Hey, (MinnFan) Boehner!!!
WhereTF are all the jobs????????????????????????????
Stole it from the white man.Obama stole them. You know how they are.
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.And we're supposed to not notice how quickly you've abandoned your other examples?
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.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.
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.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.
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]
From WikiHong 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.
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
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.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'll just repost this.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 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.
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...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.
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?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...
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.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.
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.
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.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?
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.Your little neocon butchering of Churchill amuses me, because it's a condemnation of two extremes
This from wikipediaThis idiom, coined by John F Kennedy, describes the idea that when an economy is performing well, all people will benefit from it.
I think that is how we used that term here. That if the economy is good, all people will benefit.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 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.
So you agree that part of it is capitalist and part of it isn't.Apparently, every nation is partly socialist.
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.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.
China, who owns practically owns the US?Second, I gave a few examples; A) US-more free, more prosperous vs China-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.B) Indrustrious North- more free, more prosperous vs Slave South-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.C) South Korea-More free, more prosperous vs North Korea-less free,less prosperous.
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.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.
Yup.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?
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.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'm amused that you're amused. It's a condemnation of two extremes, but only if you're not a capitalist.
Do you know what a vice or virtue is?Winston Churchill said:“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”
Senator Kennedy in Cheyenne said: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.
"Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite."
Nam stiolpxe nam?
Careful. Some people will think you're using Latin.