posted on May, 17 2008 @ 09:43 AM
Originally posted by 44soulslayer
reply to post by carslake
Your economic beliefs are closer to Keynes than socialism.
It is your highly subjective opinion that the free market does not work. Indeed, one could draw upon direct evidence that a shift towards free market
economics has a positive impact as:
Did you not read the external quote or did you not understand what was being communicated.
1. Post war economies were based on Keynesian ideas of governmental oversight of the market. The economies were grim and did not allow social mobility
and prosperity because of the entrenchment of wealth within those governmental institutions and established industries.
The monies did not lie in the hands of government or industry it lay in the hands of the NEW YORK banks who financed the war. Instead of re-investing
in American infrastructure it was used to rebuild Europe, because the Europeans were willing to accept high interest loans. So there's more money to
be made investing somewhere else, instead of using it to modernise in your homeland, I know it smacks of protectionism but atleast America would not
have had the boom and bust cycle.
2. Reagan and Thatcher moved towards the economic concepts of Hayek and Friedman. They dismissed the Keynesian ideas which had held back their
economies. Thus 1980s onwards, the economies of those two countries expanded with a massive leap forwards.
Thatcher’s eleven year rule in Britain had produced equally disastrous results. Real estate speculation and a vastly increased financial
services ‘industry’ in the City of London obscured the fact that Thatcher’s economic policy severly discriminated against industrial investment,
and against modernization of the nation’s deteriorating public infrastructure, such as railways and highways.
Obviously you weren't here for the 1980's we were in recession from late '86 onwards. The boom then bust cycle caused through manipulation of the
3. India had a socialist model of government and economics. Their economy was pathetic for a very long time. Compared to the free market based
economies of the tiger nations (Taiwan, Singapore, S. Korea etc), who achieved real growth rates in excess of 10%.
It's called the middle way, little bit of socialism, little bit of capitalism. India has a slower rate of economic growth which in the long run is
excellent it implies sustainable growth.
4. India switched to free market based economics via a series of liberalization policies, which opened up their economy. I'll leave you to judge the
fruits of that action... I think the rampant nature of their economy does somewhat speak for itself.
Its not rampant, it's growth is half that of China and it's more sustainable in the long run.
Socialism does not engender freedom because in its core it relies upon the government to be the answer for everything. Socialism reduces a human to
being a number; a part of a group; a mob which appropriates the hard earned wealth of others.
Socialism is an ideal like I said earlier in the post, it needs to be tempered by capitalism and visa-versa, you know the middle way, the third
Free market capitalism believes in meritocracy- the American dream- the ideal that a man can have whatever he works for and if he is worth his
Wow say that to Rasobasi or AshDenton, thats a pipe dream it doesn't exist anymore I doubt it ever did maybe in the 1920's. Your implying there's a
level playing field who can afford to be educated in America?
Feel free to respond with a counterpoint if you wish, but I highly doubt you will be able to convince me, or indeed anyone, that socialism is true
I'm sure anybody who is disenfranchised in this day and age would rather have Socialism than corporate gangsterism any day of the week.
And anyway what the hell has socialism got to do with it I am a socialist only because we've gone too far to the other side.
Maybe consider, politics doesn't mean anything anymore, politics is an interface between economics and the societal elements of human activity.