how does it feel to be rappy's twin? Yanno, flouncing off with your lies in tatters?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 23, 2014 7:56 PM

Quote:
…..1kiki
worse than believing this is the way things should be as opposed to any other system - don't even cognate that there ARE different systems, that things have been different in history, are different around the globe, and will be different in the future.
Traditionally, we are shown the dangers of non-Capitalism. Look at the cold war & the whole Red scare thing... make anything non-Capitalist scary & dangerous.
knowledge leads to inability to learn new information or even direct experience.
I think one answer is to limit profit to payback of initial investment plus accrued interest over the time the current amount of money is still outstanding, rather than have it as a 'free money' card ad infinitum.
And if they invested their money, all that investment should be paid back to them with inflation compensation.
We can keep everything the same, and just get rid of 'profit'.
It's just that people who own a business shouldn't get a 'free money for nothing forever' card.

Read your statements. It shows you have a complete lack of understanding of economics not to mention what it means to live in a free society. To implement what you suggest it means government completely controls all aspects of the economics of your business. We have this today, it is called being a government agency.

In just a few moments I was able to find a few things to show you that you would have to change things in the constitution and Bill of Rights to enforce what you suggest. Good bye freedom.

Constitution:

6: No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

Bill of Rights

Section 1. That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
Section

6. That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people, in assembly ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses without their own consent or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assembled for the public good.

si shen

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 23, 2014 9:39 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

So, I DIDN'T promote a socialist economy! You're catching on!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 23, 2014 9:53 PM

In going over all your posts I realized you did not possess the intellect needed to promote any type of economic system. So yes you are right.

si shen

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 23, 2014 10:55 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

ad hominem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 23, 2014 11:28 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
In going over all your posts I realized you did not possess the intellect needed

Rappyland, it's wonderful, and exclusive...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 24, 2014 10:18 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
You still can't change those laws to steal peoples business from them.

If you take something away from somebody, but it's not against the law, is it really "stealing"?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 24, 2014 10:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
You still can't change those laws to steal peoples business from them.
If you take something away from somebody, but it's not against the law, is it really "stealing"?

Possession is .9 of the law.

si shen

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 24, 2014 2:38 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

misunderstanding of aphorism

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 24, 2014 3:07 PM

It is a general truth which is what aphorism means. No misunderstanding at all.

si shen

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 26, 2014 8:47 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

So, I'm asking for Cliff Notes. Did everybody prove her wrong?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 26, 2014 9:11 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
So, I'm asking for Cliff Notes. Did everybody prove her wrong?

No, we all proved that Capitalism is flawed. Which is why our system contains Socialist elements.
My personal take away is that no one system is best.
But I knew that B4.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2014 1:12 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Possession is .9 of the law.

Might makes right?

Say, do you have any objection to terrorism?

If so, why?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2014 1:13 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I asked Signym to provide a scenario, what would an average person's day be like under your preferred system?

You did? I saw a few questions like that early on... before I got involved in the thread... but I thought they were directed at KIKI.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2014 2:59 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Aphorism used in support of argument AS IF IT WAS A FACT.

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
It is a general truth which is what aphorism means. No misunderstanding at all.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2014 3:02 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

And yet, Chris,isall there are people, even ones on this very board, and in Washington and state governments, who argue that the only good system is one of pure capitalism.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2014 3:06 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

G

Perhaps you didn't notice, but while I pointed out the problems of capitalism, I also suggested a solution - multiple times.

I'm sorta getting tired of people who can't or don't read, and having to post the same things over and over.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2014 7:45 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

G, so I scrolled back thru the thread, and indeed, you did ask me a question once. It got obviously buried.

However, in looking at OTHER threads (specifically, the "if Hillary becomes POTUS" thread, I found this

Quote:
Bigger problems in other countries does not mean our own problems are nonexistent. Complaining is the only way those problems get the attention and solutions they need.-BYTE

Yes! Yes! Yes!-G

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=58250
Well, you seem to be all manner of agreeable about complaining in one thread, and so annoyed with it in this thread. So while I have a number of possible ideas about what to do in place of capitalism, maybe I'll just let this stand as my answer to your hypocrisy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2014 7:50 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

MIKER

Quote:
In going over all your posts I realized you did not possess the intellect needed to promote any type of economic system. So yes you are right.

In going over your posts, I realize that you have even less command of economics than most. You don't know, and can't use, the appropriate definitions of "profit" and "incorporate", and because you're so utterly ignorant of the topic, are completely not worth talking to about it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2014 10:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Possession is .9 of the law.
Might makes right?

Say, do you have any objection to terrorism?

If so, why?

It is just the way it works out. Ask OJ Simpson. He is in jail for trying to recover some of his property. It is not so easy if someone else has it. If you have never heard that term then you truly are not from here.

As for asking if I have any objections to terrorism as though I might support it, I would just say fuck you. One has nothing to do with the other, but that is part of what you do isn't it? Cloud the issue.

si shen

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2014 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Aphorism used in support of argument AS IF IT WAS A FACT.

Originally posted by THGRRI:
It is a general truth which is what aphorism means. No misunderstanding at all.

Understanding the concept requires you to be capable of critical thinking. Skills you surly do not possess as shown by your thoughts on doing away with profit, while still making sure everyone makes a profit.

That's some funny shit.

Possession means holding property in one’s power or the exercise of dominion over property. By having possession one exercises control over something to the exclusion of all others.

The saying “possession is nine points of the law” is an old common law precept that means one who has physical control or possession over the property is clearly at an advantage or is in a better possession than a person who has no possession over the property. Even if a person is the rightful owner of the property but has no possession over it, the person who is in possession will be in a better position should the property ever be subject to challenge. This is especially true with adverse possession. However mere possession alone does not grant the possessor rights in the property superior to those of the actual owner. This adage “possession is nine tenths of the law” is not a law but a logical rule of force that has been recognized across ages.

An Aphorism, true in general.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/possession-is-nine-points-of-the-law/

si shen

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2014 11:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
MIKER
Quote:
In going over all your posts I realized you did not possess the intellect needed to promote any type of economic system. So yes you are right.
In going over your posts, I realize that you have even less command of economics than most. You don't know, and can't use, the appropriate definitions of "profit" and "incorporate", and because you're so utterly ignorant of the topic, are completely not worth talking to about it.

Boy, Miker must have been a major head ach for you huh? Well I am pleased to carry on in his stead and will answer this for him, 1kiki.

I haven't forgotten what has been posted prior. In going over my posts what you actually discovered was you have no way to express what system you would put into place. You have been asked and when you tried to make suggestions it was pointed out to you they resembled Russia pre Gorbachev. A system that polluted worse than capitalism and provided far less for its population in return. This shows you have very little command of economics.

si shen

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2014 12:54 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"A system that polluted worse than capitalism and provided far less for its population in return." Posted of course with no analysis of the relative starting point of either country, or, if you look at Russia through time for a relevant analysis of changing quality if life for the masses under feudalism/ communism/ gangster capitalism, a discussion of the vast improvement in quality of life for the vast majority of people under communism.

But here's an even better comparison - two non-western countries that started out at the same economic level, at the same time, and went in different directions.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/may/12/quality-life-indi
a-vs-china/

Quality of Life: India vs. China
Amartya Sen (Nobel prize winning economist)

The central point to appreciate here is that while economic growth is important for enhancing living conditions, its reach and impact depend greatly on what we do with the increased income. The relation between economic growth and the advancement of living standards depends on many factors, including economic and social inequality and, no less importantly, on what the government does with the public revenue that is generated by economic growth.

Some statistics about China and India, drawn mainly from the World Bank and the United Nations, are relevant here. Life expectancy at birth in China is 73.5 years; in India it is 64.4 years. The infant mortality rate is fifty per thousand in India, compared with just seventeen in China; the mortality rate for children under five is sixty-six per thousand for Indians and nineteen for the Chinese; and the maternal mortality rate is 230 per 100,000 live births in India and thirty-eight in China. The mean years of schooling in India were estimated to be 4.4 years, compared with 7.5 years in China. China’s adult literacy rate is 94 percent, compared with India’s 74 percent according to the preliminary tables of the 2011 census.
Not posted for the benefit of the original poster, but for anyone else who reads and can think.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2014 1:36 PM

Why look at China and India 1kiki when they are both playing catch up with us. When both had to abandon what they were doing and adapt our approach to business. You should remember that both did the same thing in attracting business. They gave state assisted Education to many of its citizens while we have to incur large debts to educate ourselves, thus our need to demand higher wages. That along with state assisted medical which is a big burden to business in this country. Other than that it is us that built up their countries by moving our jobs there.

The biggest point you are apparently unable to take away from the story is that “Quality of Life: India vs. China” is that what’s behind improving conditions in both countries is their enhanced practice of capitalism.

si shen

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2014 2:05 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Boy, Miker must have been a major head ach for you huh? Well I am pleased to carry on in his stead and will answer this for him, 1kiki.

Except I'm not KIKI. If you could look at our IP addresses (which of course you can't) you'd see that even when we're in the inet at the same time our addresses are different and that they go thru different servers since we're not located in the same place. Also, if you've been here for a while- which you haven't- you'd see that I've been here since forever, while KIKI appeared later, and while we agree on many things we don't have the same "fist" and we don't have the same approach.

SO- you're not MIKER? 'Cause, yanno, I thought it was funny that MIKER suddenly appears and then flounces out, and then THGRII appears out of the blue right afterwards, with the same arguments, same mis-spellings and all. But- OK, "THGRII", I'll address you as a different person if you wish. It's your anonymous inet perogative to call yourself whatever you want.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2014 3:04 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
The biggest point you are apparently unable to take away from the story is that “Quality of Life: India vs. China” is that what’s behind improving conditions in both countries is their enhanced practice of capitalism.

THGRII, it would be useful and interesting if you would do just A LITTLE research before you post.

China can hardly be considered to practice "capitalism", since all of its major industries and banks are state-owned, and its services (education, healthcare etc) are state-provided.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2014 3:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
The biggest point you are apparently unable to take away from the story is that “Quality of Life: India vs. China” is that what’s behind improving conditions in both countries is their enhanced practice of capitalism.
THGRII, it would be useful and interesting if you would do just A LITTLE research before you post.

China can hardly be considered to practice "capitalism", since all of its major industries and banks are state-owned, and its services (education, healthcare etc) are state-provided.

Except for the industry that is co-owned by other countries as I point out. If you read what I posted you will see I acknowledge state provided education and health care as reasons for the influx of capitalism. It cuts costs. Right now China is evolving and capitalism is flourishing in China and India. If you do not recognize that what the F@#k do I care.

I will nether acknowledge nor deny any identity you chose to attach to me. I don't give a shit 1kiki.

si shen

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2014 5:23 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

No, you missed the point:

ELECTRICAL GENERATION IS OWNED BY THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT. Not "some", or "most", but ALL. Petroleum purchase and refining, and petrochemicals. Banking. Transportation. The state-owned enterprises (SOEs) comprise the backbone of strategic, heavy, large industry, and when you add provincial and city ownerships, it rises even more. Furthermore, China seems to be reversing course on its liberalization policies

Quote:
A new shorthand has entered common parlance: guojin mintui, meaning the state [sector] advances and the private retreats. It seems to suggest that the state sector's share of the economy is growing, which it is not; non-state businesses are in fact prospering. But the government has been muscling in on business in a variety of ways. It has been tightening its grip on some industries it considers “strategic”, from oil and coal to telecommunications and transport equipment. It has been devising market-access rules that favour state firms. And to the chagrin of private businesses, it has allowed state companies to remain active in a surprising range of palpably non-strategic sectors, from textiles and papermaking to catering. In recent years property development has become a lucrative sideline for government businesses. “The tentacles of state-owned enterprises extend into every nook where profit can be made,” writes Zheng Yongnian of the National University of Singapore.

Of 42 mainland Chinese companies in the Fortune 500 list of the world's biggest firms in 2010, all but three were owned by the government. Carl Walter, a Beijing-based investment banker, said in a recent book that getting as many companies as possible into that select group was a matter of deliberate policy. China's own list of the 500 biggest Chinese companies spans 75 industries. In 29 of these not a single private firm makes the grade and in ten others they play only a minor part.

http://www.economist.com/node/18832034

Is it capitalist economy?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 28, 2014 1:20 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Once again our resident troll sock puppet, when presented with the analysis of a world-class economist, posted nothing of intelligence or even mild interest in response, and posted absolutely nothing to substantiate the mental diarrhea it tries to pretend is discussion. I really do wonder what passes for a brain in it.

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Why look at China and India 1kiki when they are both playing catch up with us. When both had to abandon what they were doing and adapt our approach to business. You should remember that both did the same thing in attracting business. They gave state assisted Education to many of its citizens while we have to incur large debts to educate ourselves, thus our need to demand higher wages. That along with state assisted medical which is a big burden to business in this country. Other than that it is us that built up their countries by moving our jobs there.

The biggest point you are apparently unable to take away from the story is that “Quality of Life: India vs. China” is that what’s behind improving conditions in both countries is their enhanced practice of capitalism.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 28, 2014 3:02 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Agreeing with Byte's statement does not mean I like complaining - I personally detest complainers and whiners, even when I do it :). It just means I see a positive side to it - it can be a great motivator for change.
I'm still interested in your ideas, but whenever.

G, I have no interest in talking to people who pretend to be "reasonable". Because what'll happen is that we'll get in a discussion, and then sooner or later... probably sooner rather than later... I'll hit a wall consisting entirely of your prejudice, which you'll refuse to acknowledge.

So I'll just sketch out some ideas.

I don't have "an ideal" society in mind, but a number of remedies that can be tried, depending on how far one wants to revise society.

The first attempt would simply be to redistribute the money currently whirling around in a speculative hurricane at the top, and reduce the role of debt in the economy. One could institute some form of wealth tax or financial xfer tax, raise minimum wages across the board, and require much higher capitalization rates of banks (winding up near 50+%). That might help stabilize the flow of money, prevent another financial collapse, and improve the "real economy" which consists of production and consumption.

Moving on, there could be a world-wide trade reform consisting - not of "free trade" (profit uber alles) but of tariffs which would be imposed on any nation's goods that engages in corrupt practices and destablizing behavior- for example, a 5% tariff for adult literacy rates less than 80%, a 5% tariff for legal disparities between men and women, a 5% tariff for governments which do not hold free and fair elections, etc. ... yanno, considering that most corrupt leaders engage in a cluster of bad behaviors, it would add up!

You could eliminate private banks.

However, there is also the problem that economies are TOO intertwined. Efficiency and ruggedness pull in opposite directions- ruggedness requires surplus and redundant systems while efficiency requires streamlining in both time (just in time) and space. National economies should be encouraged to be food, energy, and industry-secure. That way, if there's a large shock (solar flare for example) the pieces can break into parts which continue to operate at a survivable -if lower- level.

Even further, one could simply eliminate corporations as a business form, and require that all businesses be cooperatives, and that all banks be government-owned. I would also think that governments be devolved to the lowest effect (problem-solving) level, and that direct democracy be the political form.

Finally, you could eliminate money (that would be my choice), or allow/encourage the development of many currencies so that no one nation can dominate international finance.

I left out a bunch of ideas, I've listed these many times before and I really don't feel like going thru them... AGAIN.

As I see it, people would continue to work and consume, and the role of profiteers could be reduced or eliminated.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 28, 2014 3:47 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

I've always been in favour of governments being able to own resources and utilities. There is no reason why governments shouldn't make a profit and redestribute that as infrastructure spending. That means for resource rich countries that funding for education, healthcare, care of the elderly could be pretty much funded by resource profit and that individual taxpayers would not have to bear such a burden, plus you don't have to rely on user pays systems.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 28, 2014 8:06 AM

It's getting there; signym

How China Became Capitalist

Over the past 35 years, China has embraced capitalism not just in the economy. The Theory of Moral Sentiments has more than a dozen Chinese translations; the book has won the heart and mind of premier Wen Jiabao. The message of Adam Smith resonates strongly with the Chinese, not least because of its striking affinity with the traditional Chinese thinking on economy and society. A surprising outcome of China’s transition to capitalism is that China has found a way back to its own cultural roots.

http://www.cato.org/policy-report/januaryfebruary-2013/how-china-becam
e-capitalist

si shen

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 28, 2014 8:45 AM

Quote:
…..signym
I don't have "an ideal" society in mind, but a number of remedies that can be tried, depending on how far one wants to revise society.

This is one of your remedies or suggestions on how to improve our current form of capitalism.

Quote:
….signym
However, there is also the problem that economies are TOO intertwined. Efficiency and ruggedness pull in opposite directions- ruggedness requires surplus and redundant systems while efficiency requires streamlining in both time (just in time) and space. National economies should be encouraged to be food, energy, and industry-secure. That way, if there's a large shock (solar flare for example) the pieces can break into parts which continue to operate at a survivable -if lower- level.

It’s subjective in tone and little more than confusing bullshit. It is intentionally vague and makes little to no sense. Much of what you suggest in the rest of your response shows no understanding of what happens when governments overextend and try and control the world. Something you accuse this country of doing continuously.

You suggest eliminating public banks and again show your agenda to be one of complete centralized government.

No thanks.

si shen

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 28, 2014 8:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I've always been in favour of governments being able to own resources and utilities. There is no reason why governments shouldn't make a profit and redestribute that as infrastructure spending. That means for resource rich countries that funding for education, healthcare, care of the elderly could be pretty much funded by resource profit and that individual taxpayers would not have to bear such a burden, plus you don't have to rely on user pays systems.

You can accomplish the same thing by ending corporate welfare and expanding the tax base once again.

si shen

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 28, 2014 9:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Once again our resident troll sock puppet, when presented with the analysis of a world-class economist, posted nothing of intelligence or even mild interest in response, and posted absolutely nothing to substantiate the mental diarrhea it tries to pretend is discussion. I really do wonder what passes for a brain in it.

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Why look at China and India 1kiki when they are both playing catch up with us. When both had to abandon what they were doing and adapt our approach to business. You should remember that both did the same thing in attracting business. They gave state assisted Education to many of its citizens while we have to incur large debts to educate ourselves, thus our need to demand higher wages. That along with state assisted medical which is a big burden to business in this country. Other than that it is us that built up their countries by moving our jobs there.

Quote:
....1kiki

The biggest point you are apparently unable to take away from the story is that “Quality of Life: India vs. China” is that what’s behind improving conditions in both countries is their enhanced practice of capitalism.

Because it is a distraction from the point and wants to suggest that we should think more like the Chinese and or India because they are becoming more successful and or have better philosophies. Ignoring the fact that they are climbing out of the gutter by riding on our backs, along with Europe. They are doing well because much of our economy (jobs)shifted to those countries. (cheep labor)

When Thomas Freedman asked some India officials what is the United States supposed to do with all it's jobs migrating to India? They responded by saying the United States should do what it always does. Create the jobs of the future.

si shen

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 28, 2014 1:46 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

T

I have a three-fold problem with the article you linked.
- One is that they don't actually talk about standard of living for the country as a whole. Metrics that are impossible to move unless you make improvements for the vast majority of the population are lifespan, female lifespan, literacy, vaccination rates, and infant mortality. If one has genuinely improved the lives of the masses, these figures move in a good direction. If one hasn't, no other metric can substitute as an indicator. (Due to the nature of arithmetic averages and the item being measured, it's possible to raise an average GDP by making one person astronomically wealthy while everyone else starves by 30; you can't raise average lifespan by making one person astronomically old.)
- Another is that they don't provide a definition of what they consider capitalism. Without that definition it's hard to reconcile the fact that the government entirely owns the vital energy, basic manufacturing, healthcare and financial sectors with the description 'capitalist'.
- The other is that (like you) they provide no facts or figures to demonstrate a time-line or indicate magnitudes. Without facts, it's impossible to evaluate their claims as anything other than fantasy.

As for your earlier contention that both the Chinese and Indians improved their standard of living as a result of capitalism, you've failed to make the links on any of your claims.

You referenced a paper that failed to demonstrate either your claims or even its OWN conclusions, you didn't demonstrate that India improved its standard of living for the masses or how capitalism can be linked to it, and you haven't explained why the people of one country are vastly better off than the people of another.

What you did was to take an 'authority' and post their paper without any real understanding of what was in it, or ability to logically examine the topic.

And FINALLY, and most importantly, you've failed entirely to address the topic of this thread - the shortcomings of capitalism as an economy and as value system.

Until you can address these issues I won't be discussing this with you further.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 28, 2014 1:58 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

G

Your argument is limited. Saying 'that's how it works!' doesn't take into account the past where things didn't work this way, the present where there are places they don't work this way, or the future where people will do things differently.

Try thinking about this society - I dunno - AS IF IT WAS A SCIENCE FICTION STORY you weren't enmeshed in and vested in - and considering how it might change.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 28, 2014 2:46 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

Try thinking about this society - I dunno - AS IF IT WAS A SCIENCE FICTION STORY you weren't enmeshed in and vested in - and considering how it might change.

Gillian: Don't tell me, you don't use money in the 23rd Century.

Kirk: Well, we don't.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 28, 2014 2:53 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

ALLL riiiight!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 28, 2014 6:25 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
I agree about unsticking that glut of invested wealth, but I have objected to the idea of a wealth tax. It may have to happen at some point, but I would prefer a way to make the rich voluntarily redistribute their wealth.

Too funny. You made me spit out my morning coffee.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 28, 2014 7:22 PM

Quote:
….1kiki
I have a three-fold problem with the article you linked.

That is because you do not understand the point of the article and why I chose to post it as a response to signym. No surprise there.

Quote:
…..signym
A new shorthand has entered common parlance: guojin mintui, meaning the state [sector] advances and the private retreats. It seems to suggest that the state sector's share of the economy is growing,

Is it capitalist economy?

Meaning China

Quote:
….1kiki
- One is that they don't actually talk about standard of living for the country as a whole. Metrics that are impossible to move unless you make improvements for the vast majority of the population are lifespan, female lifespan, literacy, vaccination rates, and infant mortality.

This is not relevant to the point I was addressing with the article. This is what you do. Spin things off.

Quote:
…..1kiki
- Another is that they don't provide a definition of what they consider capitalism. Without that definition it's hard to reconcile the fact that the government entirely owns the vital energy, basic manufacturing, healthcare and financial sectors with the description 'capitalist'.

Perhaps they figured you had some understanding of what capitalism means because most people do. If you don’t understand how China is weaving capitalism into its finical system that is sad because it has been explained in many venues for more than a decade. If you don’t understand how India’s economy has benefited in recent years through capitalistic pursuits that too indicates a staggering ignorance of the subject.

Quote:
…..1kiki
You referenced a paper that failed to demonstrate either your claims or even its OWN conclusions, you didn't demonstrate that India improved its standard of living for the masses or how capitalism can be linked to it, and you haven't explained why the people of one country are vastly better off than the people of another.

This article is from the Cato Institute. That you would suggest they failed to make proper arguments to support their own conclusions has me rolling on the floor in laughter.

Let’s get right to it shall we;

The article I referenced was in response to signym suggesting China had not adopted capitalism and has absolutely nothing to do with the questions you have posted about it. Nothing, but hey, that’s what you do, is it not?

“Over the past 35 years, China has embraced capitalism not just in the economy. The Theory of Moral Sentiments has more than a dozen Chinese translations; the book has won the heart and mind of premier Wen Jiabao. The message of Adam Smith resonates strongly with the Chinese, not least because of its striking affinity with the traditional Chinese thinking on economy and society. A surprising outcome of China’s transition to capitalism is that China has found a way back to its own cultural roots”.

http://www.cato.org/policy-report/januaryfebruary-2013/how-china-becam
e-capitalist

Quote:
…1kiki
And FINALLY, and most importantly, you've failed entirely to address the topic of this thread - the shortcomings of capitalism as an economy and as value system.

This thread was a bitch fest and attack against capitalism by some who live in a fantasy world. Who say things like we need to do away with all private banks and give complete control to the government.

"At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results, and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished, asked him directly: "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" "A republic if you can keep it" responded Franklin."

So you are right, I did not join in but instead have shown you and others to be completely unsophisticated in your understanding of what system we want, which system history shows works best, and what system history shows doesn’t work well at all.

Most importantly to explain how freedom works. Because it has been suggested in the guise of fixing capitalism how to change our government. The two are not the same and apparently you and others do not understand that. So if I address an idiotic idea that covertly implies changing our form of government. Presented under the facade of how governments changed the poverty rate in India or elsewhere utilizing a different system. Too which I point out the covert changing of the government in my response and not what you want me to address in the question...Yeah for me.

si shen

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 28, 2014 8:06 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

So, you have nothing to contribute to the topic.

I have to say, you yourself don't seem to understand the article. The title was "How China Became Capitalist". Not, how it may be weaving some parts of capitalism into small areas of its economy ... nope, it called China capitalist. Is it?

According to a decision issued on Friday by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC), non-state-owned capital will be allowed to take equity stakes in projects featuring investment by state-owned capital, and employees of multi-ownership enterprises will be able to hold shares in their companies.

The country will vigorously develop mixed ownership to improve the basic economic system while keeping the dominant role of public ownership, with the state-owned economy playing a leading role, while encouraging, supporting and guiding the non-public sector, enhancing its vitality and creativity, according to the decision.
http://english.cri.cn/6826/2013/11/15/3441s798833.htm

Ownership of Land in China

China applies a system of public ownership to all land. As a general rule, land in urban areas is owned by the State and land in rural areas is owned by 'collectives' (rural collective economic organisations) and can only be used for agricultural purposes.
http://www.mondaq.com/x/89998/agriculture+land+law/Ownership+Of+Land+I
n+China

Against widespread expectations of a more market-oriented economy in the wake of China’s state sector restructuring in the late 1990s and the country’s accession to the World Trade Organisation in 2001, during the last decade SOEs have not only remained on the economic stage but have been recapitalised and consolidated. They have become the largest companies not only in China but also internationally.
http://www.thechinastory.org/2013/07/contesting-state-ownership/

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 28, 2014 8:10 PM

Apparently nothing you are capable of understanding. But that's not a surprise.

“Over the past 35 years, China has embraced capitalism not just in the economy. The Theory of Moral Sentiments has more than a dozen Chinese translations; the book has won the heart and mind of premier Wen Jiabao. The message of Adam Smith resonates strongly with the Chinese, not least because of its striking affinity with the traditional Chinese thinking on economy and society. A surprising outcome of China’s transition to capitalism is that China has found a way back to its own cultural roots.

But today, with the benefit of hindsight, we know that the economic forces that were really transforming the Chinese economy in the first decade of reform were private farming, township and village enterprises, private business in cities, and the Special Economic Zones. None of them was initiated from Beijing. They were marginal players operating outside the boundary of socialism".

Time for the next minion.

si shen

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 28, 2014 8:20 PM