Che's Famous Picure

[Ken Gargett]

OMG... another one! I thought I was the only one that used that phrase. Except I say eve a blind hog roots up an acorn occasionally!!! -LOL -

you two want a room? we could put up a big che poster on the wall.

[mazolaman]

yep,fair enough,we should shed a tear for the innocents.

As I mentioned earlier,I didn't hold Guevara up as an angel.

An argument can be used both ways,if his bloody murder was a justifiable end,the lives of other people could be argued as such.

personally,i hate any kind of violence against humanity.

I don't think you could vilify the man to the same extent as Hitler,Stalin,Pol Pot etc,as these people were responsible for literally millions of deaths.

I think in Cuba,he was the agitant for the change,Castro then created the society as it exists now,so we cannot really blame Guevara for creating the modern Cuba.

The aims of the "rebels" are understandable,as South America has been used and manipulated by many nations,and still is today.

Whether it be for minerals,tax havens,cheap labour......

As an example of the lasting and worldwide influence of the chummy relationship between Reagan and Thatcher,look at the fascist ruler of Chile,General Pinochet.

He came to rule by overthrowing the democratically elected,stable,socialist government of Allende.

His coup was funded and backed by the CIA,with several of the members of his government in the direct pay of the US.Although publicly the US condemmed the coup.

From that point on,all opposition was banned.

Over 2000 opponents were murdered.

over 31000 were tortured.

1300 were exiled,and then hunted down,with further assistance,and murdered,in operation condor.these include polititians journalists,anyone the combined governments felt they should kill,to save the continent from the "evil of communism"!

It is with shame I say that Thatcher gave Pinochet a home in England,and supported him throughout.

I think if the same happened in my country,I would like to think I would do exactly as Guevara did.

You could argue the IRA did some awfull deeds,but it's hard to argue with their right to govern their own land.

this coup was a successful attempt by the powers that held sway at that time to create a platform for the "chicago boys" economic style,based on the economic theories of Milton Friedman.

The lasting effects of this form of economic thinking are the economic mess we have now,we(the UK and US)are in hideous debt.

Yes,in the UK we have had a "supposedly" labour government since that could have changed things,but really "new labour" were the child of Thatchers government.

Here's an example of a lack of social conscience.

we sell guns to despots

So,when we are talking of the evils perpitrated by the communists,it should be noted that the capitalists are also guilty of horrific acts.

I do not believe there is a "proper" communist government in place in the world,as the term is often used as a cover for a dictator.

I also believe we currently live in an extreme form of capitalism.

Btw,the literal translation of utopia is "no place".

For myself,I am not a communist,but someone who believes it is beholden upon a society to provide social systems to it's members,for me this is a mark of a civilised society.

Sorry if this is over politicised,I'm afraid the thread was driven that way.

I shoot grey squirrels and parakeets,as they are invasive and driving out endemic species.

[El Presidente]

I am in agreement with much of what you have written. I do have a laugh at the "Pass Jail" card you give to "New Labor (apparently Thatchers fault) and the IRA (really...just guys fighting for their country). Let's not sugar coat it, They were Cold blooded murderers.

I am apolitical neither trusting the left nor the right. I have no ideology.

The US in South/central America. The British/French/Germans in Africa/Middle East/Asia, Spanish in the America's, Dutch and Portuguese in Asia. Bosnia? There really is little to be proud of.

Lets not forget Cuba in Angola, what China is now doing in Zimbabwe, what Chavez is doing to his own people. I can't think of a single country that passes muster in the court of morality.

Politics is a suckers game where every decision no matter how well spun, coming down to money and power.

[mazolaman]

No, to be fair,it is not a get out of jail card.I am so bitterly disappointed with new labour I couldn't try to tell you.

No excuses for the IRA either,I am just saying that I don't know what lengths I would go to to liberate my country in those circumstances.

Agreed,humanity desires money and power.

My main point being that it is silly to demonise communism or socialism without acknowledging the underbelly of capitalism,which is what I felt was happening.

Hence the Utopia stuff.

[mykeuva]

No, to be fair,it is not a get out of jail card.I am so bitterly disappointed with new labour I couldn't try to tell you.

No excuses for the IRA either,I am just saying that I don't know what lengths I would go to to liberate my country in those circumstances.

Agreed,humanity desires money and power.

My main point being that it is silly to demonise communism or socialism without acknowledging the underbelly of capitalism,which is what I felt was happening.

Hence the Utopia stuff.

Curious, for my own satisfaction:

What is the "underbelly" of capitalism that you speak of, and how does it compare to the tens of millions slaughtered by communism (not to mention the negative effects of those left alive)?

[El Presidente]

Curious, for my own satisfaction:

What is the "underbelly" of capitalism that you speak of, and how does it compare to the tens of millions slaughtered by communism (not to mention the negative effects of those left alive)?

To me that would be the stripping of 10's of millinons of manufacturing Jobs and shipping them to a third world country without batting an eyelid. Watching thousands of towns across a nation lose their prime employer and if not die, enter into a long term coma.

"it's a global market"

What a load of crap.

[mykeuva]

To me that would be the stripping of 10's of millinons of manufacturing Jobs and shipping them to a third world country without batting an eyelid. Watching thousands of towns across a nation lose their prime employer and if not die, enter into a long term coma.

"it's a global market"

What a load of crap.

But if that's your position, then are you also offended when jobs come into the country? For example, I've heard that line of argument in the states a lot...people complaining about jobs heading off to China or India. But nobody complains about the BMW or Mercedes plant that opens up in Tennessee, or North Carolina. Why aren't those people complaining upset about jobs being taken away from Germans? Are there no foreign companies that create wealth in Australia? And if there are, are you upset about those companies taking jobs away from the natives where those companies originated?

Also, by what right do people in the US, or Australia have to these jobs for life? If we're to follow the argument about jobs being taken away and shipped off to another country, should we also be upset when jobs leave a city or state to go to another within the same country? I mean, people are losing their jobs in that situation also for the benefit of other people in another location. Should we then oppose jobs going from Illinois in the US to Texas in the US? Or Sydney to Brisbane? And if that doesn't upset a person, then why does it matter that it goes to a "third world" country? Because those people are of a different race? Poorer? Uglier? etc. etc.

Let me also add that a lot of the "losing jobs" problem has been sold as jobs moving to a different country, but what doesn't get mentioned is that increases in productivity have caused jobs to simply go away. What once took a factory of 500+ can be done with a mere fraction today.

You may think the "global market" stuff is crap, but the fact, sad or not, is it is reality. We no longer live in a world where capital is confined to stay in one location because it is prohibitive to move it to another. Today, capital can change with the click of a button. The only way to combat this is not by erecting barriers (because capital will avoid those barriers), but by making localities attractive for old capital to stay and for new capital to form.

And may I add, if that's the biggest complaint that one has about capitalism as compared to communism, than capitalism can't hold a candle to communism in terms of an "underbelly."

[mazolaman]

exactly.

Also,the people who now manufacture these things,do so with no employment rights at all.

working for literally pennies a day,to all intents and purposes indentured slaves,in places like South America,Bangladesh,Pakistan,China........this is just one aspect of the underbelly of capitalism,another highlighted in the post about Pinochet.

I understand millions have died and suffered under repressive communist regimes,but also millions have also died and suffered under fascist regimes,and many our relatives died to fight both of these regimes.

Again,the point is,it is far too simplistic to say"communism bad,capitalism good".

The main argument against jobs going abroad is that the manufacturer will require the cheapest possible manufacturing price.

So the shirt that was made in Preston for £1 each,is then made in Bangalore for 15 pence each.

This holds the Bangalore maker in truly terrible conditions,and the Preston maker cannot compete,and is unemployed.

The mearest mention of the word "union"in a bangalore factory will get you shot.

You are correct in the fact that mechanisation also removes alarge mass of the labour force,and we in the UK do try to stay ahead of the game by R D in these fields.However,this has still left us with a large mass of former workers in manufacturing,mining etc with nothing to do.

There are real ghettos of unemploment here and in the US.

It would be a shame to open up a competition to who is the nastiest,fascist or communist.Stalin v Hitler?Kim Jong il or Franco,etc......

Despotic meglomaniacs by any title.

[El Presidente]

And may I add, if that's the biggest complaint that one has about capitalism as compared to communism, than capitalism can't hold a candle to communism in terms of an "underbelly."

There are many over the past decade who cannot feed their families who may disagree with the above.

Anyway just my thoughts.

Communism is a sick power hungry politcal model. I have never defended it and never will.

Any system that does not build up/better its own people generation to generation will fail in time. I believe capitalism is fracturing. It is the reason Communism failed.

It is a Governments role to provide the economic environment for the proper employment of its people. That means all people who want to work. It is one of the basic services they are voted in to provide.

It is not their role to permt the transfer of employment to third countries en mass and watch a signifcant % of its people slide into poverty. To do so is a dereliction of duty.

3 Honda factories in Melbourne, Sydney or Alabama doesn't replace a textile industy or any one of the other industries which have disappeared off our shores. Disappeared to countries paying inferiour wages, in often inferior conditions. In some of these countries political freedom is non existant. Yet we happily sell out our own people?

If that makes sense to you then fair enough. I suspect it is not the "Capitalism" most people signed up for and over the years to come the disenchantment will cause a complete rethink necessary to hold the remnants of capitalism together.

[mykeuva]

exactly.

Also,the people who now manufacture these things,do so with no employment rights at all.

working for literally pennies a day,to all intents and purposes indentured slaves,in places like South America,Bangladesh,Pakistan,China........this is just one aspect of the underbelly of capitalism,another highlighted in the post about Pinochet.

I understand millions have died and suffered under repressive communist regimes,but also millions have also died and suffered under fascist regimes,and many our relatives died to fight both of these regimes.

Again,the point is,it is far too simplistic to say"communism bad,capitalism good".

The main argument against jobs going abroad is that the manufacturer will require the cheapest possible manufacturing price.

So the shirt that was made in Preston for £1 each,is then made in Bangalore for 15 pence each.

This holds the Bangalore maker in truly terrible conditions,and the Preston maker cannot compete,and is unemployed.

The mearest mention of the word "union"in a bangalore factory will get you shot.

You are correct in the fact that mechanisation also removes alarge mass of the labour force,and we in the UK do try to stay ahead of the game by R D in these fields.However,this has still left us with a large mass of former workers in manufacturing,mining etc with nothing to do.

There are real ghettos of unemploment here and in the US.

It would be a shame to open up a competition to who is the nastiest,fascist or communist.Stalin v Hitler?Kim Jong il or Franco,etc......

Despotic meglomaniacs by any title.

So is it your position that those people "working for no employment rights at all, for litterally pennies a day" would be better off not working, and starving, and still with no employment rights?

I think you're conflating capitalism with political regimes and authoritarians, as well as fascism. Yes, people have died under fascism, but what does that have to do with capitalism? Fascism is not on the opposite end of communism, they're one and the same, authoritarian states. Capitalism is simply an economic system that describes the private ownership of capital. Capitalism (especially the free market variety, which I would add is critical) hurts all forms of authoritarian states because it diversifies power. Communism has been throughout history the totalitarian control of societies. And while socialism can be described as simply an economic system similarly to capitalism, the difference is that in socialism you need to have a state actor to plan, and by definition becomes more than simply an economic system. Anyway, that being said, just because an authoritarian uses capitalism does not mean that capitalism is a bad thing. The bad thing is the political oppression, not the private capital in society. So I don't understand your point of Stalin v. Hitler or Kim Jong Il v. Franco.......Hitler and Franco can hardly be called representatives of free market ideology. It's necessary to respect individual rights, and allow for private competition in free market capitalism. Hitler's Germany directed the means of production, and told producers what, when, and how much to produce.

You mention Pinochet, so let's use him as an example. He was a dictator that used capitalism. Should we blame his oppression of political opposition on capitalism then, or on Pinochet's police state? Similarly, in China, they have implemented free market reforms (even the socialists and communists in China realized there is a significant difference, and that capitalism works while socialism does not) for the past 20 years. Should we blame China's continued repression of its citizens on the free market reforms? Of course not, that's silly. The free market reforms in China, as in Chile, have led to improvements in the standard of living of citizens, despite still being under authoritarian regimes.

And while we're on Pinochet and capitalism, here's an interesting article about the earthquakes in chile. The chilean earthquakes were about 500 times stronger than the ones in haiti, and yet haiti lost 200,000+ lives, while Chile lost anywhere from 480 - 730 lives. This article details the improvements and gains in wealth from the free market reforms implemented in Chile, which led to better building quality. Economic liberalization improved the standards of living in Chile, as it has done all throughout the world. The increase in wealth led to better quality in buildings, which helped during a tremendous 8.8 earthquake.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...2032665414.html

You mention that it is too simplistic to say "capitalism is good and communism is bad." I'd argue that the reason it's too simplistic is because it is simple. Rarely in life do we get such bright lines drawn for us to show us the examples and differences such as this. Rarely in life are examples so drastic and different that we cannot see, from a mere glance, the stark contrasts between the two. The United States vs. Soviet Union, West Europe vs. East Europe, South Korea vs. North Korea, Taiwan/Singapore/Hong Kong/Japan vs. pre 1980 China, heck for that matter Post 1980 China vs. Pre 1980 China. It is no coincidence that the most free economies in the world are also the most prosperous, while the most closed economies are the poorest. Let's examine that North vs. South Korea example. I'm sure you, as most people, have seen this picture of the Korean peninsula at night:

http://jrn320fall10.files.wordpress.com/20...ea-by-night.jpg

Now, let's forget about the oppression, the brutality, the murder, the imprisonment, of communist regimes. Let's just look at that picture, and imagine ourselves a citizen in the communist north, as opposed to being a citizen in the south. Just picture it, 8 or 9 o'clock at night, you want to go out with some friends, have some dinner and some drinks. In the north, you emerge in the complete and total blackness. The nation is shut down, there are no restaurants open, there's no power to run them. You cannot get in your car, because you are not allowed, by law, to own one, unless you are politically connected. You are lucky if your family chose the location where it lives, because forced relocation is routine. You cannot turn on the tv or radio without watching government approved content. You cannot connect to a free internet. I don't think I need to go into detail what a citizen in the south can do, as we are all familiar with it. Notice I did not even get into the brutal beatings and prison for political dissidents, the murder, the forced prostitution, etc. etc. that routinely accompanies these totalitarian communist regimes.

But we can sit all day long and talk about the goodness/badness of one versus the other. How about we just look to the people, and how they vote with their feet, to give us a better idea? It is not in free market capitalistic societies that erect walls and prevent their citizens from freely traveling abroad. And yet we've seen, time after time, examples in places like the USSR, East Germany, Cuba, North Korea, of governments preventing their people from leaving these communist regimes, under penalty of death or imprisonment. People were and are actually risking their lives just to get away from communism! People literally rip the rooves off of their homes in Cuba, and throw themselves into the ocean, to flee communism. Tell me again how one isn't clearly superior, economically and morally.

If you think that "communism is bad and capitalism is good" is too simplistic, then why is just saying erroneously "they're all bad" is not equally simplistic? I'm not saying capitalism is all good or a perfect system, but if we're comparing it with communism, then there certainly is a "good" and a "bad" to be had.

Now, about your shirt maker example. What gives the worker in Preston the right to keep his job, for life, making shirts? What if the shirt company simply wanted to close b/c of bankruptcy, or the market, or retirement, or moving to a different part of the country? If the worker has a right to his job, then the government has to force someone to provide him work. That's enslavement. And your point of shirt making ignores the fact that shirt making is not a very sought after skill. A shirt maker in Preston is going to be making less and less relative to others in Preston, as shirt making is probably not a largely sought after skill in Preston.

And what of that worker in Bangalore? Let's pretend I'm in Bangalore right now, and I'm a worker who just started making shirts. Why exactly does the worker in Preston have a right to his job, and I do not? Is it because I'm poor, brown, have less political power, etc.? Explain to me how one has a right to his job, and I do not have that right? And after you're done talking about the employment rights I apparently lack, please explain to me why the job should still reside with the person in Preston, despite the fact that I'm better off than I was before even without the employment rights found in Preston.

Again, a lot of people want to blame exporting jobs, and claim that people are losing work because of that. I don't know how it is in other nations, but I know that the US manufactures more today than it ever did, in fact something like 600% more than in the 1950s. Gains in productivity caused a lot of these jobs we're talking about to disappear, not be merely moved overseas.

Let me use a quote I like by Milton Friedman: "In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from grinding poverty, the only cases in recorded history, are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade. If you want to know where the masses are worst off, it's exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that. So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear. There is no alternative way, so far discovered, of improving the lot of the ordinary people, that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system."

[mykeuva]

There are many over the past decade who cannot feed their families who may disagree with the above.

Anyway just my thoughts.

Communism is a sick power hungry politcal model. I have never defended it and never will.

Any system that does not build up/better its own people generation to generation will fail in time. I believe capitalism is fracturing. It is the reason Communism failed.

It is a Governments role to provide the economic environment for the proper employment of its people. That means all people who want to work. It is one of the basic services they are voted in to provide.

It is not their role to permt the transfer of employment to third countries en mass and watch a signifcant % of its people slide into poverty. To do so is a dereliction of duty.

3 Honda factories in Melbourne, Sydney or Alabama doesn't replace a textile industy or any one of the other industries which have disappeared off our shores. Disappeared to countries paying inferiour wages, in often inferior conditions. In some of these countries political freedom is non existant. Yet we happily sell out our own people?

If that makes sense to you then fair enough. I suspect it is not the "Capitalism" most people signed up for and over the years to come the disenchantment will cause a complete rethink necessary to hold the remnants of capitalism together.

Prez,

I don't think we need to come up with hyperbole to make our points. You say people cannot feed their families? Can you please cite me to where these mass starvations are occurring in these capitalistic nations that have lost some jobs to overseas (and as previously mentioned to gains in productivity)? I know here in the US unemployment is around 10% if not more, and I haven't heard about people not being able to eat. In fact, quite the opposite. Obesity is the problem mentioned with lower income people more often than not...

I don't mean to diminish the suffering of people under the current economic downturn. But there is a real difference between hardship due to job losses, and the outright organized killing, oppression, and brutality by the state. Your statement above says a lot, that those suffering job losses right now are hurting, and they don't care to hear about communism/capitalism etc. etc. Do you know why? Because the earth is run by people pursuing their own interests. People care about themselves, their families, then their friends and neighbors, etc. etc. Free market capitalism allows people to be productive by pursuing their own interests, communism stifles that productivity to the detriment of all.

You talk about a system where it builds up people over the generations, and that is exactly what free market capitalism does. People don't go from destitution to prosperity over night. People slowly earn wages, and slowly spend those on better food, better education for their kids, which yields further improvements. It is a long process.

You also mention that government should provide for an economic environment for the proper employment of its people. I agree, and the way to do that, as shown many times throughout history, has been through the private actions of individuals pursuing their own interests. That's what enriches societies, and makes them stronger. And if we want to get away from the economic for a second, the way to protect people's safety and lives is by ensuring that states respect individual freedoms, all individual freedoms, political, civic, AND economic. Once you start ignoring the economic freedoms, it doesn't take much for a state to ignore other freedoms as well, again, as we've sadly seen throughout history.

But you also mentioned that it is not government's role to permit the transfer of employment, and that that's a dereliction of duty. I think that's a dangerous line of thinking. Again, by what right does a person in Chicago or Sydney have a right to Job X, and the government must act, by force, to prevent people from moving that job to Houston, or Perth, or Delhi, or Shanghai? I say dangerous because the implication is that that job is a right. And what happens when nobody wants to provide that job? The government must force people to provide it, as it is a right. So let's say someone makes pants. And we say that person has a right to that pants making job. What happens if all the pants making companies in the country say "I'm not going to make pants any more. I'm tired of the business, I'm not moving the job anyway, I'm just shutting down, retiring, gone." The government has to protect that pants making job, as it's a right, so either it has to force some of those pants making companies to stay open, or it has to force another company (or more) to start business. That's enslavement of people. That's the government forcing people to provide this job/do something they don't want to do. That's the danger of calling something a right when it is not a right. Nobody has a right to their job. You have the right to pursue your own interests, without interference, from the government.

You also mention that 3 honda factories is not enough. That's also a bit hyperbolic, there are more factories, and more industries, than just 3 honda factories. And if 3 is not enough, what is enough? Where do you draw the line? By implication, there must be a point where you reach when you say that there's too many german or japanese plants in australia or the us, and that americans and australians are stealing jobs from the germans, correct? This brings up another issue why central planning fails. No matter how many smart people we can get together in a room to decide what factories can and cannot leave, those people are no match for the collective experience and knowledge of entire societies, built up over the course of history, whose experience and knowledge is reflected in market transactions. No matter how we try to get together to prevent companies from leaving, we will fail, and in doing so, will cause pain and hardship along the way. For example, a way people have tried to prevent companies from exporting jobs has been through tariffs. And as we've seen, this not only doesn't help the situation, but hurts it. Tariffs raise the prices of goods both foreign and domestic. Domestic producers see their foreign competitors prices rise, and see opportunity to raise them as well. This only causes prices to rise, across the board, for the consumer. That hurts everyone.

Look, I'm not saying that capitalism is perfect and everyone wins all the time in capitalism (and when I say capitalism, I'm talking about the free market version). But I replied to a post comparing capitalism and communism, how it was "silly" to demonize socialism/communism while not acknowledging the "underbelly" of capitalism. I think your posts along with mazolaman only prove my point that there is a significant difference between one and the other, and one is most certainly better than the other.

I asked for the underbelly of capitalism, and the responses I've received were about job losses. This can hardly compare to forced/planned starvations, executions or evacuations of cities, literal, instantaneous death and murder. And this all ignores about what the communist system does to the living, how it destroys the spirit, how it causes a hopelessness among entire societies, how corruption is rampant, how you have to know someone just to get basic necessities, etc... And remember, I asked for the worst of capitalism. Shall we talk about the benefits, how it lifted billions out of utter poverty? Now, shall we discuss the benefits the world received from those communist regimes? Other than providing employment for mass grave digger work, I can't think of much...

At the end of the day, job losses overseas are not in the same ballpark, nor in the same city, state, country, or planet, as things like the holodomors, the killing fields of cambodia, the la cabana prisons, the great leaps forward, the north korean systems, not to mention the plain old lack of standards of living and poverty, the terror and oppression of the regimes, the lack of individual freedoms, the lack of state criticism, the lack of opposition for the one parties, for those left alive.

[PigFish]

you two want a room? we could put up a big che poster on the wall.

... we'd need more space than a room mate. I have to bring my guns wherever I go!

Can we please talk about guns now??? -LOL

[PigFish]

Better make it a room for 3. I want to invite Mykeuva over too.

Could not have said it better myself.

Have you ever wondered why government housing looks so awful? This is what government intervention does to all aspects of society. You can't engineer society so that people feel better about themselves.

I don't know why I am bothering to add to this, it has all been said.... except where when one blames free markets. One neglects to say that there really is no longer a free market. Please tell me one market where one is free from the intervention of government? Look at the rules, and fees, duties and licences I would need to open a simple little cigar store. You call that a free market? Who is kidding whom here?

The problems with free(er) markets is that they are prone to form bubbles. I see that as their only problem. Markets now tempered and manipulated by governments appear to have the same problem and look where we are now. Government does little or nothing well, and with all that evidence I can't believe the numbers of people who want to rely on it for something they should do themselves.

I don't know about the rest of you but that change I was promised is not working out so well for me! I know it is working out for GE... not because it is an example of capitalism but because it is in bed with the current administration and exercises bilateral agreements to better its balance sheet. That is not the free market! Crony capitalism is not the free market REGARDLESS THE ADMINISTRATION!

Where's the free market when I have to flush my 1.6 gallon toilet 32 times to get my last meal into the sewer system? Where is the free market when I want a dim-able incandescent lightbulb, one made in my country, to replace the one that just burnt out? Where is it when I want to smoke in my back yard? Where is it when it costs $40K in permits to build a new home? Where is it when I need a permit to replace my garbage disposal, or when the trash company tells me I need to sort my trash for them?

My town has imposed a punitive measure to sell water. In my state it is actually against the law for a public utility to sell water at a rate that declines based on usage!!! Where is the free market in that? These dumb asses are wondering why people are pissed off and they are willing to spend a couple hundred K for an 'expert' to tell them how to make their dihedral line pricing structure more simple. I suggested a straight line model... we all pay the same, it worked for 40 years but suddenly some fool without testicles enough to tell his wife that he still smokes, thinks that it is his lot in life to price water according to a societal engineering model that he read from a book on Marx! When I suggested the straight line method... it was also said that I was oversimplifying the problem!!!

This is no longer the 1800's my friends. If you wish to point a finger at markets you had better put the good government man in the picture now too. I would like you to think of 5 things that you will do today that does not have the hand of government on it. You can't eat, sleep, ****, smoke or even pick your nose without the government being involved in the process. Where is the free market again my friends... I forgot? Today's woes are not free market driven, even your migration of employment, so artfully written about above cannot be blamed on free markets. The employer is a tax collector, an insurer, a shrink, a parental figure, a license holder, a fee payer, a tax expert, a huge open-ended liability holder... way before he collects his first monetary unit. Who here that works for himself can tell me he is free of government intervention? You can't even clean a toilet without the products you use being tested and approved by some bureaucrat somewhere! Is this what makes a society a great one? All this crap on the toilet cleaner label, does this keep your job here in the "zone" were you live? Knowing that your toilet cleaner is safe to be consumed at a rate of no more than 2 grams per hour by a 2 year old; is the cleaner safer because it is labeled "do not eat?" Is society really better now that we all know, that is if we can read the native language that we should refrain from eating toilet cleaner? Perhaps it would be better if it came with a multilingual audio device, one that spoke about its poisonous content before one could unwrap it and use it. That would be after you clean it all up off the floor because the cap that keeps the kiddies from drinking it requires a blow torch and an anvil to break its bonds to the bottle! Is this the free market that you are all talking about? When cities can tell you where to smoke or demand that salt is removed from the food at restaurants, or that they can't cook in a fryer with certain types of fats... is that the society that you are saying is free? The only fat underbelly (besides my own) that I see when I look at markets is caused by an incessant desire to raise capital by a government striving to grow it numbers on the backs of it citizens for any reason that it can sell to the dim-witted and ignorant activist minority.

We are no longer endowed with natural rights. We have granted rights subject to the whims of the majority, or vocal minority. We live in a largely lawless societies. When the office of the President ignores Federal court rulings, when the mother can kill the unborn, and you can't smack your kid on the ass for smoking his first joint... you can no longer say that freedom has anything at all to do with the dilemma that we are now in! Freedom no longer exists. There is no free left in free markets or anywhere else for that matter. The woes of society now are wholly owned by those that are the purveyors of large governments. -Piggy

[snickers99]

Love it, Piggy!!! Hope it was as good for you as it was for me. Nothing to add except that we've got to convince people to love their freedom. What the oppressed peoples of the world need is more freedom, not less. Government IS the problem, not the solution. With that I would like to put posters of Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and Winston Churchill up on the wall!

[khomeinist]

One of the major problems with capitalism is that it abets the formation of monopolistic cadres. I always have to laugh at the idealistic nonsense about unregulated capitalism.

Are all regulations good? Of course not

Is communism a good political model? Not at all

Is full state control of the economy desirable? Surely not

That being said.... a 'free' economy is not possible. Power and capital concentrate. Some of you despise 'do-good' leftists. I despise the Mafia in all its global permutations. Without some state influence you find the formation of oligarchies and the attendant social ramifications.

The partisan rhetoric makes my eyes bleed. Congrats rightists. The upcoming decades will give you plenty of things to whine about.

[mykeuva]

One of the major problems with capitalism is that it abets the formation of monopolistic cadres. I always have to laugh at the idealistic nonsense about unregulated capitalism.

Are all regulations good? Of course not

Is communism a good political model? Not at all

Is full state control of the economy desirable? Surely not

That being said.... a 'free' economy is not possible. Power and capital concentrate. Some of you despise 'do-good' leftists. I despise the Mafia in all its global permutations. Without some state influence you find the formation of oligarchies and the attendant social ramifications.

The partisan rhetoric makes my eyes bleed. Congrats rightists. The upcoming decades will give you plenty of things to whine about.

The ironic thing about your argument about "monopolistic cadres" is that monopolies tend to form and maintain themselves because of government regulation, not from a lack of it. History is replete with examples of monopolies giving way to competition (before government saw fit to interfere), from standard oil (losing market share at the time of its break up) to microsoft (apple with larger market cap) to sears (gave way to kmart, then to walmart) to walmart (losing ground to target and amazon). The only way a company can garner monopoly power and continue that power by preventing entry by another into a market is to lobby government for regulation/licensing to keep others out. This is especially true in today's economy where capital can travel the globe at lightning speeds. What, other than government regulation, can prevent a company from a part of the world entering a market that it sees an opportunity, in the case of a monopolist exploiting prices?

It's fairly funny that your argument basically is that government intervention is needed in order to curb the excesses of government intervention in the market.

As for "partisan rhetoric" making your eyes bleed, I know that wasn't directed at me, considering to be partisan means having to do with a political party. I do not. My only belief is in individual freedom, political, civil, economic. I don't care about associating myself with a party or group, and I do not care if others try to lump me into a group. I learned long ago that no party has a monopoly on freedom. As my words aren't partisan, I'm sorry if talk of freedom makes your eyes bleed.

[khomeinist]

Lol. No I was not addressing you. I am glad that you find freedom so comforting. A nice blanket to keep you warm. Those of us who have lived and worked in 'developing' countries have seen oligarchical corrupt capitalism at very close range.

Save the idealistic textbook theories for someone more naive.

[khomeinist]

I was poking at Ray because it is an easy amusement.

Some of the posts on this thread are too problematic and would require hours of rebuttal. My apologies if my partisan comment was offensive to any of the free-market crowd.

All in good fun

[PigFish]

...well there goes another thread while Rob was happy sleeping! Not my fault this time mate!!! -LOL -the Rightist Pig

[Colt45]

humans are filthy beasts, no matter what guise they take.......

[khomeinist]

humans are filthy beasts, no matter what guise they take.......

Bingo. That is my working theory on human societies. One reason why I am less harsh on religion than I used to be. Humans need ethical norms or they tend to behave very poorly.

[mykeuva]

Lol. No I was not addressing you. I am glad that you find freedom so comforting. A nice blanket to keep you warm. Those of us who have lived and worked in 'developing' countries have seen oligarchical corrupt capitalism at very close range.

Save the idealistic textbook theories for someone more naive.

Actually, I was born in a "developing" country, and furthermore, have heard the stories of my family members being slaughtered, literally, like animals, while other family members heard them scream, by communists. So I'm glad you have "lived and worked" in developing countries, very proud of ya. I am sorry that you feel the need to start with the ad hominems because you cannot back up your beliefs. Have a good one.

(oh, and as for idealistic theories, what's more idealistic than thinking "if only we can get some people together in a room, then we can plan entire economies!"?)

[khomeinist]

You are conflating a critique of capitalism with a love for communism.

I do not support communism.

I find capitalism very flawed.... largely due to human weakness

Uncritical support of any economic or political system seems a bit unreasonable. But that's just me.

Cheers!

[mazolaman]

(oh, and as for idealistic theories, what's more idealistic than thinking "if only we can get some people together in a room, then we can plan entire economies!"?)

Like the chicago boys,in Chile,after the elected government had been ousted,and thousands killed and tortured.But this is apparently forgivable,as their economic miracle enabled them to loose fewer lives

in and earth quake,as compared to the poorest nation on earth?

I would add,you do not hold a monopoly on suffering,as several of my relations died on the fields of France,to fight a Fascist,not a communist.If you tour my country you will find memorials in so many villages to those who did the same.

I wonder if they died so their descendants could buy jeans for £4 in asda/walmart,or even worse primark,made by child labour.I wonder how they would feel knowing that an English farmer cannot afford to produce milk from his hurd,as he needs 28pence/litre to break even,and the supermarket will only pay 15pence(that'll be asda/walmart again)they sell the milk for around 60pence/litre.

I also find the diatribe about freedom offensive,as we live lives of such privilige,we can afford to send off for cigars that cost more than some will earn in a year,who will work a lot harder than we.

I find it interesting that you seem to paint my comments as pro communism,thus polarising the debate.

this is sad,as I have clearly stated,as my own preference is only for a decent degree of social welfare.

I can't see how anyone could argue against a Healthcare system for all

an education system

an emergency services system

care for the elderly

rhetoric,but all true,and plainly spoken

[mykeuva]

You are conflating a critique of capitalism with a love for communism.

I do not support communism.

I find capitalism very flawed.... largely to to human weakness

Uncritical support of any economic or political system seems a bit unreasonable. But that's just me.

Cheers!

No, I wasn't using my example of my experience with communism to argue that you were defending communism. I was merely showing that you are not the only one that can try to appeal to authority by having experiences with non developed nations. And yes, capitalism is flawed, as I've stated above, it's not perfect. And I don't see how support for systems that provide the most freedoms to citizens can be "unethical." (how does one support anything "unethically" btw?)

Take care.