Posted on 01/18/2005 7:45:22 AM PST by Happy2BMe
So you are in fact a liberal on economic issues.
You could say that on some economic issues yes, on some not. More or less you could classify my worldview as consistent with the traditional Christian view as it was defined over the centuries. The free market ideology is as false and heretical as Bolshevism.
I like the following texts:
RERUM NOVARUM - ON CAPITAL AND LABOR
Centesimus Annus - Hundredth Anniversary of Rerum Novarum
Socialism in Easter Europe was not all bad (and you cannot blame the relative poverty of Eastern Europe on it as poverty was much older). Many things imported from the socialism were implemented in US during the New Deal and many of them worked for good."
Sorry. You are a bit confused.
Socialism and the Welfare State are 2 different animals.
It's a big difference whether the capitalist has to pay taxes on his income, or gets his entire property confiscated. Big wrt rule of law, economic incentives, and power of Government. You may think one is just 'more' than the other, but there is a qualitative difference between income redistribution (which is okay within limits) and government planning in the economy (which always 100% of time is bad).
And Btw, most of the New Deal and the other Government programs were *not* good, when they tried to have Government plan the economy. they did nothing to help USA's economy get better (it's why it was the 'great' depression and not "medium-sized depression", because FDR's schemes were not as effective, and the economy never got back to 1929 levels for many years.)
OTOH, free-market economist Milton Friedman has expressed that if you want a program to help the poor, a 'negative income tax' is the best way to go. Our 'earned income tax credit' approximates that.
"I believe in the theory of Deng’s cat. (see my tagline)."
Me too.
Socialism is a prescription for poverty.
Wealth is created in a free enterprise system with
low tax rates, property rights, rule of law, and minimal Government intrusion.
Capitalism catches mice.
You are right. BTW, most of the industry and economy in Poland at the end was not the product of confiscation but was created and developed under the socialism and planned economy. It was not all bad - I grew up there and I know.
Average Pole had much better life than before WWII. Also the Church was very strong (you had rush hour on Sundays).
Big wrt rule of law, economic incentives, and power of Government. You may think one is just 'more' than the other, but there is a qualitative difference between income redistribution (which is okay within limits) and government planning in the economy (which always 100% of time is bad).
I would agree in part. But I do not think that all government planning in ecenomy is bad, the opposite I think that some of it is necessary for the survival of the nation.
OTOH, free-market economist Milton Friedman [...] Friedman and Lenin are the two opposite poles of the same error.
"I believe in the theory of Deng’s cat. (see my tagline)."
Me too.
I am glad to hear it.
Socialism is a prescription for poverty.
And so is radical free market.
Wealth is created in a free enterprise system with low tax rates, property rights, rule of law, and minimal Government intrusion.
I would agree but we differ how much and what government intrusion is necessary/minimal.
Capitalism catches mice.
Sorry, capitalism in the Deng'd proverb is a color, same way as socialism is. In other words "It doesn't matter whether the cat is socialist or capitalist, as long as it catches mice."
"Average Pole had much better life than before WWII."
That's not a particularly novel feat, since the world had 20 years of a global depression and wars as the 'baseline'.
Countries like Korea, Japan, and Hong Kong raised their standard of living by 10 times from WWII to about 1980. I doubt Poland was even close to achieving that. In most socialist nations, they stagnated from the 1960s onwards, as if socialism could manage a certain complexity in the economy but just 'ran out of steam'.
"Socialism is a prescription for poverty."
"And so is radical free market."
Not at all. You cannot give an example of a true free market economy that harmed the people overall. The best examples in past decades were Switzerland and Hong Kong (before 1997). More recently, countries like Australia have done better than the U.S. in liberating their economies. In all cases, the economy and overall society did quite well. It is also a myth that free markets tend to create more economic inequality; the effect is actually small. Countries with great inequality, eg countries like Brazil or some African nations, also have significant Govt interference in the economy.
"Capitalism catches mice."
"Sorry, capitalism in the Deng'd proverb is a color, same way as socialism is. In other words "It doesn't matter whether the cat is socialist or capitalist, as long as it catches mice." "
Stated that way, it is nonsense ... it's like saying it doesnt matter if you believe the earth is flat or round... the point is that there are laws of economics and human nature that socialism tries to subvert, and as a result creates poverty misery and economic stagnation.
Free market economics doesnt suffer those flaws.
You cannot pretend that socialism "works" in any real way, since it performs much worse than the free market alternative.
Over time, the differences are stark:
It matters alot if you enjoyed the free market policies of hong kong from 1960 onwards or suffered from socialist poverty in places like mozambique or Albania.
As Churchill said "The virtue of socialism is equal misery, the vice of capitalism is unequal happiness." (or words to that effect).
The Airbus "supertarget". No thanks.
"The free market ideology is as false and heretical as Bolshevism."
This is another misconception. Calling the free market an 'ideology' is like calling Newtonian physics an ideology ... The free market is simply a statement of understood economic principles and a system that is in accord with those principles of reality.
the church was wrong about other scientific matters in the past, and they occasionally let their concerns mask realities of economics. The Pope in the late 1800s had no inkling that the 20th century would be a grand social experiment on which systems served humanity better, and now we have a verdict that is clearer than would be known then: Free market economics serves mankind better than socialism.
if you want to help the poor, give people property rights, rule of law and the ability to work, and supply & demand for labor will take care of problems like poverty and unemployment far better than clinging to myths.
For more on a better understanding that the heart of capitalism is service to others (Christian ethics through and through) take a look at:
"Wealth and Poverty" by George Gilder.
I do not agree that they were "true free market economies". Swiss are tightly regulated, I do not know much about British ruled Hong Kong, but South Korea, Japan, Singapore had and have well designed national economical policies.
They were real proud of their flying coffin aka SST, as I recall.
actually cattle gets more space due to cattle protection laws.
Humans can be squished into whatever they will pay for. (as long as they stinky seat floats)
huh? where do you get the idea that
"well designed national economical policies" is inconsistent with "free market"? What I have been trying to say is the *best* economic design is one that closely follows free market principles.
First, no country is truly 'free market' 100% but hong kong was pretty close since it had no import export restrictions and a low tax rate and no government subsidies, etc. Can you think of a better example?
Also, my examples are historical. Historically speaking, Swiss and Hong Kong had the least regulated economies.
Historically speaking (1960-1990), Japan had the lowest overall tax rate of any OECD country. It also coincidently had the highest growth rate. But in the 1990s, their tax burden went up ... and their growth rate went down.
It's well-established that higher Government spending results in lower economic growth rates:
http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-news198pdf?.pdf.
... btw, note the similarities (and flaws) of today's European economies with the Fascist economics of the 1930s.
Also, my points about Korea, Taiwan and Japan was not to call them model economies ... in fact, Korea is far from it, as they have an economy controlled by several large conglomerates that coordinate with govt; Taiwan is fairly close, they follow independent entrepreneur model which is more robust than Korean model; and Japan was reasonably good follower of low taxes and less regulations, in conjunction with some govt intervention in banking etc., in the past, but today is worse than USA in regulation and tax burden. Each country is quite different even though to us the Asian countries seem similar. Yet one stark thing does stick out: NONE of the Asian countries have the large welfare-state apparatus that Europe has. As such they are not burdened with stifling their economies in order to subsidize sloth.
That alone accounts for much of their greater dynamism in the economy.
Again, can you think of a more free market economy?
They need less welfare because they have different family structure.
NONE of the Asian countries have the large welfare-state apparatus that Europe has. As such they are not burdened with stifling their economies in order to subsidize sloth.
They need less welfare because they have different family structure."
More accurately, they have different family structure because they have less welfare. The negative impact on families due to misguided welfare policies has been established, look at for example Charles Murray's "Losing Ground", which showed how U.S. welfare policies caused family breakup... when we reformed welfare in 1995, the Liberals said there would be grandma's on the streets... instead we had lower child poverty and fewer out-of-wedlock births.
If Europe has disintegrating families, which they didnt have 50 years ago, its because they have a welfare trap that they didnt have back then.
Maybe. But they had thousands of years of Confucionism when the children are trained to be subservient to their parents for whole life and when the mutual support and caring for others was the primary virtue.
In America young men were being encouraged to be on their own and not depending on others long before the welfare state. When the country stopped to be rural it created the vacuum to be filled by the state.
How old is that picture, props?
Look at that fat thing:
http://www.big-boys.com/pictures/picture0526.html
or
http://www.payloadasia.com/Magazine/archives/10_04/1004_coverstory.html
" Maybe. But they had thousands of years of Confucionism when the children are trained to be subservient to their parents for whole life and when the mutual support and caring for others was the primary virtue. "
As someone of Irish and German heritage married to someone of Korean heritage, I can tell you this much:
The thousands of years of family-oriented Confucionism is not much different from the thousands of years of Catholicism in Ireland, Italy, etc., in inculcating family-oriented social structures. The similarities are more apparent than the differences. The belief in family is there in European tradition and in America too of course.
... it's simply that modernism and welfarism have undermined
Europe's and USA's traditions on an earlier schedule than Asia.
In Japan and Korea today, the new generation have different and more self-centered attitudes than their parents. They are not much different from the 60s generation in the US. Marriage rates in Japan I understand are lower than in the US.
"In America young men were being encouraged to be on their own and not depending on others long before the welfare state."
And Europe was never this way? I find it interesting that in the PDF I referenced, the share of Govt in the economy today is far higher in all OECD countries than in 1960. In particular, USA of today is more 'socialistic' than Germany of 1960. (That may account for the 'German miracle' of that generation.)
Sure America has a tradition of 'self-reliance' and is more class-less than "old Europe", but IMHO the divisions have been more in how countries are governed and not their innate culture. Good example: Ireland was for a long time an economic backwater and run in a semi-socialist welfare-state mode. In the 1980s, things got so bad they turned to free-market policies to turn around the country. In the past 15 years, Ireland's economy has DRASTICALLY OUTPERFORMED other economies in Europe, to the point where this formerly poor country has higher pre capita GDP than former rich countries.
Here is where Ireland is today:
http://www.travelblog.org/World/ei-econ.html
"Economy - overview: Ireland is a small, modern, trade-dependent economy with growth averaging a robust 8% in 1995-2002. The global slowdown, especially in the information technology sector, pressed growth down to 2.1% in 2003. Agriculture, once the most important sector, is now dwarfed by industry and services. Industry accounts for 46% of GDP and about 80% of exports and employs 28% of the labor force. Although exports remain the primary engine for Ireland's growth, the economy has also benefited from a rise in consumer spending, construction, and business investment. Per capita GDP is 10% above that of the four big European economies."
Ireland's culture didn't have to change ... only their economic policies.
" When the country stopped to be rural it created the vacuum to be filled by the state."
This seems a non sequitor. How does packing people into tigher spaces create a 'vacuum'? :-)
Again, I posit a different cause-and-effect.
The complex economy or urban development does NOT require Govt intervention, rather Govt intervention ends up resulting in certain social disorders and dislocations (e.g. 'underclass' is created, economy gets sluggish) than create a vicious cycle of further dependency and demand for Govt to 'fix' the problems it is partly responsible for.
Will someone please ask "Deepak" Zapatero wtf "cooperation and globalisation giving rise to more peace and justice" has to do with building an airplane?
I mean besides absolutely, positively, nothing whatsoever.
Found this amuzing news clip....
Toronto Sun 01/20/05
author: Gary Dunford
SKY CATTLE: How often have you dreamed of flying with 554 fellow passengers on a double-decker jetliner? Making 554 new friends in the frantic 90 minutes before check-in? Wildly goosing your chance of squeezing into dozens of new Middle Seats? Waiting to see if your bag is the 256th off the world's biggest jet, or the 555th?
I have not dreamed of this at all. Ever.
Yet Europe's Airbus Industries has dreamed about it for a decade and built its new, A380 jet for two. Next spring, these new giant jumbos will be in the air. When airlines cancel four smaller flights to save a buck between the most-travelled destinations on earth, you may have to get on one.
At a gala launch in Paris two days ago, the usual suspects promised A380 passengers a Grand New Era of Air Travel. Flying gyms! Cocktail lounges! Duty-free shops!
Big is better. Big is cheaper. Big is more room for your feet. Yawn.
SAME BUNK IN 1970S
If that rings a bell, it's because the same hooey was peddled in the 1970s when Boeing's 747 jumbo jet was launched. Never happened. Ask any of the millions of sky cattle loaded aboard them for two decades. As butts grew bigger, seat widths grew smaller.
David Letterman's Skybus 380 joke is that now there will be 30 bitchy male stewards instead of three. He should be so lucky.
Skybus A380's 10-across seating--three, four and three on the lower deck, with two aisles--is positive only in comparison to the nightmare 12-across design they began with. The jet is divided into subsections, so you can't see more than 100 other passengers. We doctors call it the 747 Flying Gym Syndrome. It scares people.
Do you think airlines that can't afford to feed you a half-frozen omelette are about to waste room on an in-flight jogging track, so you can work off that precious gift bag of dwarf pretzels? Or will they just pack in more seats?
Will the same airlines that won't let more than three people stand in wait for the next shot at a toilet (security!) encourage dozens to get up and stroll the sky in search of a Guinness?
JUST TWO OFFICERS
That there's only one access point from the lower deck (coach/steerage) to the upper level (executive) suggests it's cabin staff, not passengers, who'll be on the move round the plane.
With just two officers in the cockpit flying 555 fares, do you think airlines will make a lot of money? Do you see them spending that dough saying, okay let's buy everybody a tuna sandwich? Let's double the counter staffers to field problems?
Or is it more like ... everybody buys ticket online. Everybody uses dummy terminal at airport for check-in. Everybody tags own luggage. Everybody self-separates to two levels at yet-unbuilt new gates. Boarding takes more like an hour than 20 minutes. Unbuilt new carousels try to separate luggage by where you were in plane. Good luck. Repeat.
This is fine until it snows.
Or until the flight is delayed or cancelled.
There aren't 555 seats available for quick rerouting on other flights. To anywhere. Go home. Give up.
And prepare to take two planes. Airbus is counting on the continuation of the hub-and-spoke system for its new jumbo's success. The A380 flies only between hubs, with monster loads. Get on a second jet to find a spoke.
So much for city pairs or cutting the odds your bags end up somewhere else. Airline efficiency and convenience trumps customer desire for direct flights.
It will never snow. Nothing bad will ever happen.
MANY EMERGENCY EXITS
If you have seen Airplane, imagine 555 oxygen masks dangling on tube tentacles at the crucial air pressure moment.
Cabin attendants will remind passengers on the monster jet, your nearest exit may now be behind, above or below you.
There are 24 exits on two levels. Airbus designs show none of them are over a wing. Slide!
I nervously embrace progress--if that's what a 555-seat jet is.
But has anything about the air travel experience improved in your lifetime? Is the flight itself more often the pleasure or pain of any trip?
I rest my case
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.