Are you on the left or on the right?

[Giancarlo]

I am not for socialism. Never will be. I don't think it is possible. I think it is a system that can be easily corrupted and turned upside down. We saw this with Argentina. 500,000 public workers that have to be fired because they can't be paid anymore, a bankrupt health system...

No, in all senses, free market capitalism with adequate law enforcement and provisions is the best system.

[GePap]

The probem in Argentina was political, not economic. Everybody and their uncle given a subsidy they don't need, nepotism run rampant... But the efficiency issue remains. It is vastly mroe efficeint to make cheap rpeventive care free to the masses than then spend vast sums on curing the disease later on.

[yavoon]

well bringin up the dictionary is nice crunch. but I didnt get the concept out of thin air. Liberal---democrat---big government. maybe in the rest of the world it is reversed, but thats how it is in the US.

[St Leo]

Capitalism is not an ideology, it is the well-being of a country. To screw with it, is to cause severe damage.

Letting it run wild causes just as much damage as ripping it out. Commies are no dumber than libertarians; I think both are nuts and I am a moderate social liberal. I live in a country with a working universal healthcare system and a working (though underfunded) welfare system. I don't see any conflict between them and the market.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by GePap
The probem in Argentina was political, not economic. Everybody and their uncle given a subsidy they don't need, nepotism run rampant... But the efficiency issue remains. It is vastly mroe efficeint to make cheap rpeventive care free to the masses than then spend vast sums on curing the disease later on.

That is what I believe socialism turns into. A state runned disaster.

Free market capitalism as I propose is more efficient than socialism. I believe proper law enforcement will do. I am not for letting it run out of control. It just needs to be monitored.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

looks like leftists are winning

[GePap]

So how do you explain Canada and the scandinavian states? All of which have plenty of socialist systems running and yet also some of the least corrupt democracies out there?

Or why do state run school systems in europe and Asia outpreform more free-market type schools in the US at the primary and secondary level?

I think socialist ideas can work, but you need very clean courts and a low corruption political system to make them work well, which is a tough thing to get.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by red_jon
BC - ya think those will be there in 10 years time?

Despite the tough competition I don't think there will be a monopoly if thats what you mean. It will probably end with an oligopoly.

Interestingly though, its McD's who were bought out of the market first when they had to sell the Aroma (?) chain to Caffé Nero after posting large losses. So much for multinational big business eh? They were bought out by a UK regional business less than 5 years old.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by yavoon
well bringin up the dictionary is nice crunch. but I didnt get the concept out of thin air. Liberal---democrat---big government. maybe in the rest of the world it is reversed, but thats how it is in the US.

I know you didn't, I was just clarifying my understanding of the word. I am aware of the American meaning of the word liberal.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by GePap
So how do you explain Canada and the scandinavian states? All of which have plenty of socialist systems running and yet also some of the least corrupt democracies out there?

These countries had the money to spend on vast state runned bureaucracies in the first place. I just think these bureaucracies at a great risk in being corrupted completely. The United States for example is not a uncorrupt or clean country but government transparency helped it attain the most of efficient and best economy in the world.

I think socialist ideas can work, but you need very clean courts and a low corruption political system to make them work well, which is a tough thing to get.

I think socialism is a bad system that must be thrown out as one.

Can we just agree to disagree? You aren't changing my mind. I am not close minded, and what you are saying is valid... yeah I want people to have good health care and education too.. but shooting the well runned business in the foot is not the way to do it. Cracking down on companies like Enron is completely fine.

In Spain, we had corruption. And a lot of it. The government in recent years cut the level of government activity in the economy and the unemployment level fell. Even the PSOE cannot deny this. The PP (Popular Party) has done good for the economy in its reign of rule with Aznar. We managed to pull unemployment down from 25% to 10%, in the system I described.

So forget socialism.

[RGBVideo]

Then Tanja Karpela comes in and they mud-wrestle. Whee!

...

We managed to pull unemployment down from 25% to 10%, in the system I described.

There was an international recession going on, if we're talking about the same years, Finland, for example, had unemployment of 19% in 1995, now it's under 8%...

I guess you know more from Spains economic condition's, but you can't say that the rise on employment happened just because of new goverment in charge...

[GePap]

Originally posted by Fez


These countries had the money to spend on vast state runned bureaucracies in the first place. I just think these bureaucracies at a great risk in being corrupted completely. The United States for example is not a uncorrupt or clean country but government transparency helped it attain the most of efficient and best economy in the world.

The Us economy is hardly the most efficient in the world: the US spends vast sums on healthcare (more per pantient than any country) and on education (more per pupil than any country) and yet the Us porvides inferior primary care to vast amounts of its population and its education prior to college is sub-par in terms of the industrialized world. And then there is American transportation issues..The US may have very high per capita cincomes, but in mnay basic places it is highly inefficient

I think socialism is a bad system that must be thrown out as one.

Can we just agree to disagree? You aren't changing my mind. I am not close minded, and what you are saying is valid... yeah I want people to have good health care and education too.. but shooting the well runned business in the foot is not the way to do it. Cracking down on companies like Enron is completely fine.

In Spain, we had corruption. And a lot of it. The government in recent years cut the level of government activity in the economy and the unemployment level fell. Even the PSOE cannot deny this. The PP (Popular Party) has done good for the economy in its reign of rule with Aznar. We managed to pull unemployment down from 25% to 10%, in the system I described.

So forget socialism.

You ask to agree to disagree and yet you end with "forget socialism". Interesting. The question is, has the Spanish government cut its involveemnt in healthcrae and education, and transportation? Porbably not. I bet the cuts have been in places like Telecom and energy and otehr such common public monopolies.

[Giancarlo]

Okay you have the right to your opinion. I will just not agree with it.

I am too tired to take place in a discussion. Too much walking around today...

I don't see anything socialist about government spending in healthcare, education and transportation. That is called government spending and is necessary. I never advocated against it. That wouldn't make any sense as I use these services often.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

The argentinian problem occured because its exchange rate was fixed and its budget was never balanced. What happened was that the currency was too strong to be competitive, so people stopped buying exported goods from argentina because they seemed more expensive. A floating currency would have corrected a decrease in export sales by argentina by losing its value against hard currencies. This would increase demand, and thus more people would buy exports from argentina. A floated currency almost always takes care of itself. A pegged currency coveres up the problem of having a weak currency, but it doesnt fix it.

The only time a floating currency fails is when there is massive capital flight. This is what happened in Thailand and caused the Asian financial crisis. The foreigners pulled all their money out of the country and converted it to dollars. The thai currency lost its value and thus its exported goods looked very cheap. The other countries in Asia were afraid that they would lose all of their exports because the Thai money was so cheap, so they devalued. To keep massive foreign capital flight from happening, developing countries should adapt the dirty float, where the currency is allowed to float freely inside a certain band and when it goes under it, the governemnent steps in and buys the currency to inflate its price.

[Giancarlo]

So LoA, which system do you want?

Yes I am in favor of a floating currency for Argentina. Just if it was done in 1996.. be a lot better... fixing the currency causes market discrepencies.