Nothing Threatens the Future as Much as Debts from the Past

[PLAYER57832]

We came a long way precisely because of that progressive movement you consider so evil.

That's what I like about you Player, you just barely trip the irony meter at Aleph Null. I mean, really, all this talk about "my facts" and "your opinions" and here you trow this whopper of an unmeasurable opinion.

And the notion that the majority of the post wasn't written by me but by Woodrow Wilson.

Well... see, my "disputed facts" are the difference between life in the 1920's and 30's for most of America... and now.

Posting all the evidence would take time, and since you have not bothered to actually counter any of the evidence I presented earlier, just went off on tangents, I cannot be bothered... at least not until you actually answer a few of my previous posts factually, and actually look into the sources for your "information".

[PLAYER57832]

What sets China apart is that they actually plan for their society persisting more than just 10 years down the road. The US bows to corporations that cannot bother, are not capable of looking more than 5 years down the road.

Lots of nations had a long term plan and many of those nations no longer exist. There are a lot of factors that paved the way for China's "growth" in recent years. Interesting to discuss, but the point is at present the great China is starting to fizzle. Chinese economy is slowing fast as manufactoring contracts - Herald Sun

CHINA'S economic slowdown is getting worse with manufacturing activity contracting for an 11th consecutive month as demand weakens in the face of global uncertainty, according to a key private-sector report.

The monthly HSBC purchasing managers' index rose to 47.9 in September, a mild improvement from the previous month, but still below the 50-point divide that indicates the expansion-contracting line.

And you don't even realize you are proving my point, not countering. Its a mostly western idea that perpetual growth is achievable or desirable.

[tzor]

And you don't even realize you are proving my point, not countering. Its a mostly western idea that perpetual growth is achievable or desirable.

Perhaps, or it could be that your point is so hidden and mysterious that either few people can see it or that it changes on a day by day basis. I thought your point was about the glory of long term central planning.

What sets China apart is that they actually plan for their society persisting more than just 10 years down the road.

China's long term plan wasn't about boom and bust cycles; it was about long term growth. So you can't have it both ways; you have to go with the linear growth model of central planning or the cyclical nature of the markets. I would disagree with you on one point; perpetual growth (in the long term average) is certainly possible and certainly desirable, because technology itself promotes that growth. Example: "Napoleon III of France is reputed to have given a banquet where the most honoured guests were given aluminium utensils, while the others made do with gold." Today it is a metal we use in beverage cans.

If you believe in the inevibility of cycles, you need to believe and trust more in the free market than central planning, because the central planners never see the event comming and react too slowly.

They say that if the spotters on the Titanic had spotted the iceburg, 5 seconds eariler, the ship would have missed the ice.

They say that if the spotters on the Titanic had spotted the iceburg 5 seconds later, the iceburg would have hit the ship head on, crushing at most 2 of the 5 compartments needed to sink the ship.

But they spotted it just right and the Titanic side swiped the iceburg tearing enough compartments to sink the ship.

Timing is everything. Central planners simply can't time anything. Sometimes just hitting the iceburg is the best solution.

[PLAYER57832]

What sets China apart is that they actually plan for their society persisting more than just 10 years down the road.

China's long term plan wasn't about boom and bust cycles; it was about long term growth. So you can't have it both ways; you have to go with the linear growth model of central planning or the cyclical nature of the markets.

I see. and you can carry this model out for what... 10 years? at most. China thinks in centuries, not years.

I would disagree with you on one point; perpetual growth (in the long term average) is certainly possible and certainly desirable, because technology itself promotes that growth. Example: "Napoleon III of France is reputed to have given a banquet where the most honoured guests were given aluminium utensils, while the others made do with gold." Today it is a metal we use in beverage cans.

bacteria in a test tube. Bacteria in a test tube....

If you believe in the inevibility of cycles, you need to believe and trust more in the free market than central planning, because the central planners never see the event comming and react too slowly.

Free markets don't plan at all. They are quite happy to destroy the future of everyone around in order to gain a small profit for the folks at the top.

Many central planners, similarly, are very vested in their own particular futures.

They say that if the spotters on the Titanic had spotted the iceburg, 5 seconds eariler, the ship would have missed the ice.

They say that if the spotters on the Titanic had spotted the iceburg 5 seconds later, the iceburg would have hit the ship head on, crushing at most 2 of the 5 compartments needed to sink the ship.

But they spotted it just right and the Titanic side swiped the iceburg tearing enough compartments to sink the ship.

Timing is everything. Central planners simply can't time anything. Sometimes just hitting the iceburg is the best solution.

hmm... and by what magic do you imagine that the market will somehow protect the Gulf of Mexico from another oil disaster.. or even just fix the damage already done?

Sure, you can accomplish a lot when you ignore negative consequences. That's normally called "propoganda", not "truth", but when its business.. suddenly we are to believe that a free flow of information just magically happens, and all the players just willingly "do the right thing" and everything magically works out when the big guys are making their money.

Except.. it turns out that the real world markets are really just another form of controlled economy... but controlled for a bigger group of people.

And none of that has to do with why China will likely rise above the west in the next several decades.

[tzor]

I love it when Player has a progressive hissy fit. Throwing out stale talking points from progressive la la land like an escaping octopus throws out ink.

As Sean Hannity says, "Republicans want dirty air, dirty water and kids with autism and Down's syndrome." In Player's case it's "Capitalists want dirty air, dirty water, and dead people." After all, what about the Gulf of Mexico? What would prevent it from another disaster? Well what caused that disaster? Was it really unchained capitalism, or was it just another half assed over regulated industry by the incompitent gloriously progressive federal government?

What has that got to do with central planning over letting economic cycles have their course is, of course, beyond both me and the logical casual observer, but who really cares.

China, has a one hundred year plan! (Take that you primitive USSR, we pwn you for long range plans.)

So what is the real difference between the capitalist and the central planner? The former uses his own money and the later uses someone elses. You cannot slander one without slandering the other. The difference is that there are many capitalists and only one central planner. (In fact monoplies cannot form unless goverment makes it possible.) Capitalism certainly isn't perfect, but it sure as hell beats your alternative and does so every time.

[Symmetry]

I love it when Player has a progressive hissy fit. Throwing out stale talking points from progressive la la land like an escaping octopus throws out ink.

As Sean Hannity says...

When you started throwing a hissy fit about Player was the first of your problems, quoting Sean Hannity as a trusted source was the icing on your cake of madness.

The icing also being mad.

It was mad icing.

[tzor]

When you started throwing a hissy fit about Player was the first of your problems, quoting Sean Hannity as a trusted source was the icing on your cake of madness.

Tell me how you feel about Sean Hannity. How long has this anger existed?

Let's see, my first quote was Robert P. Murphy Ph.D. and I've also quoted sources from Hillsdale College, but meh, whatever.

I think my only hissy fit was "I hate IE." I tend to do that often.

[PLAYER57832]

I love it when Player has a progressive hissy fit. Throwing out stale talking points from progressive la la land like an escaping octopus throws out ink.

As Sean Hannity says, "Republicans want dirty air, dirty water and kids with autism and Down's syndrome." In Player's case it's "Capitalists want dirty air, dirty water, and dead people." After all, what about the Gulf of Mexico? What would prevent it from another disaster? Well what caused that disaster? Was it really unchained capitalism, or was it just another half assed over regulated industry by the incompitent gloriously progressive federal government?

Capitalism wants profit. That is the definition of Capitalism. The rest is politics.

See, the problem with you right-wingers is you want to frame EVERYTHING into a "liberal versus capitalism" framework". It doesn't work.

What has that got to do with central planning over letting economic cycles have their course is, of course, beyond both me and the logical casual observer, but who really cares.

Well, what it has to do with it is obvious, but of course.. you said it yourself. You don't care, you just want to claim you are superior.

China, has a one hundred year plan! (Take that you primitive USSR, we pwn you for long range plans.)

And name a US company that does....

So what is the real difference between the capitalist and the central planner? The former uses his own money and the later uses someone elses. You cannot slander one without slandering the other. The difference is that there are many capitalists and only one central planner. (In fact monoplies cannot form unless goverment makes it possible.) Capitalism certainly isn't perfect, but it sure as hell beats your alternative and does so every time.

The difference is neither.
The difference between China and the US is that China remembers it has existed for over 5000 years, and has real expectation to continue and, once again, reach superiority.

The US likes to claim it is already superior.. and if it slides, its simply because some idiot liberals have demanded too much from the free market big corporations.

[tzor]

Capitalism wants profit. That is the definition of Capitalism. The rest is politics.

People want profit. The definition of Capitalism is the investment of property (capital) so as to get a return on that investment.

See, the problem with you right-wingers is you want to frame EVERYTHING into a "liberal versus capitalism" framework". It doesn't work.

Actually I want to frame it as a monopolistic progressive thing vs a polyphonic free market thing.

The difference between China and the US is that China remembers it has existed for over 5000 years, and has real expectation to continue and, once again, reach superiority.

This is a "Fillder on the Roof" syndone. China has not "existed" for 5000 years. You can no more compare the current communist country to the Ming dynesty than you can compare the current Federal Government to the Five Nations of the Iriquois. Governments and economic systems rise and fall all the time. Just because you can trace people down from one generation to the next does not make either their current economic system or their current form of government planning "superior." Besides, I thought you liberals tended to object when Americans bring up 5,000 year old things like the Ten Commandments, in their arguments.

The US likes to claim it is already superior.. and if it slides, its simply because some idiot liberals have demanded too much from the free market big corporations.

We claim we are "exceptional," meaning "the exception." If we slide it is because we are responsible for the sliding.

The hardest thing for a progressive to understand is that fundamentally there is no real difference between a "big corporation" and a "big government." You just replace one label with another. Monopolies flat out suck and never work. The Federal Government is a monopoly of sots. The State Governments are also "big" but there are 50 of them in competition with each other. The problem is not size, the problem is in numbers.

[BigBallinStalin]

I love it when Player has a progressive hissy fit. Throwing out stale talking points from progressive la la land like an escaping octopus throws out ink.

As Sean Hannity says, "Republicans want dirty air, dirty water and kids with autism and Down's syndrome." In Player's case it's "Capitalists want dirty air, dirty water, and dead people." After all, what about the Gulf of Mexico? What would prevent it from another disaster? Well what caused that disaster? Was it really unchained capitalism, or was it just another half assed over regulated industry by the incompitent gloriously progressive federal government?

Capitalism wants profit. That is the definition of Capitalism. The rest is politics.

Capitalism = wants profit.
All others = politics.

<scratches head>

hmm....

"Capitalism" isn't a useful term as far as seeking the truth goes. It's a bogeyman which is perfect for (un)intentional straw man arguments that in turn reinforce erroneous worldviews.

[Nobunaga]

See, the problem with you right-wingers is you want to frame EVERYTHING into a "liberal versus capitalism" framework". It doesn't work.

... It absolutely works, so long as we accept capitalism to mean an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.

... Every argument you and the statists/libs of your mindset make sets up the next victim in your endless parade of them, then seeks to relieve that victim of their problems through the confiscation by government of the labor (wages) and property of others.

... Probably 90%, if not more of the political arguments on this site can be boiled down to just that. Very simple really.

...