Boris' pissed off and he's telling you why

[Kuciwalker]

How was an unfree market doing it?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle
Yes, the in-animate economic system is killing people as they sleep. Unlike, say, the KGB. Ever stop to think that it's because they were Communists that they don't know how capitalism works? Or that they came out of a system that ran on fear more than incentive? Or that their whole economy was a rotting corpse that was being held up by the Kremlin?

Cmon, get your facts straight and stop looking for attention.

A few things:

First, American railroads were built on a huge part with public subsidies. So when you claim that tycoons helped build America, it's true. It's also true that they were helped by public funds, which technically belong to every citizen. What you don't mention is that it took 50 years for this money to benefit to the working class, because again industrialization brought poverty and misery at its beginnings.
Who got enriched first? Dead chinese workers or the tycoons?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by skywalker
How was an unfree market doing it?

It's true that it was. What happened in Russia is that the quick privatization of the companies created new oligarchs very quickly which did everything to destroy the social security system.

As I have been once told by an old man with a strong Russian accent:
With Communism, always bread but no chocolate. Now, sometimes chocolate but not always food.

Please note this guys was a political refugee who had fled from the USSR. He had been a high ranking officer in the Red Army (colonel). He was not at all keen on defending Communism; he was just pointing out some obvious facts, regardless of political opinions.

[Harry Tuttle]

50 years? Do you even realize the immediate benefits that those railroads had to the population of the U.S.? They opened up the West to the average person!

And dead Chinese workers? There was a little thing called the opium wars going on in China at the time. Working on the railroad was a chance to make some money and not be shot by revolutionaries. They new the risks. Construction accidents for everyone in the 19th century was a commonplace occurance.

And Tripledoc, U.S. doesn't put dissidents into insane asylums. They put clinically insane people into insane asylums. The Communists we just laugh at yell "Pinko".

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris

It's true that it was. What happened in Russia is that the quick privatization of the companies created new oligarchs very quickly which did everything to destroy the social security system.

I don't see how this could be thought controversial. Even Joseph Stiglitz is in print saying that the transformation of the Soviet Union was botched because of too great a faith in the market.

You can't just leave things be and hope that markets will naturally spring up. Markets aren't natural. A market system is a finely tuned legal entity that requires a state to back it up. In a sense the old style conservatives are right here - you shouldn't go for massive radical change all at once, but rather engage in piecemeal reform at first.

[JohnT]

I've gotta tell ya, this thread is pretty funny. The very same people who *****ed and moaned 20+ years ago about the crappy service they got from the ATT (government established) monopoly are now claiming that a world with near limitless options on phone services, with prices that are WAY below what ATT charged (both real and nominally), has lead to what was it... "worse quality and higher prices."

Obviously you never lived in a world where the long distance charges routinely 50 cents a minute and was a biyatch to connect to, and the idea of connecting to another country other than W. Europe? You might as well forget about it, and if you did, you were charged rates in excess of $2.00/minute. And I'm talking 1980 dollars, not 2003.

But then this one takes the cake:

In fact the Soviet Economy was doing fine. It was actually the precise reason that the Soviet economy was able to provide consumers with goods that they started getting less nervous of rebelling.

Permit me to Ming you:

Apolyton always amazes me in its constant demonstration of how belief almost constantly triumphs over fact and experience.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by JohnT
I've gotta tell ya, this thread is pretty funny. The very same people who *****ed and moaned 20+ years ago about the crappy service they got from the ATT (government established) monopoly are now claiming that a world with near limitless options on phone services, with prices that are WAY below what ATT charged (both real and nominally), has lead to what was it... "worse quality and higher prices."

Deregulation seems to have worked quite well for telecoms in my experience. But my experience with power companies and deregulation has been worse service and higher prices.

So you're right about the phones, but perhaps that experience does not translate well elsewhere.

Anyway this is worth a read.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040105&s=krugman

Commies at Business Week. What next?

[Az]

you pay 2USD to get money from a different bank's ATM? holy ****.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Azazel
you pay 2USD to get money from a different bank's ATM? holy ****.

It's 1.50 here in Canada.

In NZ it's free.

[Az]

Originally posted by Agathon


It's 1.50 here in Canada.

In NZ it's free.

here it's ~30 cent for any ATM withdrawal.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Azazel


here it's ~30 cent for any ATM withdrawal.

Oh we get charged that in addition to the 1.50 when we use another machine.

Having said that, we do pay for the utility of getting money anywhere and that has probably saved me more due to the time not spent standing in bank queues.

[Fake Boris]

Why not? Is not the basis for capitalism a more or less free market? When you have businesses buying and selling, don't they use the free market? The fallacy is by socialists who think that Sweden, Canada, US, etc are socialist countries. They aren't. They are decidedly capitalist. They all follow some free market theory. Supply and demand all have an effect. When you go down to store and purchase something, that is a free market transaction. Why? Because it probably ain't a government store. It's two private individuals engaging in a transaction without the government getting involved.

Simply because there are regulations doesn't mean you are not living in a world based on the free market. Even the fact that there is welfare does not mean you are not living in states which tend to embrace the free market. They aren't socialist. You can go down to a private story and buy things.

You obviously don't have a clue as to what is free market. Free market is when supply and demand is the ONLY rule. When a third party intervenes, the market is not free anymore.
If food quality is regulated, it's not a free market anymore. If the trade was really free, you would let people decide by themselves if they are willing to buy rotten meat or genetically modified carrots.

If there is TAXATION, this is not free a market anymore, because a third party is intervening in the transaction. (ie. the trade was not based on supply and demand alone).

Of course, all economic systems will be one way or another based on "Supply and Demand". Even communism was. People need stuff, others are producing it. Somewhere they meet and make a trade.
Free Market is the way society deals with said S&D rule, but it is not supply and demand in itself.

Your problem is that you cannot make a difference between CAPITALISM and FREE MARKET.
Capitalism is an economic system which deals with how the means of productions are owned (ie privately).
Free Market defines how these means of production will interact with each other.

So yes, all rich countries in the world are indeed CAPITALIST (which is a fact I have never contested), but they regulate trade so that it doesn't impede on fundamental rights. I have made myself clear on this, describing how sweat shops are preventing children from going to school (education is a fundamental right according to the Declaration of human rights), how Chinese workers died laying tracks (NOTHING can justify an employer letting 1200 of his workers dying), and how cocoa and banana plantations use enslaved workers because it's the only way they can have competitive prices. Now, if your neighbour's 8-year old was prevented from going to school and forced to work on her parent's farm without pay, you would call the police, wouldn't you?

Which leads us to the point I have been defending from the beginning. What corporations want is the cheapest production costs. Slavery and ridiculous working conditions are viable means of achieving this. But it's not possible anymore in the Western world. So, they are pushing the government to ensure it is possible in OTHER countries, especially because they know good living conditions in the US will prevent its citizens from protesting. Natural human egoism, that is.

No wonder you believe them when they say Free Market will bring wealth to everyone. You don't even know what it is! You confuse it with capitalism!

Now to my South Korea example and IMF.
Again, you've made my point. Reducing social regulations was a condition of the loan. Who would benefit from a reduction of social regulations? Huge corporations. Hyundai. Hynix. Kia. And of course American ones implanted in Korea. In fact, the Korean president even sent to jail the Union protesters- I would not be surprised he was personally asked to by an important CEO. Remember, those CEOs who have a better understanding of the economy than ourselves, and thus have direct access to our favorite politicians' phone?

So we have an IMF loan used as a mean to protect the rights of huge corporations and to deregulate worker laws, thus bringing Korea closer to this "Free market" state dreamed off by capitalist oligarchs. And you persist in believing that the American foreign policy is not to bring Free Market everywhere at the expense of laws defensive of human rights, through manipulation of the many international trade instances.
Inside its borders, America is defending Regulated Capitalism. Outside, it is defending the jungle-like laws of Free Market. This has no morale coherency whatsoever.

Feel free to ask any more examples like the Korean one. I do have plenty.

Sidenote: the conception of Socialism in America is archaic. No one believes any more that Socialism is about collectively owned means of production, but rather see it as a wealth redistribution regime (ie a Welfare State). Ask a Swede, a French, a Canadian or a German and he'll tell you his state is Socialist. Heck, former French prime minister Jospin was from the PS: Parti Socialiste.

[Az]

Originally posted by Agathon


Oh we get charged that in addition to the 1.50 when we use another machine.

Having said that, we do pay for the utility of getting money anywhere and that has probably saved me more due to the time not spent standing in bank queues.

I wasn't complaining, mind you.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle
50 years? Do you even realize the immediate benefits that those railroads had to the population of the U.S.? They opened up the West to the average person!

And dead Chinese workers? There was a little thing called the opium wars going on in China at the time. Working on the railroad was a chance to make some money and not be shot by revolutionaries. They new the risks. Construction accidents for everyone in the 19th century was a commonplace occurance.

And Tripledoc, U.S. doesn't put dissidents into insane asylums. They put clinically insane people into insane asylums. The Communists we just laugh at yell "Pinko".

Thanks again for making my point.

"Construction accidents for everyone in the 19th century was a commonplace occurance. "

Yes, and my argument is that it is a side effect of unregulated Free Market. Said otherwise, regulation in favor of "Free Market Dictatorship"- because remember, strikes were illegal in the times. Do you think anyone with the least common sense would not go on strike unless forbidden to, when his comrades are literally dying?

Admit the simple facts: Chinese died during their work because it was cheaper to let them handle the explosives than to hire professional engineers. Mind you, I consider this a crime against humanity: letting guys without expertise handle TNT, disregarding their minimal rights to live.

And as for the opium war: I'm GLAD you mentioned it. Did you know that the Chinese government, in the second opium war, was protesting against the quasi-slave state of Chinese immigrants in America and the Caribbean? It was not the main reason of the conflict, true, but no one was a fool of the so-called "American paradise".
Besides, you probably don't ignore that opium wars were commercial wars. Opium sales to China amounted to some 10% of Britain's total revenues (remember, there were no income tax at the time). Not minding that it was crippling China through drug addicts, Britain went to war when China tried to forbid opium imports for the first time (this was the first opium war)
England's technological superiority brought quick success, and contributed to China's humiliation and deterioration of the social climate. This established fertile grounds for the political turmoil of the 1860s.

Let's make it short: Britain goes to war, pretending China is infringing on its right to trade freely. The war contributes to China's empoverishment (not the sole factor of course but one of them) that leads to political trouble and rebellions. Benefitting from the situation, American tycoons make false promises to Chinese men in order to bring them to America. Of course, they have them sign contracts in English in which they agree to refund the company for the boat passage and they agree to work exclusively for them.

Profitting from someone's misery to bring him in an almost equally miserable state is a crime against humanity.

-Hey dude, I've got a nice deal for you
-What?
-Instead of losing two legs in China, you'll only lose one hand if you work for me! We'll even pay you less than white workers, because none of them want to do this crap work. That doesn't matter, because your reduced salary will already be much more than the mere pittance you're getting in your worthless country!
-Great, I'm coming.

[Fake Boris]

Obviously you've never seen a political ad or have been hit with a never-ending stream of telemarketers trying to get you to donate money to the party/election of choice.

Yes I've been. But trust me, they called the businessmen first.

On a sidenote, I can expect them not to call businessmen anymore. Canada has enacted a law that forbids corporate donations to political parties. An excellent idea, IMHO.