The 112th Congress - The first Orange-American to be elected Speaker

[unofan]

Re: The 112th Congress - The first Orange-American to be elected Speaker

"Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite."

In soviet russia, man exploits man.
[/yakov]

Re: The 112th Congress - The first Orange-American to be elected Speaker

Careful. Some people will think you're using Latin.

Semper ubi sub ubi.

[Kepler]

Re: The 112th Congress - The first Orange-American to be elected Speaker

Nam stiolpxe nam?

Careful. Some people will think you're using Latin.

[Rimbaud]

Re: The 112th Congress - The first Orange-American to be elected Speaker

"Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite."

Nam stiolpxe nam?

[Kepler]

Re: The 112th Congress - The first Orange-American to be elected Speaker

"Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite."

[Foxton]

Re: The 112th Congress - The first Orange-American to be elected Speaker

I admit no such thing. As you can clearly read, he stated that laissez faire could not stand a pure democracy. Then he opined that people prosper more under more freedom. An opinion I happen to agree with.

Apparently, every nation is partly socialist.

So you agree that part of it is capitalist and part of it isn't.

You then asked for examples of this, not for examples of laissez faire. First, I find it entirely heart breaking that any red blooded american should ask for these types of examples. You live in the greatest example. But I don't blame you. I blame the school system and the socialist tripe the NEA has been pushing to our kids for the last few decades.

The more free something is the more it becomes laissez faire. If the more free something is the better, then you need to look for something as close to that as possible.

And as for America being an example, well I suppose it's a democracy as well.

Second, I gave a few examples; A) US-more free, more prosperous vs China-less free, less prosperous,

China, who owns practically owns the US?

B) Indrustrious North- more free, more prosperous vs Slave South-less free, less prosperous,

The slave south was a states rights, free market paradise that conservatives have been pushing for. The only private industry they got involved in were directly related to the war effort. Regardless of personal freedoms of blacks because you're talking economic freedom.

C) South Korea-More free, more prosperous vs North Korea-less free,less prosperous.

True, in a simplistic fashion. I'm sure Kim Jong il being a colossal tard doesn't play into it at all.

MInnFan then cited Hong Kong. He wrongly assumed that everybody knew they were a prosperous and relatively free economy. You then declared blasphemy and explained how HK was a model of socialism, I mean how it wasn't a model of laissez faire. Suppose the economy was a scale with 100 being no government intervention, aka Laissez faire and 0 being some brand of socialism where the gov't controls everything. Other people, not me, but folks that do this sort of thing for a living rank HK at 89. No other economy in the world is as close to Laissez Faire as HK. That's why people the world over, except you, declare HK as Laissez Faire. You continue to ignore that fact and rehash that HK gov't owns all the land there. I'm willing to bet that the US Gov't owns more land just in the state of Wyoming. I'd be willing to wager your favorite 12 oz beverage that the US Gov't owns, and LEASES, more land to the oil companies than HK owns. Regardless, other factors determine that HK is the most econically free society in the world, for now.

Being close to laissez faire is not the same as being. Nor does pointing out how parts of HK's economy are close change that there are many socialist policies in place. The reason I harped on no private land ownership is that it's a way for them to directly impacts who can do what were, and lets them keep the price artificially high to increase tax revenue. How is that gov't being hands off? Ya know, what laissez faire is? The gov't not being involved in private industry.

And considering HK is about 93 sq mi, I would hope the US leases more than that.

This reminds me of why I don't post here as often. I wonder, do you question your college professors as you do conservatives on this board?

Yup.

When you first heard there was a time when factory workers were compared unfavorably to slaves, did you just except that as fact? or did you ask when in the world that was? or who in the world that was?

No I didn't except it as fact, up until it was pointed out how "free" workers were paid next to nothing, put in dangerous conditions, forced to work as absurd hours, and in many cases lived/survived off company bought housing and food. If they did quit, they were going to be marked and unable to find another job. If there were any other places to find jobs. For instance, I take it you have never heard about strikes like the Lowel Mill girls. Do you not know why there are regulations on workplace safety? Why unions came about? You talk about the underground railroad while ignoring all the strikes that occurred and the resulting changes to industry that came about.

I'm amused that you're amused. It's a condemnation of two extremes, but only if you're not a capitalist.

No.

“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”

Do you know what a vice or virtue is?

As for the phrase being used to justify horse and sparrow economics. Here's a rebuttal to that.

A rising tide lifts all the boats. If we are moving ahead here in the West, if we are moving ahead in agriculture, if we are moving ahead in industry, if we have an administration that looks ahead, then the country prospers. But if one section of the country is strangled, if one section of the country is standing still, then sooner or later a dropping tide drops all the boats, whether the boats are in Boston or whether they are in this community.

[Wol4ine]

Re: The 112th Congress - The first Orange-American to be elected Speaker

Hong Kong is called positive interventionism. It will take a part in the economy when they see a benefit. Such as regulations which are anything but laissez faire. Again, there is no private ownership of land. Can you imagine the gnashing of teeth that would happen if anyone in the US gov't suggested such a thing?

As I said, part of it is free market, some of it's not. You also admit this. Minnfan however used it as an example of a laissez faire system and a laissez faire system is one where the gov't is hands off.

I admit no such thing. As you can clearly read, he stated that laissez faire could not stand a pure democracy. Then he opined that people prosper more under more freedom. An opinion I happen to agree with.

Laissez-faire could never stand a pure democracy. Completely free markets could never stand someone else voting themselves a right to your work.

If everyone is better off why should people care about the gap between them? I've never understood the politics of envy. The vast majority of rich don't get that way at the expense of others. They get that way because they provide something to someone one else at a percieved value greater than the price that is paid for it. History shows that the more free people are allowed to be the more they will prosper from top to bottom. In a free country a rising tide lifts all boats.

You then asked for examples of this, not for examples of laissez faire. First, I find it entirely heart breaking that any red blooded american should ask for these types of examples. You live in the greatest example. But I don't blame you. I blame the school system and the socialist tripe the NEA has been pushing to our kids for the last few decades.

Second, I gave a few examples; A) US-more free, more prosperous vs China-less free, less prosperous, B) Indrustrious North- more free, more prosperous vs Slave South-less free, less prosperous, C) South Korea-More free, more prosperous vs North Korea-less free,less prosperous. MInnFan then cited Hong Kong. He wrongly assumed that everybody knew they were a prosperous and relatively free economy. You then declared blasphemy and explained how HK was a model of socialism, I mean how it wasn't a model of laissez faire. Suppose the economy was a scale with 100 being no government intervention, aka Laissez faire and 0 being some brand of socialism where the gov't controls everything. Other people, not me, but folks that do this sort of thing for a living rank HK at 89. No other economy in the world is as close to Laissez Faire as HK. That's why people the world over, except you, declare HK as Laissez Faire. You continue to ignore that fact and rehash that HK gov't owns all the land there. I'm willing to bet that the US Gov't owns more land just in the state of Wyoming. I'd be willing to wager your favorite 12 oz beverage that the US Gov't owns, and LEASES, more land to the oil companies than HK owns. Regardless, other factors determine that HK is the most econically free society in the world, for now.

But by all means, advocate returning to a time when (for example) factory workers were compared unfavorably to slaves.

Are you serious? Are you that ignorant of the conditions for workers in factories pre and post civil war? Do you not know why unions came about? Do you not know what the term "wage slave" refers to?

This reminds me of why I don't post here as often. I wonder, do you question your college professors as you do conservatives on this board? When you first heard there was a time when factory workers were compared unfavorably to slaves, did you just except that as fact? or did you ask when in the world that was? or who in the world that was? I've read many stories of Harriet Tubman and the Underground Railroad. But it was always about slaves escaping to the north, to be free or even work for a slave wage in a factory. Never the other way around. I know of no example of factory workers quitting and fleeing slouth to become slaves. "I is quittin' dis bidness and goin' home to my Massa. He only beats me once a week". No. I don't see anyone favoring slavery to working in a factory.

Your little neocon butchering of Churchill amuses me, because it's a condemnation of two extremes

I'm amused that you're amused. It's a condemnation of two extremes, but only if you're not a capitalist. Capitalists have learned not to be affended by inequal levels of wealth. We understand that doctors should make more than ditchdiggers. We would pay more to have a cancerous cyst removed, than a cantankerous stump removed.

Finally, I guess I read MinnFann's post about 'prospering top to bottom' and 'rising tide lift all boats' differently than you. I read 'top to bottom' as no matter if you are on the top rung of the economic ladder, or the bottom rung. You will prosper. And not as in that order, as you read it if I infer correctly about your 'horse and sparrow' retort. Even from your very own link, It showed that the median household income rose nearly 20% with increasing GDP (rising tide). Keplers chart showed the same thing over a longer time period.

This idiom, coined by John F Kennedy, describes the idea that when an economy is performing well, all people will benefit from it.

This from wikipedia

The aphorism "a rising tide lifts all boats" is associated with the idea that improvements in the general economy will benefit all participants in that economy, and that economic policy, particularly government economic policy, should therefore focus on the general macroeconomic environment first and foremost. The phrase is attributed to John F Kennedy[1], who used the phrase in a 1963 speech to combat criticisms that a dam project he was inaugurating was a pork barrel project.[2][3] However the phrase has been used more commonly to defend tax cuts and other policies where the initial beneficiaries are high income earners.[4]

I think that is how we used that term here. That if the economy is good, all people will benefit.

[Foxton]

Re: The 112th Congress - The first Orange-American to be elected Speaker

Now you can cite your sources. Every site I've been too describes HK's economy as free trade, fair market, Laissez Faire, or capitalism. You, on the other hand keep reposting that only part of the economy is free market, while the rest is socialism. That was why I posted the Econ. Freedom Ranking. Apparently, every nation is partly socialist. However, HK appears to be more free than any other. So I can believe that everybody, except you, is ignorant. Or, that maybe everyone else is right and that you are full of it. hmmm...

Hong Kong is called positive interventionism. It will take a part in the economy when they see a benefit. Such as regulations which are anything but laissez faire. Again, there is no private ownership of land. Can you imagine the gnashing of teeth that would happen if anyone in the US gov't suggested such a thing?

As I said, part of it is free market, some of it's not. You also admit this. Minnfan however used it as an example of a laissez faire system and a laissez faire system is one where the gov't is hands off.

[Wol4ine]

Re: The 112th Congress - The first Orange-American to be elected Speaker

And now you're just being purposely misleading and no, neither of these are citing examples. You're just throwing out names hoping no one is actually going to look up what you just listed.

Citing them as a "free" market is short sighted and ignorant at best.

Now you can cite your sources. Every site I've been too describes HK's economy as free trade, fair market, Laissez Faire, or capitalism. You, on the other hand keep reposting that only part of the economy is free market, while the rest is socialism. That was why I posted the Econ. Freedom Ranking. Apparently, every nation is partly socialist. However, HK appears to be more free than any other. So I can believe that everybody, except you, is ignorant. Or, that maybe everyone else is right and that you are full of it. hmmm...

[Foxton]

Re: The 112th Congress - The first Orange-American to be elected Speaker

For the record, I did not mention Hong Kong. But I'll give it a stab then sit back and watch you extoll the virtues of slavery.

I'm sorry, it was Minnfan, but to be fair do you all sound the same. And no, I did not extoll the virtues of slavery, no one did at any point.

Hong Kong has been #1 for more than a decade. Now, I've never been to HK. But here are what others say about it;

From marimari.com
From Wiki

I'll just repost this.

I know you don't realize that Hong Kong has one part of it's economy being free market and the rest was socialist or communist. The government owns all the land and leases it, which allows them to have an overall lower tax rate while still taking in the same or greater amounts than if there was private land ownership. They also provide many of those evil social welfare programs with the money they rake in. Citing them as a "free" market is short sighted and ignorant at best.

[walrus]

Re: The 112th Congress - The first Orange-American to be elected Speaker

I think their is a poster who lives in Hong Kong, maybe he'll weigh in on what its like over there.

[Wol4ine]

Re: The 112th Congress - The first Orange-American to be elected Speaker

Close, but you mentioned Hong Kong, I gave reasons why it's not the capitalist utopia you probably think it is. You haven't responded to any of that, instead you've moved on to try and bring up another example like that never happened.

For the record, I did not mention Hong Kong. But I'll give it a stab then sit back and watch you extoll the virtues of slavery.

The annual survey Economic Freedom of the World is an indicator produced by the Fraser Institute, a libertarian think tank which attempts to measure the degree of economic freedom in the world's nations. The index uses a definition of economic freedom similar to laissez-faire capitalism, This indicator has been used in peer-reviewed studies some of which have found a range of beneficial effects of more economic freedom. [1] [2] There are various criticisms, for example that the important part of economic freedom may be efficient rule of law and functioning property rights, rather than low taxes and a small state, and that the relationship between economic freedom and economic growth is not statistically robust. Economic Freedom of the World index has been more widely used than any other measure of economic freedom, because of its coverage of a longer time period.[3]

Here is the latest ranking I found;


Rank Country EconFreedom Index
1 Hong Kong 89.7
2 Singapore 87.2
3 Australia 82.5
4 New Zealand 82.3
5 Switzerland 81.9
6 Canada 80.8
7 Ireland 78.7
8 Denmark 78.6
9 United States 77.8
Hong Kong has been #1 for more than a decade. Now, I've never been to HK. But here are what others say about it;

From marimari.com

Hong Kong's continued economic success is thanks to the government's basic policy of minimum intervention and maximum support for businesses. Practices of low taxation, a free and fair market competition, an orthodox legal and financial framework, a fully convertible and secure currency, a highly efficient network of transport and communication, a skilled workforce, the enterprising spirit of locals, a high degree of internationalization, and cultural openness has opened doors to the country's economic growth and stability.

From Wiki

As one of the world's leading international financial centres, Hong Kong has a major capitalist service economy characterised by low taxation and free trade, and the currency, Hong Kong dollar, is the ninth most traded currency in the world.[5] Hong Kong has remained as the world's freest economy, according to Index of Economic Freedom since the inception of the index in 1995.[6

[Foxton]

Re: The 112th Congress - The first Orange-American to be elected Speaker

I really didn't think you wanted to argue that black slaves in the south had it better than the white working class in the north. But go ahead, make your case.

Close, but you mentioned Hong Kong, I gave reasons why it's not the capitalist utopia you probably think it is. You haven't responded to any of that, instead you've moved on to try and bring up another example like that never happened.

[Wol4ine]

Re: The 112th Congress - The first Orange-American to be elected Speaker

And we're supposed to not notice how quickly you've abandoned your other examples?

I really didn't think you wanted to argue that black slaves in the south had it better than the white working class in the north. But go ahead, make your case.

[Foxton]

Re: The 112th Congress - The first Orange-American to be elected Speaker

And we're supposed to not notice how quickly you've abandoned your other examples?