Forum Thread

G-20 Hamburg Germany Economic Summit

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 16 - 25 of 25 Prev 1 2
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    The terms capitalism and socialism are thrown in emotional rants with minimal understanding of their definitions. The fact is just about every country in the world has elements of both capitalism and socialism. The degree of blending varies.

    Take China for example. From a 2014 Pew Research study...

    China’s government may be communist, but its people embrace capitalism

    "While China’s government may be officially communist, the Chinese people express widespread support for capitalism. Roughly three-quarters of the Chinese (76%) agree that most people are better off in a free market economy. And since 2002, the Chinese have consistently been one of the strongest proponents of capitalism compared with other publics around the world, even more so than Americans and Western Europeans."

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    The terms are just descriptions of systems with various fundamental differences. . The actual execution by individuals determines the worth and fairness of the terms. The most socialist of countries other than China has private ownership of industry. Capitalism thrives in Denmark and Finland and the Netherlands. It is just executed more fairly in those countries.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    The terms capitalism and socialism are thrown in emotional rants with minimal understanding of their definitions. The fact is just about every country in the world has elements of both capitalism and socialism. The degree of blending varies.

    Take China for example. From a 2014 Pew Research study...

    China’s government may be communist, but its people embrace capitalism

    "While China’s government may be officially communist, the Chinese people express widespread support for capitalism. Roughly three-quarters of the Chinese (76%) agree that most people are better off in a free market economy. And since 2002, the Chinese have consistently been one of the strongest proponents of capitalism compared with other publics around the world, even more so than Americans and Western Europeans."

    Schmidt read my piece; "what the people want or what the governments want or do" are two different things also in China.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote:

    No Lonely; their government base is not capitalistic as it is here. Sure they have plenty of companies who do business here and elsewhere. As with any company they have to make profit; however in Europe the lobby system is not allowed in government affairs like here. No NRA's etc. who have influence on law making. So again the government system there is not as corrupt as here; multiple parties create an better balance in governing as well prevents polarization. As well as straight forward "voting" without money or "electoral colleges". Furthermore "no Super Pac's or billions of money just to do elections,which corrupts everything. Capitalism is the overtone here; Socialism is the overtone in Western Europe. I've never seen so many institutions here who beg for money, because the social structure from the government side is defunct. Thus sorry the US is an super capitalistic country, not western Europe. Sure there are plenty of European industries who produce great products but pay their workers decent wages as well apprentice training and great healthcare. If you talked to the Dutch Akzo Nobel then you should know, that the social benefits over there are much better than here, including pension benefits and family leave etc. Sorry the US is still in the stone age related to "social" services done by the government here and certainly is even more reduced by the Trump dictatorship. Compare the number of "billionaires" in our government to the number in Sweden in their government. Don't let me laugh.

    Guess what; the huge demonstrations during the G19 were against "capitalism" ( did you see the signs?)

    Note: China and Russia are much more capitalistic than western Europe, but related to "services" to people and government structure they both remain "communistic"

    Again you are wrong. As were the protesters. Europe has REGULATED capitalism, far more regulated than the U.S. The individual state governments have established safety nets for their citizenry to varying degrees. In addition we can see that Europe fell for financialized capitalism by the collapse of the so-called PIIGS when the Great Recession hit. And we also note the anti-socialist European Union damaged Southern Europe due to the spending/debt requirements attached to the Euro. When states reduce their sovereignty by agreeing to a common currency they can no longer utilize debt and currency devaluation as a tool. The political-social system that European state governments use is socialized democracy. The political economy is capitalism. The political-social system attempts and for the most part succeeds in mitigating the worse elements of capitalism. However the European Union, a wet dream of Von Hayek, has features in its political economy that are at odds with the political-social system of many of the individual nations which has resulted in the disharmony over debt for the periphery and the attempted wielding of power over the periphery by the center, primarily Germany and to a lesser degree France. This is the financial aspect of capitalism writ large.

    I have stated that the social safety nets of the various nations are far superior to the U.S. However that does not change the fact that the political economy of Europe is capitalism. And it doesn't change the fact that capital in the form of large corporations and those who are behind them seek to roll back the regulations and social safety net the nation's have put in place. Look at the NHS in the U.K. Private insurers from the U.S. are playing a large roll in the attempts to destroy the NHS.

    As for Russia you are correct to a large degree. However Russia is also a criminal kleptocratic enterprise where if you are loyal to Dear Leader (my term) you can basically do as you please. Dear Leader then uses agitprop with visions of lost empire to distract the populace from economic deprivation. The PRC is a different story. They are not communistic. There are concerns over their healthcare system again between the periphery (rural) and the center (eastern large urban centers). They have internal migration issues and they are highly concerned with social stability. Millions have been lifted out of poverty but millions more remain in poverty in the PRC. Even state capitalism directed downward has winners and losers. Europe has come closest of all who practice capitalism to mitigating its internal, inherent flaws. And Europe must remain on guard. But do not think for a second that Europe is not capitalist. They most assuredly are.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    The terms capitalism and socialism are thrown in emotional rants with minimal understanding of their definitions. The fact is just about every country in the world has elements of both capitalism and socialism. The degree of blending varies.

    Take China for example. From a 2014 Pew Research study...

    China’s government may be communist, but its people embrace capitalism

    "While China’s government may be officially communist, the Chinese people express widespread support for capitalism. Roughly three-quarters of the Chinese (76%) agree that most people are better off in a free market economy. And since 2002, the Chinese have consistently been one of the strongest proponents of capitalism compared with other publics around the world, even more so than Americans and Western Europeans."

    I would say better off in a market economy, a regulated market economy. A free market as described by Von Hayek and Friedman is a nightmare waiting to happen. The people of the PRC as most people confuse communism and capitalism as complete and utter opposite absolutes. Marx envisioned a system where labor ruled over a society where the state withered away, his words. Capitalist utopian envisioned a society, excuse me, an amorphous blob of people, where anyone can do anything and the state doesn't exist or exists minimally. Both are useless utopian dreams that will never take place. The danger of the capitalist dream is that wealth will wield power over non-wealth without the state as a countervailing force. The danger of communism is that people will never agree to it and will not be forced into a system that inherently chokes out innovation. The truth lies in the Middle and that is the ground that must be fought for.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    I guess we differ of opinion; I lived there, did you? Sorry to say "capitalism" was introduced in Europe after WWII thanks to the US. Rebuilding Europe was done with US capital ( Marshall Plan). The point I'm making is that "capitalism" in this country is an curse; it creates "corruption" and "greed", The European (what you call capitalism) is absolutely not the same; people there are not in "love" with money like here, but rather have an enjoyable life and environment. Thus the "mentality" is not "capitalistic" . Every country uses "money" one way or another, which does not mean they are therefore "capitalistic" It totally depends on how the "money" is spent; does it serve most of the people or only a few "billonaires" as here, who are barely taxed. I do not consider an government "capitalistic" if its structure serves "all" the people from the bottom up.

    What we have here right now is an real "capitalistic" structure, which does barely serve the people, but rather spends it on the rich, wars, and war toys and other waste ( giving dictators millions like Maliki in Iraq) and playing with billions of bank loans "as playing cards" as the Trumps and the rich do etc. You have to look at it from what the governments do, versus what ends up where; war junk versus healthcare etc.

    Looking for excuses and pointing fingers to Europe or other countries does not help; we created our own shit as well self inflicted wounds because of our system here. The result is having an "mob boss" as "leader"

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote:

    I guess we differ of opinion; I lived there, did you? Sorry to say "capitalism" was introduced in Europe after WWII thanks to the US. Rebuilding Europe was done with US capital ( Marshall Plan). The point I'm making is that "capitalism" in this country is an curse; it creates "corruption" and "greed", The European (what you call capitalism) is absolutely not the same; people there are not in "love" with money like here, but rather have an enjoyable life and environment. Thus the "mentality" is not "capitalistic" . Every country uses "money" one way or another, which does not mean they are therefore "capitalistic" It totally depends on how the "money" is spent; does it serve most of the people or only a few "billonaires" as here, who are barely taxed. I do not consider an government "capitalistic" if its structure serves "all" the people from the bottom up.

    What we have here right now is an real "capitalistic" structure, which does barely serve the people, but rather spends it on the rich, wars, and war toys and other waste ( giving dictators millions like Maliki in Iraq) and playing with billions of bank loans "as playing cards" as the Trumps and the rich do etc. You have to look at it from what the governments do, versus what ends up where; war junk versus healthcare etc.

    Looking for excuses and pointing fingers to Europe or other countries does not help; we created our own shit as well self inflicted wounds because of our system here. The result is having an "mob boss" as "leader"

    It doesn't matter whether or not I have lived in Europe. Capitalism existed in Europe before ww2. Keynes was British. He wrote (I may have the title wrong) The Economic Consequences of the Peace because he knew what would happen when the allies punished Germany with reparations after ww1. He was right. Your failure in this discussion lies with the actual definitions of capitalism and socialism. European nations are in many instances democratic socialist governments. These are GOVERNMENTS that produce programs and regulations designed for the good of the whole. They generally require high tax rates to fund them. The POLITICAL ECONOMY of these nations is capitalist in that private property and private ownership of the means of production exist and are protected by a legal system which recognizes those rights. The singular most critical issue is that the capitalist political economy is regulated. The spending of government tax revenue does not determine socialism or capitalism unless the government owns the means of production which European governments generally do not. Of course that is not always the case. If we look at Statoil we see that while a publicly traded company (another sign of capitalism) its largest shareholder is the Norwegian government. The economies of Europe are best described as mixed. Private property is respected as is private ownership of production in most instances. Regulations are placed upon capital.

    Let us agree that regulated economies provide the best result for the citizenry while providing tax revenues for social programs established by the government for the whole of the people. At the same time the people are free to start businesses should they so desire or to work for someone else with a safety net in place that protects them. That safety net is under attack by finance because capital wanting return over all other considerations is chaffing under the social democratic government model.

    As for real capitalist structure what we have now in the U.S. is the deterioration and deliberate destruction of the relatively mixed economy that was put in place in response to the Great Depression by FDR. FDR saved capitalism from itself. Those who wish for the Friedmanite/Von Hayek model need only look at the first Gilded Age as well as the societies of Russia Pre-revolution and other nations which had large concentrations of wealth at one end and large masses off people at the other. The European model of mixed capitalism provides for much more of a stable civil society than the free market is ever capable of. I applaud it. and I applaud your support of it. I simply think that accuracy is neccessary in words. and the accurate word to describe the political economy of most of Europe is capitalism. Regulated, mixed for certain, thank god or whoever, but capitalism nonetheless.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Lonely, I agree in an lot of what you say; however in Europe they don't think that way; that is why Americans who never lived there for an long time don't understand the culture there. Most Americans have only "book" knowledge but not "practical" knowledge of the rest of the world. Sorry, Europeans never use the word "capitalistic" on the street, other than pointing to this corrupt country.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote: Lonely, I agree in an lot of what you say; however in Europe they don't think that way; that is why Americans who never lived there for an long time don't understand the culture there. Most Americans have only "book" knowledge but not "practical" knowledge of the rest of the world. Sorry, Europeans never use the word "capitalistic" on the street, other than pointing to this corrupt country.

    I'll agree with that but the definition of socialism has become twisted, distorted and bent beyond recognition. It is similar to the PRC calling themselves a communist country when they are far from it. Either way the governmental system prevalent in much of Europe that deflects, minimizes and limits the inherent flaws of capitalism is preferable to the idiocy of the Chicago and Austrian Schools which Republicans slowly introduced with Reagan and Democrats foolishly refused to fight as evidenced by Clinton.

    Still I support what you support so I guess the rhetoric don't matter that much here. It does with policy makers though. ;) :)

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Thanks lonely,in that respect we think alike; all people should be able to have enjoyment of living; society forces you to accept things which does not fit that pattern, such as wars, discrimination, greed, awful laws, police brutality, bad health due to ruining the environment and pushing pills/drugs, killing beautiful animals, like the Trump boys do, or rich dentists do etc. such things take away the enjoyment of life. Like I said in Europe it seems that people enjoy life more, than here, because of the "money god" here; everything for "money" , but once they have it like the rich, they are still not happy with it and still do not really enjoy it because a small yacht is not enough, we want an bigger one. etc.