BruceVC

Everybody who says that would be wrong. Theoretically near every economic system is 'fair and free' because that is what sells it to the masses who, whatever the system, will inevitably be the ones at the bottom. Yes, this is the silly argument that socialists would have to make in order to "say exactly the same thing" about socialism, but no, it's not the argument I'm making. Well.. we'll see. Frankly, I am expecting as idealised a system as 'perfect' socialism or any other kind of theoretical -ism but I'm open to persuasion. Well, I've seen, and I'm not persuaded. It's about as idealised a system as it's possible to get; where the magic hand of the market waves and everything is fair and free with no barriers, no conmen, no power aggregation or monopolies created and the glories of hard work and reticence are rewarded as they so richly deserve and laziness and profligacy are righteously punished. It's pretty much the exact (economic) flip side of anarcho marxism or anarcho syndicalism where it's easy to design a perfectly (theoretically) free and fair socialist system by hand waving- everybody gets an equal slice of the pie doled out monthly/ weekly and is free to spend that pie however they want with strict rules to prevent aggregation or graft; and enforcement officials who can only be elected once or are balloted. Couldn't get more hand waving in a Queen Liz montage- for either idealised system. I am not sure if you are being serious but I will treat this post as genuine as I have heard similar views It sounds like the perfect idea and it may be seem reasonable because its based on a system that is about true equality for all...how can anyone object to this type of idea? But there are several real problems with this type of utopia. Firstly human beings are not equal but this is actually one of our strengths. You will always get people who are more ambitious and others who are lazy. We excel when under pressure to be innovative .True socialism failed for a reason, the Cubans were probably the most sincere in there belief during the Cold War. I remember reading a good book called Conflicting Missions which was a fascinating and rare read about the Cuban military endeavors in Africa during the Cold War. And Cuba has special resonance for South Africa as we fought them in Angola, but all we knew about them was that they were ignorant zealots who had traveled from across the world to kill us and spread there inconceivable ideology...Communism But when I read that book I learnt new respect for them, they truly believed that Capitalism was a great repressive form of government, something evil and they really believed in a free and equal society through there view of socialism. And unlike the Russians and Chinese they held a belief in black Africans being uplifted and creating there own destiny ...so in some cases they spent years living and training certain African leaders and groups. They received no money and lived in jungles and were killed and suffered in numerous conflicts and all because they believed in this better life for Africa Of course the majority of African leaders had no real interest in socialism....they wanted wealth and frankly I can't blame them after the deprivations of colonialism. But they needed the Cubans so they played a part and pretended to believe in a" system where all would be treated equally and the wealth would be distributed ...unlike the greedy Capitalist " So a true equal society like some suggest just doesn't work because of human nature. Also you need certain people to take a lead and drive certain initiatives. Without this industrious many people would be happy to live a sub par existence or to unintentionally suffer ...so why go through all of this just to prove that for a year or two everyone is equal? And then when it falls apart or starts to deteriorate who fixes it ? Now you may say ....but who says it will fail ? It will ...it failed in Africa where you think it should have worked. No its best to accept that in life we need a system that motivates people and rewards them for hard work. That's the best way to get results from human beings. And we also have to accept that there will always be people who live a more difficult life ..but thats fine as we help people when we can

@ Magniloquent I have never really gone into detail with you about the history and reasons why the West and mainly the USA does certain things in the ME If you interested I can go into detail but it will be several paragraphs so I'll only make the post if you are interested but by the time I am finished much of what the USA does in the ME will make sense

I added the private in their. The simple answer is: I'm not sure what you mean. Care to give an example? Of private property or private property being a limiting entry into a market? Private property being a limiting factor to entry into a market. I think Baro's point was that even if he's generous enough to grant (not that he believes it; this is just a thought exercise) that "proper" free market capitalism could work without devolving into corporatism or being unfair in and of itself; what would be done about the the wealth that has been wrongfully acquired by the previous system? He presents us with two uncomfortable scenarios: A) Redistribute it to get an even playing field and start from scratch. -Don't even know where to begin in addressing why this option is so unpleasant. Suffice to say it'd be messy and likely would be the cause of BIG trouble. B) Just let the past be the past and try to move on allowing those who abused the previous system keep the wealth they've wrongly earned. -This option isn't all too pleasant either. It gives some of the worst of our society an unfair advantage not to mention is just a knife in the eye to justice. Not exactly appealing. To be honest I don't quite have an answer for this myself. It's kind of a no win scenario. I guess I'd default to B) but that answer doesn't seem right. I'd definitely be open to alternatives. I'm interested in Ineth's response cuz I'm kinda stumped. Clearly, I haven't spent enough time thinking about how to transition to a free market society. Or did I misunderstand you all together Baro? Nope, you got it spot on. Baro I'm glad you are commenting on this and I understand where you coming from even if I differ on my view . I have been told I come across as condescending and the result of that is certain people who differ with me ideologically just wont answer certain questions that I ask them. For example I have asked Zora and 2133 why they are anti-Western and neither of them responds ...and the reality is I am just trying to understand there view. Some people I get, like Sarex as he is Serbian and I know what motivates him and even though I don't agree with him I know why he resents the West And I enjoy debates with intelligent people on these forums...yes I mean intelligent so for example you and Zora will have different views but thats fine. But it doesn't help me if I come across dismissive and then no one who has a different and unusual view feels they want to engage with me. So I'm trying very hard to not be condescending but its hard as sometimes I dont mean to do it So I want to explain why redistribution is not as simple as it may seem and please tell me at the end where you disagree. I have some experience with this topic as this is something that comes up regularly in South Africa where many black people want land and things like mines returned to them as they feel this was stolen by the Colonialists I assume when you say redistribution you mean the indigenous people like the Aborigines ...is that correct? If not can you explain who you are referring to ?

Dude I respect the fact you spend time making these posts ...but I have to be honest I find it really hard to even agree with one thing you say No offense but I just don't think you understand the political dynamics of the ME ....there are no "good or evil " countries. The countries in the ME have there own ideological and religious objectives that most Westerners dont understand So yes ...Iran cannot be allowed to get a nuclear weapon because there is a historical and real conflict and tension between Shia and Sunni in the region. For me its not even the fact I am worried Iran will attack Israel...they know that would be suicidal. No the moment Iran gets a nuclear weapon of course the Sunni countries will need one. The USA is no longer completely aligned to the Sunni countries and Obama has wisely and difficulty realized that the USA needed to also negotiate with Iran in order for the USA to be able to stop getting involved in the ME Now I don't mean to be rude but if you don't realize how Iran getting a nuclear weapon would upset the region then I'm sorry you just don't understand the history and political reality of the region....and thats okay. Most people don't understand it because it is f***g confusing because many times certain countries do things that just dont make sense to us

No its fine I promise, its considered an average strip club in JHB...not that upmarket but the girls are friendly and don't mind you talking to them for hours if they enjoy your company and you dont act weird And for me if I can't talk to the girls there is no point so it works for me After some time they probably are all up to your SJW manhood, amrite? You see when I read a comment like this I am always reminded how many of you guys just don't understand me or don't go to strip clubs When I go to strip clubs why would I push any SJ agenda ? I go there to admire the female form and party but I treat the girls with absolute respect ....and you know what most of the girls really appreciate that. They are use to a certain level of either contempt or salaciousness from guys but when they meet someone who just seems to really want to chat but not in a weird way they appreciate it....and yes I wont lie of course this has benefits for me. They normally end up partying with me afterwards which is actually much harder to get right then it seems.

Capitalism sounds like a good idea until you realize that it only works when the gap between classes isn't to wide and there is mobility. Don't know why they keep arguing Capitalism thought, because what we have is a plutocracy that has been accurately described as social welfare for the wealthy. I think I covered my thoughts on that on previous threads, so I'll just say that systems are never the problem as they tend to be made with the best intentions to work under their circumstances. The monkey wrench its always the human element. One final note; people better get used to the idea of socialism as our spending capacity will soon not be able to keep up with production and some markets will shrink further decreasing spending power. Social planning to enable employment or to make basic necessities affordable to everyone will become a necessity as it will increasing taxes on companies and ensuring that they employ domestically. We might see a lot of capital outflow but with a boycott in place it would mean that the markets will be ripe for a takeover. Interesting post, whats your view on the gay marriage bill that was passed ?

So like I said, your own special brand of capitalism that hasn't been tried. Then you're blind. When you've got the divide between propertied and property-less, employee and wage-worker, master and servant there is going to repression by the former against the latter to maintain their position. Are you going to forcibly redistribute resources so everyone begins with a level start/actually has resources or are we going to leave things as is so those who already have the most wealth and power have greater freedom to exploit these privileges while the poor and hungry bend over for their economic masters. Depending on your own economic background I'm guessing you are either incredibly servile or a would-be tyrant. Baro I think you guys are talking past each other ...I agree with both of you for different reasons Everything Ineth says is true but you also right, there will always be people in a Capitalist society who will live in poverty ....but thats fine we accept that. We are not going to redistribute anything because the view of people who believe in free markets have a view that people need to gain there own opportunities...they can't expect others to do it for them And if they can't for a variety of reasons then yes they won't have the same quality of life as others ...and I'm not judging people for there circumstances. I'm saying this is the reality of a Capitalist society...but the good outweighs the bad

I added the private in their. The simple answer is: I'm not sure what you mean. Care to give an example? Namutree you thought the gay marriage bill was a step to far by the federal government ? I know you support gay rights but this more about the perceived interference by the federal government ...is that right ?

Oby how is your economy doing ? I am sorry for the reality of your economy but you did bring this on yourselves ...Putin can turn this around. He needs to pull out of Eastern Ukraine ...you can keep Crimea. I don't understand why governments battle to understand this ...very few countries can sustain or grow there economy when there is risk or instability. And there aren't even severe sanctions...what you feeling is just the impact of the initial nervousness..it could be much worse. And then add the falling Oil price ... http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/11/news/economy/russia-crissis-gdp/index.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-19/russia-rewrites-blueprint-for-growth-as-recession-dooms-consumer http://finance.yahoo.com/news/russia-recession-growth-contracted-4-173911831.html;_ylt=A0LEV0PP0NdVUDYAezNXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEyZWZrdWhnBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwM1BHZ0aWQDQjA0OTNfMQRzZWMDc3I-

GD " waves " Where you been? Everyone said you had been arrested by the Feds ...we missed you Not an unlikely explanation. I just disconnected from things for a while. GD I need to ask you something, what is your view on Trump? We have been discussing him. Obviously I support the Democrats and Clinton but I am keen for your view ..please be detailed

GD " waves " Where you been? Everyone said you had been arrested by the Feds ...we missed you

They're not forms of socialism. They're capitalist whether or not they're eager to admit it. Obviously, there's some socialism there just like everywhere, but far less than normal. So how would you explain Scandinavia ranking better in competition, ease of making buisness, lower corruption, democratic participation and on and on...? We've had much much stricter government oversight and taxation than you guys for basically 150 years. Shouldn't we have devovled into totalitarian states by now? By your definitions...Scandinavian countries have for the most part free-markets. All of them rank high in freest market ratings I've ever seen. How is socialism incompatible with a market, assuming that by market you mean exchange of goods for money or other goods? I suppose there isn't any innate incompatibility between socialism and markets (although there are no shortage of socialists who oppose markets of any kind); the incompatibility is toward *free* markets which include things like private property and tolerance toward hierarchical institutions like private businesses. But isn't property a limiting factor into entering a market? Especially in cases of intellectual property. Some examples of the differences between the Scandinavian countries and the USA would be Very high taxes in the Scandinavian countries but excellent and working institutions like education and healthcare. This is very important ..its a bizarre thought for people that live outside the USA to think that there are people in the USA who suffer medically just because they have limited healthcare There are not many billionaires or super rich people in the Scandinavian countries compared to the USA ..of course there are rich people but there society is more equal The Scandanvians believe in the role of there goverment in most cases, they don't see it like many Americans do where you feel the federal goverment is interferring in the affairs of some states. For example when the US Supreme Court passed the gay marriage law many people outside the USA thought "about time ...welcome to the rest of the West " not realizing that many Americans felt the Federal government has gone to far Our friends who live there can disagree with me but those are some of the differences

So how would you explain Scandinavia ranking better in competition, ease of making buisness, lower corruption, democratic participation and on and on...? We've had much much stricter government oversight and taxation than you guys for basically 150 years. Shouldn't we have devovled into totalitarian states by now? By your definitions...Scandinavian countries have for the most part free-markets. All of them rank high in freest market ratings I've ever seen. How is socialism incompatible with a market, assuming that by market you mean exchange of goods for money or other goods? You see that's the salient point, you can have forms of socialism like the Scandinavian countries and it works and they have free markets and successful Capitalist industries But it would never work in the USA because in order for it work you would have to have the federal government get much more involved in your states and it seems many Americans don't like this idea

WOD we actually share many similar views on topics like the relevance of Capitalism and free markets So you mustn't think we differ in everything Venezuela was an experiment that went horribly wrong, it only was able to sustain itself under Chavez and that was due to his personality and ideological influence He believed he could create a new form of government that was vociferously anti-Western, socialist and had advantages that " no Western " country had ...like the almost free oil But he made the same mistake Russia made, he was dependent on Oil and never considered what would happen if the oil price crashed. He also brutally controlled or suppressed any political dissension...this was not sustainable and when he died the underlying problems became very noticeable and impacted Venezuela immediately But Venezuela was a unique socialist experiment,very few leaders would be so impudent around governance

Those "safe guards" will not prevent monopolies. They will be used to create and protect monopolies. Good business' do that on their own and the few buffoons who don't (when the option to do so is present) wont last long. Saying that the public sector is dysfunctional and the private sector is keeping the economy afloat is like saying that people in your country breathe oxygen. I'm not with you ? Are you saying its obvious that about South Africa ?

BTW, what traditions are we going to follow? Cuz I'm trying to praise the sun but it's cloudy outside. Oh Orog I was watching the opening of the American embassy in Cuba and they had this festival and these Cuban dancing girls ...and oh my hat these girls were smoking hot ,,,dude Cuban girls are nice, you should never have left

That seems detrimental to freedom. Or is that not a goal? I'll just leave it here and throw some seeds with the video below, i have derailed long enough. Whats your definition of " Traditionalism " ...please go into detail but in the context of Finland and what you would change and why ?

It's not like there's some dramatic backstory. I come from poverty stricken white trash and I read a lot. Okay thanks for sharing, I wasn't necessarily expecting a complicated story but if for example you said to me " I am from Serbia " then ultimately our views of the West would be very different. That doesn't mean we wouldn't get on of course So what you need to know about why I support the West and free markets is because I live and work in a continent that has the greatest levels of poverty in the world...and this poverty exists for several reasons but one of the main reasons is because of the lack of economic opportunities caused by the failure to implement free markets and lack of good governance So I see on a daily basis what happens in world without Capitalism ..its not pretty

You a strange one Zora What is your ideal system of government in the world at the moment ?

Ah yes the "my perfect version of capitalism would not have these flaws" meme. Do tell has there ever existed a period wherein capitalism did not rely on repression and authoritarianism or is this just limited to the realm of theory? Baro I have asked you this before but you never answered, I'm not trying to catch you out and you and I have very similar views on many topics so you do know I respect your view But where does this anti-Capitalism come from? Are you originally from Oz..what is your fundamental reason for this dislike of Capitalism..I am genuinely interested ?

No its fine I promise, its considered an average strip club in JHB...not that upmarket but the girls are friendly and don't mind you talking to them for hours if they enjoy your company and you dont act weird And for me if I can't talk to the girls there is no point so it works for me

I tell you something else coincidental since you seem interested I knew her from the strip club she worked at http://www.lollipoplounge.co.za/ But I never overdo the whole friendship with the girls ..I will party with them but not see too much of them because our lifestyles are fundamentally different and we have different goals

And capitalism is not? If you use the word capitalism to refer to the worst manifestations of the mixed-economy corporatism of today's Western world, then sure. If you use it to refer to an actual free-market system, then no, it would not be those things. Same to you. Corporatocracy and repressive monopolies are possible today because of a large government and its oversized jungle of rules and regulation, not in spite of it. Without regulation companies just get bigger and bigger, and explot their workers more and more. Wages get pushed lower and lower in order to compete, and people can't just buy from a smaller company that does things better because wages have been pushed so low that the only option is the cheaper prices of the giant company that can afford to sell for cheaper. I don't believe that economies should be planned, but I do think there need to be safeguards in place to protect workers and prevent monopolies, but at the same time, essential services such as power and health care should have a public option so everyone can afford it regardless of income or social status. Sure I don't disagree but no one wants that type of Capitalism I also agree that there needs to be a balance between profitability and working conditions but in my country we have a issue where the trade unions have become an aberration and are directly impacting the economic transformation. Our public sector is under huge pressure and many parastatals are dysfunctional but the private sector where I work is profitable and is actually what is keeping the country economically afloat But I do believe you should get paid what you contribute ...an uneducated mine worker despite the hard conditions can't expect a huge salary especially when you consider the global falling commodity prices and the Chinese economic slowdown Someone working a full time job shouldn't have to live in poverty either. I agree that someone who works longer with more education should make more, but a full time worker should be able to afford both food AND shelter. You see living in Africa we face very different social and economic challengers to what you are talking about and are use to, I'll try to explain Mine workers in South Africa for example are normally uneducated but hard working, most of them can't even read. We haven't mechanized our mines like you guys so our mine workers literally work underground for 8 hours breaking rock Over the last few years the various trade unions have become more and more unreasonable and intransigent. Despite the fact many of the mines aren't nearly as profitable as they use to be or they just aren't profitable the trade unions still demant 9%-15 % salary increases and other demands. They are basically anti-Capitalism and opposed to the large corporations and always criticize them and use rhetoric like " greedy white mine owners who abuse there workers " ....and I work in the private sector and for large corporations so even though I work in the financial sector I have immense sympathy for the mining sector as the trade unions have often wanted to target the financial sector, which is very profitable, and claim the banking sector needs to " transform" which is just annoying Anyway where I'm going with this story is in South Africa people like the mine workers always demand more and more and don't understand how a basic balance sheet works ...so they don't care if a mine is running at a loss and there protracted strikes effect investor confidence. So my issue is not about them being able to buy a nice house ..sadly thats just not there economic reality So how would you explain Scandinavia ranking better in competition, ease of making buisness, lower corruption, democratic participation and on and on...? We've had much much stricter government oversight and taxation than you guys for basically 150 years. Shouldn't we have devovled into totalitarian states by now? By your definitions... Edit: in any case - I'd love to see an America with much more power given back to the individual states.. Your strength is your pluralism, centralization doesn't seem to fit you as well as us of a more Germanic mindset.. Perhaps its some of that Italian ancestry, they never could handle it either.. Yes as I have mentioned you guys have the best system of government overall ..I really admire it but it requires a high employment rate. But your average American will consider your system too socialist and your government having too much control. I don't agree but I know the way our American friends think

I like the way you always read articles and understand the context...I was hoping you would read those links so now I can explain further Its a sad story what happened to Dustin, the guy that was killed, his wife died giving birth to his twins and he obviously went through a severe and understandable depression. Its unusual for a women in our modern age to die in childbirth ..anyway he met that stripper on a dating website Now of course I am not suggesting that people you meet on these dating websites are going to try to kill you but this is a example of how bad things can go So going back to my original point these websites are not always just about " dating " someone. This was the point I was making to Volo

No this was just an example ..but don't kid yourself cheating on your partner in this way using this type of website and opportunities can lead to many bad things....its not always harmless Check this story, I knew the guy who was killed http://ewn.co.za/2014/03/26/Accused-confesses-to-Dustin-Bloms-murder http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/ex-stripper-held-for-montecasino-murder-1.1582682#.VdeEBfmqoqM