|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:34 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Menino80 wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Menino80 wrote: |
| recessiontime wrote: |
| . She tried to warn everyone of the dangers of socialism yet even as many countries are beginning to fail, socialism is the last thing they want to talk about. |
Maybe because socialism isn't the cause of theses failures?
Look at UK and US per capita income growth since 1990 by PPP. The UK beats the US, 108%-104.5% |
Socialism causes the failure. All growth is in spite of socialist interference and manipulation. The inevitable failure is a result of said interference and manipulation. |
No, it's not.
Debate over, pack it up. Move along. |
You must be a socialist. Lack of debate skills plus smug dismissal in lieu of actual argument is a dead give away. That, and being wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Menino80
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Location: Hodor?
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
You must be a socialist. Lack of debate skills plus smug dismissal in lieu of actual argument is a dead give away. That, and being wrong. |
No I'm a great arguer, and I'm right.
You havent' lit the world on fire with your rhetorical prowess yourself Cicero. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Menino80 wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
You must be a socialist. Lack of debate skills plus smug dismissal in lieu of actual argument is a dead give away. That, and being wrong. |
No I'm a great arguer, and I'm right.
You havent' lit the world on fire with your rhetorical prowess yourself Cicero. |
Why should I take the time to school you individually, when every other thread on here is about the obvious, manifest evils of socialism (replete with examples, both past and present, of how socialism ruins everything). You're just too wrong to even bother with. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Menino80
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Location: Hodor?
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 7:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
Why should I take the time to school you individually, when every other thread on here is about the obvious, manifest evils of socialism (replete with examples, both past and present, of how socialism ruins everything). You're just too wrong to even bother with. |
Like I said. 108% - 104%
Or look at Taiwan--Sectoral tarrifs, central planning, export subsidies, non tarrif barriers including ownership restrictions and licensing agreements. Sounds socialistic to me. 265%. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Menino80 wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
Why should I take the time to school you individually, when every other thread on here is about the obvious, manifest evils of socialism (replete with examples, both past and present, of how socialism ruins everything). You're just too wrong to even bother with. |
Like I said. 108% - 104%
Or look at Taiwan--Sectoral tarrifs, central planning, export subsidies, non tarrif barriers including ownership restrictions and licensing agreements. Sounds socialistic to me. 265%. |
This is private economic growth, not public. Get a clue. The day the state starts outproducing the private sector is the day we're all working in slave labor camps. Remove all the government interference and the growth would be much higher in all the countries you mentioned. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Menino80
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Location: Hodor?
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 7:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
This is private economic growth, not public. Get a clue. The day the state starts outproducing the private sector is the day we're all working in slave labor camps.
|
It is a developmental state, central planning but not central allocation. Public policies guiding private development towards social goals.
| Quote: |
Remove all the government interference and the growth would be much higher in all the countries you mentioned. |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 7:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Menino80 wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
This is private economic growth, not public. Get a clue. The day the state starts outproducing the private sector is the day we're all working in slave labor camps.
|
It is a developmental state, central planning but not central allocation. Public policies guiding private development towards social goals. |
No. Central planning has nothing to do with free market enterprise, which if left to its own devices is far more effective than when the government interferes, and is the source of all prosperity for society as a whole. The government transferring wealth (at gunpoint) from the public to itself like a fat bloated tick sucking of its host, and granting favors to a corporate elite does not equal "social goals".
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
Remove all the government interference and the growth would be much higher in all the countries you mentioned. |
|
You do realise that using multiple lol icons make you look like an adolescent troll who stumbled his over way here from asiafinest right? It smacks of desperation. Trying (and in your case failing) to be cool is never a substitute for an actual argument. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Menino80
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Location: Hodor?
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
[
No. Central planning has nothing to do with free market enterprise, which if left to its own devices is far more effective than when the government interferes, and is the source of all prosperity for society as a whole. The government transferring wealth (at gunpoint) from the public to itself like a fat bloated tick sucking of its host, and granting favors to a corporate elite does not equal "social goals".
|
Well there are the facts, and then there is your religion's willful mis-nterpretation of those facts.
Central allocation built Japan, it built Korea, and it built Taiwan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Madigan
Joined: 15 Oct 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 8:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Menino80 wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
[
No. Central planning has nothing to do with free market enterprise, which if left to its own devices is far more effective than when the government interferes, and is the source of all prosperity for society as a whole. The government transferring wealth (at gunpoint) from the public to itself like a fat bloated tick sucking of its host, and granting favors to a corporate elite does not equal "social goals".
|
Well there are the facts, and then there is your religion's willful mis-nterpretation of those facts.
Central allocation built Japan, it built Korea, and it built Taiwan. |
Yes, a free pass into US markets for the state-built corporations (ie. chaebols) coupled with US Government subsidies, be it military or otherwise, to those respective governments had nothing to do with their economic miracles. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Menino80
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Location: Hodor?
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 8:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Madigan wrote: |
| Menino80 wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
[
No. Central planning has nothing to do with free market enterprise, which if left to its own devices is far more effective than when the government interferes, and is the source of all prosperity for society as a whole. The government transferring wealth (at gunpoint) from the public to itself like a fat bloated tick sucking of its host, and granting favors to a corporate elite does not equal "social goals".
|
Well there are the facts, and then there is your religion's willful mis-nterpretation of those facts.
Central allocation built Japan, it built Korea, and it built Taiwan. |
Yes, a free pass into US markets for the state-built corporations (ie. chaebols) coupled with US Government subsidies, be it military or otherwise, to those respective governments had nothing to do with their economic miracles. |
Oh no! Your snark is in fact completely true!
This free pass had EVERYTHING to do with it!
It was the guarantee they needed to begin central allocation. Most states will not shift their economies to high value added products as drastically as J/T/SK did, they would stick with sectors that they have absolute or relative comparative advantage in. However, the US wanted allies, and we opened our markets to their goods guaranteeing markets for these goods. These goods were produced by sectors handpicked by the national governments for maximum social benefit, even if it meant getting prices wrong for the short-term.
Central allocation, preferential export status, sector specific tariffs--in short, a trade regime. Social economic policy. And 265% growth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daskalos
Joined: 19 May 2006
Location: The Road to Ithaca
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| You must be a socialist. Lack of debate skills plus smug dismissal in lieu of actual argument is a dead give away. That, and being wrong. |
Sweden. No smug dismissal needed. And yes, I am a Socialist, but oddly enough, I don't accept your implied dismissal of that position as an insult. To the contrary, I consider it a moral imperative. Which position, I understand, allows you to dismiss me out of hand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, nothing screams socialism quite like IKEA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Sweden - the word 'socialism' or 'socialist' doesn't appear once
The Swedish Model: It's the free-market reforms, stupid!
| deskalos wrote: |
| And yes, I am a Socialist |
Evidently, you haven't the faintest idea what the word even means, but if you do consider yourself "a socialist", that's perfectly understandable. After all, if the mindless rabble did not use the ballot box to arrogate 30-40% of GDP to provide pointless, unproductive public sector jobs (ahem, pardon me....to provide "vital public services"), would you or your family even be able to clothe and feed yourselves?
| memino80 wrote: |
| Central allocation, preferential export status, sector specific tariffs--in short, a trade regime. Social economic policy. And 265% growth. |
But surely the freer Asian economies of Singapore and Hong Kong show the potentials of freer trade?
Singapore: $57,238
Hong Kong: $45,277
Taiwan: $34,743
Japan: $33,828
Korea: $29,792
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 01, 2011 2:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Menino80 wrote: |
| Madigan wrote: |
| Menino80 wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
[
No. Central planning has nothing to do with free market enterprise, which if left to its own devices is far more effective than when the government interferes, and is the source of all prosperity for society as a whole. The government transferring wealth (at gunpoint) from the public to itself like a fat bloated tick sucking of its host, and granting favors to a corporate elite does not equal "social goals".
|
Well there are the facts, and then there is your religion's willful mis-nterpretation of those facts.
Central allocation built Japan, it built Korea, and it built Taiwan. |
Yes, a free pass into US markets for the state-built corporations (ie. chaebols) coupled with US Government subsidies, be it military or otherwise, to those respective governments had nothing to do with their economic miracles. |
Oh no! Your snark is in fact completely true!
This free pass had EVERYTHING to do with it!
It was the guarantee they needed to begin central allocation. Most states will not shift their economies to high value added products as drastically as J/T/SK did, they would stick with sectors that they have absolute or relative comparative advantage in. However, the US wanted allies, and we opened our markets to their goods guaranteeing markets for these goods. These goods were produced by sectors handpicked by the national governments for maximum social benefit, even if it meant getting prices wrong for the short-term.
Central allocation, preferential export status, sector specific tariffs--in short, a trade regime. Social economic policy. And 265% growth. |
What unmitigated nonsense. Japan Inc. built the country into the world's most admired economy because the captains of industry had the good sense to ignore much of the advice of central planners (ie. the MITI, which gave such 'brilliant' advice to the Japanese auto industry as 'voluntarily restraining exports to the US auto market' and tried to quash the electronics industry from taking off at its outset). Yet despite the performance of Japanese firms, the Japanese economy was still ultimately ruined by central planners (ie. the central bank) pumping the economy full of cheap credit. The bubble resulted. The same central planners (BoJ) have kept Japan in the doldrums ever since. The only thing keeping Japan alive, in spite of all the obscene government waste, is exports by private industry. In other words, all credit for prosperity goes to the free market, and all blame goes to the government.
As for China, it is a captive market, incapable of innovation. They send mega-carriers full of products to the US and get green paper in return. It's all built on sand and slave labor; it's also a cesspool of corruption and injustice, totally unsustainable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 01, 2011 2:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| daskalos wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| You must be a socialist. Lack of debate skills plus smug dismissal in lieu of actual argument is a dead give away. That, and being wrong. |
Sweden. No smug dismissal needed. And yes, I am a Socialist, but oddly enough, I don't accept your implied dismissal of that position as an insult. To the contrary, I consider it a moral imperative. Which position, I understand, allows you to dismiss me out of hand. |
You consider thievery, waste, violent oppression, monopolies, and mass death to be a moral imperative? That's pretty unfortunate...
I certainly have nothing against the Swedish people though. Plenty of great inventors and companies have come from there. I understand Sweden had a massive recession in the 90's due to the previous 2 decades of socialist mismanagement and waste, but since the reforms in some regards it's now more free market than the US these days... Still way too much tax though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Menino80
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Location: Hodor?
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 01, 2011 4:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
But surely the freer Asian economies of Singapore and Hong Kong show the potentials of freer trade?
Singapore: $57,238
Hong Kong: $45,277
Taiwan: $34,743
Japan: $33,828
Korea: $29,792
|
Singapore and HK are examples of how cities can get rich as long as they are city-states and they have no problem laundering money. Plus Singapore was a managed economy every step of the way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
