tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post1620334271715279676..comments2024-03-23T12:05:13.464-07:00Comments on Ideas: A Small MistakeDavid Friedmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06543763515095867595noreply@blogger.comBlogger111125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-88508385212198800442014-09-22T15:01:16.165-07:002014-09-22T15:01:16.165-07:00Socialism is the inevitable end of capitalism, so ...Socialism is the inevitable end of capitalism, so why the animus? The socialist commonwealth is just around the corner when the workers shrug off the yoke of capitalism, hold hands and rejoice at the collective ownership of capital. The problem of economic calculation being shrugged off with capitalism, scarcity of resources, subjective value, market risk and even the specialization of labor need not be observed as the universe comes to a perfect stand still and everyone lives in a near constant state of bliss. No one will ever disagree, tolerance will abide. Oh, and the Lord of the Rings is just a story about some hairy midgets out for a stroll.alaska3636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-30413089908788675322014-09-22T12:01:03.815-07:002014-09-22T12:01:03.815-07:00You said look at "any example in history"...You said look at "any example in history" to see the failures of planning. Are you saying that planning has never worked? S Korea, Japan, England?<br /><br />West Germany had the world's most powerful economy pumping money into it to rebuild it in order to combat the Soviet Union. But do a fair comparison. Take the countries that weren't being propped up by a Marshall Plan, like the places in Latin America where the US did not feel the need to prop them up. Take say Haiti vs Czechoslovakia. Where would you rather have lived?<br /><br />Hong Kong is the place where all the wealth in China fled because Mao was confiscating property. The best, brightest, wealthiest, most privileged went there. China would be a complete back water in comparison. Hong Kong was basically Wall St. The financial hub to the east. They had some advantages that I think makes the comparison poor.<br /><br />The growth the US experienced during the planning years of WWII and subsequent years of heavy government sponsored investment, which led to things like computers, the internet, satellite communications, lasers, commercial aviation, automation, this growth was not just debt and inflation, it was real growth. Real standard of living improvements for Americans, the best in our history.<br /><br />The Asian tigers as they are often called were handled much differently than Latin America because of the threat of the appeal of communism, so these capitalists states (Japan, S Korea, Singapore, Taiwan) were compelled, sometimes through extreme violence, to stick with capitalism, and capitalism that not only made the rich rich but made others rich as well. That is, managed capitalism, kind of the Keynsian variety. The idea is that if the people end up better off they won't be enticed to function like the Soviet Union.<br /><br />The differences in EU are for similar reasons. The US rebuilt these nations to prevent them from becoming socialist. To see what a place would look like without US economic support see Latin America.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-82615038342773252372014-09-21T11:40:01.781-07:002014-09-21T11:40:01.781-07:00Jon:
I think I gave you the examples of Germany, ...Jon:<br /><br />I think I gave you the examples of Germany, Czechoslovakia...or just pick any country that was (in case of Germany partly) in the Eastern block. Planned economy brought poverty, stagnation, pollution, profiling based on state and party loyalty and generally decreased the quality of life. This is not an isolated case gone bad in an otherwise functional system. The planned centralized economy was set up in many countries, had these same effects in all of them.<br /><br />Or compare China to Hong Kong. True, HK is a much smaller place, so perhaps it is not entirely fair to compare it to China on 1 to 1 basis (but that also means it is easier to govern it and perhaps a good argument to at least reduce the size of countries in general). But the differences in results are enormous (especially during the pre-liberalization period in China). The culture was the same (more or less, Hong Kong is mostly populated by Cantonese, but Canton region where a lot of Hongkongese come from, has been a part of PRC since its beginning), but the people were the same, but the system was not.<br /><br />My opinion of an increased growth in the US during WW2 is described above. You can inflate growth statistically by borrowing or making a lot of money. It either creates debt or inflation...but most importantly, it is not real. Also, US was still not a planned economy, not even during the WW2, neither was South Korea. A planned economy is such where there is a central planner who decides how much of what is going to be made in the whole country in the next time period (mostly those plans were 5-year for some reason).<br /><br />And the fact that a place is somehow affiliated with the US government does not make it capitalist, or does it? That is by the way also at odds with your claim about South Korea...which was in a sense created by the US (had they not intervened, there would probably be just one - centrally planned - communist Korea today). And the US government had its interests there also.<br /><br />How do you explain the European "experiment" with socialism? Why has that not worked out well but quite the opposite? Note that I am not comparing USSR to Russia. I am comparing particular countries in Europe to each other. I used the Germany example because there you have one country but with two states and two very different system. One more or less capitalist and the other radically socialist. And note that pre-WW2 Czechoslovakia was richer than Germany of the time. Then compare it again in the year 1990...and I am not even talking about freedom, just about wealth.<br /><br />Tiborhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06909198697863768859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-91140021817213277512014-09-21T09:05:10.198-07:002014-09-21T09:05:10.198-07:00And the evidence against planned economies is extr...<i>And the evidence against planned economies is extremely overwhelming. They are the worst possible way of doing anything not only in theory but in any example from history</i><br /><br />Any example from history? I keep bringing up the US during WWII, the period in America that had the best economic growth. Post war US had government funded R&D that today makes the US the richest in the world. I keep talking about S Korea where the powerful government directed industry, directed the investment options of the people, and it worked very well from an economic growth perspective. Ha Joon Chang covers this in detail in "Bad Samaritans". Highly recommended. What you're saying is really quite the opposite of reality.<br /><br />The failures of planning or like what David talked about here, where China still did better than capitalist India in terms of life expectancy. The Soviet Union likewise had many problems, but the nations under it's dominance generally did better than the nations under US dominance (Guatemala, Haiti, El Salvador, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Indonesia). The comparison is often made between the US and the Soviet Union, but it's not really fair because post WWII the US had 6% of the world's population but half the wealth. Compare countries that started from similar places in 1917, maybe Russia and Brazil.<br /><br /><i>Yes, I guess I would call that very socialist, although still not as socialist as a planned economy (where the state holds 100% of the shares).</i><br /><br />That's just not what socialism is. It's not complete state ownership of shares. Socialism CAN have state ownership of the means of production, but this is not necessary.<br /><br />If you are hostile to an economic system but you don't know what that system actually is, or if you are supportive of another system (say capitalism) and don't really know what it is, I think you should ask yourself why?Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-76809797067990267172014-09-20T13:01:11.170-07:002014-09-20T13:01:11.170-07:00Jon's statement that "Levi Strauss stock ...Jon's statement that "Levi Strauss stock holders control the means of production totally in their Haitian factories" would be challenged by many critics of the corporation precisely because they claim that that shareholders do not totally, or, indeed, in any meaningful sense, control the means of production. Such control is exercised by management, which typically owns only a very small percentage of the corporation. Furthermore, no one "owns" a corporation; what is owned is shares or bonds associated with a corporation.<br /><br />Jon's real objection seems to be to a system that permits a person to make money without laboring. I think the issue here is that a "free" or, if you prefer, "unregulated", market system will allow for this possibility, unless a relatively powerful government imposes specific restrictions to prevent it. And, libertarians are rightly, in my view, concerned about what such power implies.<br /> <br />Ironically, I was in China from when this thread started until now, unable to access David's blog through feedly.Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14002138276428230556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-88014424201661056292014-09-20T02:43:33.797-07:002014-09-20T02:43:33.797-07:00Will: Yes, I guess I would call that very socialis...Will: Yes, I guess I would call that very socialist, although still not as socialist as a planned economy (where the state holds 100% of the shares).Tiborhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06909198697863768859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-4863329985314215612014-09-19T18:19:25.432-07:002014-09-19T18:19:25.432-07:00Tibor;
Both. In my hypothetical scenario, the gov...Tibor;<br /><br />Both. In my hypothetical scenario, the government is the ultimate owner of the land, with landholders having secure property rights in their holdings as long as they pay rents somewhat less than the unimproved value of the land. The state also has an interest in the industries, but only in the sense that other shareholders might. I come back to the example of sovereign wealth funds, or state pension funds in the United States. You have socialism without a planned economy. I don't advocate this, but present it as an example of social ownership of the means of production without a planned economy.Will McLeanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14685409952186547597noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-73602438961274876912014-09-19T16:55:55.306-07:002014-09-19T16:55:55.306-07:00Will: I'm not sure what you mean exactly. The ...Will: I'm not sure what you mean exactly. The government would own the land (and collect taxes for using it) or the industries themselves?<br /><br />Jon: The pre-WW2 Nazi Germany also showed a great growth and "output". But this is borrowing from the future. You can inflate "growth" by either printing a lot of money or borrowing from others. Either way, you will have to pay it in the future...The reason I use the hyphens is that a lot of that "growth" is building something people don't actually want and would not pay to buy themselves.<br /><br />Also, corporations are subject to a much less unforgiving force than the government (which is often in fact very sympathetic for their cause and helps them further their goals in ways that would not be otherwise possible...as I talked about above). And that is the market. If they do stuff people don't want, the companies which cannot get government help (because the government simply would not have the power to do so) would go bankrupt. They could not externalize their costs, because there would again be no government to help them with that, having not legal power over such things...and without the help of the government, the corporations actually have almost no real power at all. They don't have a private army or police at their disposal, so they cannot really force you into anything. They can only do so through the state. By supporting more state power you are helping exactly these things you want to eradicate. That is at least how I see it and what a lot of good theoretical arguments and empirical evidence supports.<br /><br />And the evidence against planned economies is extremely overwhelming. They are the worst possible way of doing anything not only in theory but in any example from history (so far...hopefully there will be no more such experiments). You can make a statistical growth for a few years that way, but you have to pay it back sooner or later...with interest.Tiborhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06909198697863768859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-29031728712645307202014-09-19T16:55:28.469-07:002014-09-19T16:55:28.469-07:00Will: I'm not sure what you mean exactly. The ...Will: I'm not sure what you mean exactly. The government would own the land (and collect taxes for using it) or the industries themselves?<br /><br />Jon: The pre-WW2 Nazi Germany also showed a great growth and "output". But this is borrowing from the future. You can inflate "growth" by either printing a lot of money or borrowing from others. Either way, you will have to pay it in the future...The reason I use the hyphens is that a lot of that "growth" is building something people don't actually want and would not pay to buy themselves.<br /><br />Also, corporations are subject to a much less unforgiving force than the government (which is often in fact very sympathetic for their cause and helps them further their goals in ways that would not be otherwise possible...as I talked about above). And that is the market. If they do stuff people don't want, the companies which cannot get government help (because the government simply would not have the power to do so) would go bankrupt. They could not externalize their costs, because there would again be no government to help them with that, having not legal power over such things...and without the help of the government, the corporations actually have almost no real power at all. They don't have a private army or police at their disposal, so they cannot really force you into anything. They can only do so through the state. By supporting more state power you are helping exactly these things you want to eradicate. That is at least how I see it and what a lot of good theoretical arguments and empirical evidence supports.<br /><br />And the evidence against planned economies is extremely overwhelming. They are the worst possible way of doing anything not only in theory but in any example from history (so far...hopefully there will be no more such experiments). You can make a statistical growth for a few years that way, but you have to pay it back sooner or later...with interest.Tiborhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06909198697863768859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-6416234961698066872014-09-19T13:22:33.114-07:002014-09-19T13:22:33.114-07:00And I am completely sure that planned economy is t...<i>And I am completely sure that planned economy is the worst possible. It is like trying to hammer nails with an atomic bomb.</i><br /><br />Speaking of the atom bomb, you know how it came about? Not the free market. A planned economy, the economy of the US during the war, which actually produced the best output and economic growth in our history. And created this kind of a turn around during the Great Depression.<br /><br />You can take just about any element of the US economy that makes it superior to others today and it's root is in the public sector. Computers, the internet, satellite communications, the transistor (via a government sanctioned monopoly, Bell Labs). Automation, commercial aviation (nothing but war bombers modified for civilian use). There is no iPhone without US government funded R&D. Lasers, the real game changing medicines. This is what makes us different from Haiti. Not free markets.<br /><br /><i>The people in the government cannot be relied to do the "right thing", they are just as everyone else. They will do the thing that is most profitable for them</i><br /><br />What do you think a corporation will do? At least the government is in principle susceptible to public pressure. Corporations are basically tyrannies, and they are making decisions that affect us, like warming the planet.<br /><br />I am skeptical of government and agree that it is a source of danger. The problem in my view is always the same. Concentrated power. Concentrations of power lead to abuse.<br /><br />What is the greatest threat to our species and humanity in general right now? By far it's private concentrations of power. Corporations. I don't like big government, but who besides government can conceivably stand up to corporations? Corporations have mostly defeated unions, unions can't stand up any more. Who's left? Until corporations are dismantled we have no choice but to rely on government, despite the fact that government tends to get capture by the same corporations that are currently threatening us all.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-72138110161612436792014-09-19T09:25:00.014-07:002014-09-19T09:25:00.014-07:00Tibor:
One could have socialism without a planned...Tibor:<br /><br />One could have socialism without a planned economy. For example, the government might own most of the industries through a sovereign wealth fund, and collect a quasi-Georgist land rent.Will McLeanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14685409952186547597noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-89319691185385171382014-09-19T04:23:19.211-07:002014-09-19T04:23:19.211-07:00Jon:
Well, this is where we separate. I believe t...Jon:<br /><br />Well, this is where we separate. I believe that if you have a small government which cannot impose regulations and therefore it cannot be abused by interest groups such as corporations and labour unions, then the overall size of the corporations will be smaller and the competition higher than if you have a big government which has the power to impose those regulations because it is likely to be abused. In other words, I don't believe that unconstrained free-market leads to monopolistic organizations, I do believe that regulation is often rigged in the way that it in fact eliminates unwanted competition and makes the corporations bigger and less numerous. One example - if you are a small company and go bankrupt, well, your problem, tough luck...if you are GM your lobby will get you a bailout because you are very big and employ a lot of people...which in turns means short-term political costs for the politicians who would let you go. And politicians rarely think in the long terms (those who do are almost always voted out by the next-election-maximizers). A similar thing with the banks. Without government interference GM, which is a very big corporation, would simply not exist today.<br /><br />And I am completely sure that planned economy is the worst possible. It is like trying to hammer nails with an atomic bomb. In order to "solve" the risk of monopolistic corporations, you simply create a huge one that controls everything. And despite your claims to the contrary, there has not been a single one that would "listen to the people"...unless you mean high-level members of The Party (whether it calls itself National socialist party or Communist party or anything else).<br /><br />In other words, I understand your concern about monopolization. But the policies actually help it happen, quite considerably so. The people in the government cannot be relied to do the "right thing", they are just as everyone else. They will do the thing that is most profitable for them (this is a simplification both for the government and other people, but by and large it is true). And given how imperfect the democratic process is, that is often at odds with what is the best course of action. I think you look at private companies with a rightfully sceptical eye, but you should do so with the government also. Big business and Big government are not enemies, they are usually good friends (even if they may not show off their friendship publicly very much).<br /><br />As for BP, I would be less optimistic. If I come to your house and smash a few things I would be required to pay all of it. BP did not have to cover all the costs of its accident, the costs were externalized, at least in part.Tiborhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06909198697863768859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-33319836344437212552014-09-18T17:31:00.818-07:002014-09-18T17:31:00.818-07:00And really that's what it's all about in H...And really that's what it's all about in Haiti. Power in the hands of a few or power in the hands of many? Capitalism creates concentrations of private power. Those concentrations of power naturally use that power to create more wealth and more power. They don't necessarily want small government. They want government that doesn't constrain them, but then they'll ultimately want government that shovels money into their pockets, so sometimes that can mean big government. Notice that Republican administrations tend to grow government more that Democratic ones. These governments serve people less and corporations more.<br /><br />What you advocate (small government getting out of the way) creates concentrations of private power. Corporations without government constraint find themselves having power with few limits, power they abuse. They use it to do whatever they want with government, possibly growing it, and you can't stop it. It's like Frankenstein. A monster of your own creation.<br /><br />BTW, NASA just announced that August was the warmest August ever recorded. This is where corporate power without constraint leads, and if we don't stop it we'll all be screwed.Jonhttp://bigwhiteogre.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-76634604625895020752014-09-18T17:30:35.482-07:002014-09-18T17:30:35.482-07:00The words really are important. Remember, this al...The words really are important. Remember, this all started with Heritage, and what I regard as their bogus "freedom" index. Heritage is just a propaganda arm for the wealthy. What do the wealthy want? More money without doing any work. Workers having control of factories is a threat to that, so the job at Heritage is to try to make that concept look bad and the concept of sending the money you create over to investors, as done in Haiti, that idea needs to sound good.<br /><br />The problem is Haiti is a hell hole having followed the capitalist model so closely, so at Heritage they want to pretend they haven't followed that model. Up becomes down and suddenly Haiti is socialist. Haiti has big government.<br /><br />Haiti has government that is big enough to push around a little guy that might want to start a lemonade stand. That's why it's difficult to start a business. Corporations want it that way. Truly powerful governments have the power to push back against a corporation. We still have that somewhat in the US. Take BP for instance. A spill like that would be fine in Haiti, though in the US there are some penalties. In fact spills like that happen all the time in African nations, which likewise have had neoliberal policies imposed on them by force. Totally toothless governments, and so the residents are forced to drink from rivers filled with oil.<br /><br />It's true that there is some confusion about these concepts because a country can have a system where there is overlap. A socialist country would normally permit a small business, like say a law service where an owner has 10 teenage workers. Those workers are only paid a small portion of the value they create and the owner gets the excess. Socialist societies might permit that up to a certain point, maybe 100 employees, at which point control would have to be shifted from the owner to employees because of the externalities and problems resulting from the concentration of power that exists in the hands of an owner getting more wealthy.Jonhttp://bigwhiteogre.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-85229035743341776622014-09-18T11:19:27.085-07:002014-09-18T11:19:27.085-07:00Jon:
Who decides what is the "official"...Jon:<br /><br />Who decides what is the "official" definition of capitalism? Or any other terms for that matter...And do the words matter that much? Let's forget the word capitalism for a moment. You agree with the factual claims if I am not mistaken. Now, why do you think that such a corrupt government would flourish from having even more power (and thus being an even more attractive target to the various interest groups, including big corporations)?Tiborhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06909198697863768859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-82154124708119034832014-09-18T08:15:50.663-07:002014-09-18T08:15:50.663-07:00What did other publications, for example the New Y...What did other publications, for example the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, National Review, New Republic, and The Nation say about Mao upon his death. If they were saying similar things about Mao, it may be harder to blame the Economist for bad judgement.Beliavskynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-32777916529037035882014-09-17T17:45:22.349-07:002014-09-17T17:45:22.349-07:00You're telling me what YOU regard as capitalis...You're telling me what YOU regard as capitalism. I know you regard socialism as a system where there is a lot of paperwork and big government. I'm asking you to provide a source that says it's not capitalist if it involves a lot of paperwork or it's difficult to start a business.<br /><br />I assume you already looked and didn't find a credible source that agrees with you. You won't.<br /><br />And as far as property rights you are quite wrong. Another obfuscation from capitalists is the conflating of posessions with what property rights is really referring to; control of the means of production. Levi Strauss stock holders control the means of production totally in their Haitian factories, and this is the heart of capitalism. Socialism brings the prospect of taking control of the tools away from investors and putting it in the hands of the sweatshop workers. Where has this happened in Haiti? Have workers ever in these factories had the power to decide what was built or hou revenue was distributed? They are completely powerless. This is the polar opposite of socialism and is capitalism exactly. Again I invite you to just go to Wikipedia and read about what socialism and capitalism are.Jonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-39062957780459223502014-09-17T13:23:46.037-07:002014-09-17T13:23:46.037-07:00Jon:
To do business in Haiti requires a lot of pa...Jon:<br /><br />To do business in Haiti requires a lot of paperwork and a lot of dealing with the state. Given the combination of state power to regulate and widespread corruption (those two are actually very correlated) you need to bribe and/or have friends in the government. <br /><br />What I see as socialist about that is precisely that you have to deal with the government in the first place. I would regard Haiti as capitalist if it were easy (in legal sense) to start a business there and if private property rights were respected. I regard it as (mostly) socialist because that is not the case. It is the kind of socialism which leads to cronyism or corporatism or whatever you want to call it...so to a state of things where those successful in business are not those who make the best products, but those who have most political connections. Such a system may look capitalist at a first glance, but it is rather a parody of capitalism.<br /><br />As I mentioned above, to me more capitalist means basically more free-market oriented. Less free-market = more socialist. There may not be a 100% capitalist/free-market country in the world today (or indeed ever so far), but some are quite close. Some are close in some respects, but far in others...the Nordic countries are an example of places with high taxes and government redistributive spending, but not too much trade restrictions and good rule of law which translates into good respect of property rights...on Haiti property rights seem to be very selective and dependent on your political influence - that is very far from what I call capitalism.<br /><br />As I mentioned, it may be confusing to use the term capitalism precisely because it is understood differently by different people (whereas there seems to be a bit less confusion about the term free market).Tiborhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06909198697863768859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-73120855608494004892014-09-17T06:39:58.814-07:002014-09-17T06:39:58.814-07:00I think we should start with this. Where are you ...I think we should start with this. Where are you getting your definitions for socialism and capitalism? If Haiti is a socialist economy than I can see why you'd have a problem with socialism. But by what definition?Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-63240474897075148502014-09-16T16:54:01.350-07:002014-09-16T16:54:01.350-07:00Jon (2nd part):
I think you should take a look at...Jon (2nd part):<br /><br />I think you should take a look at the history of central Europe a bit more. As I mentioned, Czechoslovakia was one of the richest countries in Europe before the communist takeover. After the Velvet revolution, it was very underdeveloped. <br /><br />But Germany is perhaps an even better case. The country had no preexisting differences between East and the West (it did between North and South though...South being poorer...but had the fortune of being part of BRD and not DDR...now Bavaria is the richest Bundesland). But 40 years of separate development left one half of the country (the half which had to install machine guns and build walls and barbed wire fences to keep its citizens from emigrating) in a terrible condition while the other prospered. The quality of life of ordinary people was so much better in the Western part in pretty much any way imaginable. Even today, if you plot socioeconomic data over the map of Germany, you can still often see the former border. 25 years after the fall of the Berlin wall have erased the worst bits, but it will perhaps take another 25 to erase it completely (perhaps more...it is usually easier to destroy than to build).<br /><br />I think that in this particular case (planned centralized economy) the evidence is so clear that you have to try to avoid it in order to be able to support such a system. I'm not saying you do it consciously or with malice. But I am convinced that you do so. I do believe one can hold some left wing opinions and still be reasonable, but taking into account the overwhelming evidence against planned economies (which all points one way), not mentioning very solid arguments of economic theory, I just cannot consider your standpoint to be reasonable.<br /><br />In a sense, I wish US and Western Europe had experienced socialism in its "full glory" as well. Not that I would actually wish it on the people. But it would perhaps open a lot of eyes. I am fairly sure there are far more convinced communists in the US than in Cuba :)Tiborhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06909198697863768859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-27911974100806748142014-09-16T16:41:29.444-07:002014-09-16T16:41:29.444-07:00Jon: In Cuba people get often jailed for complaini...Jon: In Cuba people get often jailed for complaining or abused in different ways. Sanchéz is well known worldwide which gives you a certain amount of protection. Others are not so lucky and she did not use to be either. And it used to be a lot worse. Guevara (with Castro's consent of course) killed a lot of people without a trial during and shortly after their revolution.<br /><br />If being an investor is so easy, why do most people not quit their jobs and start their businesses themselves? It takes a) a great amount of risk (for example when my father started a business in the early 90s, he took a loan from the bank and our house was at stake...had he and his colleagues not succeeded we would have become homeless), b) a huge amount of work, at least at the beginning, c) a delayed return. If you work for a wage, you get your money every month. If you invest your money to start a new business you may wait years before you get a return...and sometimes you end up broke and indebted instead. <br /><br />Nobody is preventing the workers from pooling resources and starting a worker-owned factory...the problem is that few people are keen to face the risks and wait until there is a return.<br /><br />I think we have a fundamental disagreement about what capitalism and socialism is. To me, Haiti is a socialist country (for the reasons I explained above), to you it is a capitalist country for mostly the same reasons I consider it socialist. Regardless of what you call it, I find it puzzling that you clearly see a problem in one scenario (government power is prone to abuse and is in fact actively abused by powerful interest groups), but miss (or try to explain it away) it in a different one (socialist Cuba, which does indeed work as a one huge monopolistic corporation). You mention US hostility towards Cuba, but you fial to mention the incredible amount of support by the Soviet Union and ( to a much smaller extent) current Russia. Cuba was subsidized by the USSR as it had a strategic location in the Cold war...same reason the US tried to break the regime there much more than they did for example in East Germany or Czechoslovakia.<br /><br />Now, CIA may have done (and may still be doing) a lot of bad stuff. But what has that to do with capitalism? CIA is a government organization (and, being a secret service, it is in a way a state within a state). There are probably very nasty regimes in other South American countries. But in each and every case, it is through the state, through the government that the abuse is being done. You see that and are still apologetic of more government power. I don't understand that :)Tiborhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06909198697863768859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-70011164103988157712014-09-16T16:40:55.428-07:002014-09-16T16:40:55.428-07:00Jon: In Cuba people get often jailed for complaini...Jon: In Cuba people get often jailed for complaining or abused in different ways. Sanchéz is well known worldwide which gives you a certain amount of protection. Others are not so lucky and she did not use to be either. And it used to be a lot worse. Guevara (with Castro's consent of course) killed a lot of people without a trial during and shortly after their revolution.<br /><br />If being an investor is so easy, why do most people not quit their jobs and start their businesses themselves? It takes a) a great amount of risk (for example when my father started a business in the early 90s, he took a loan from the bank and our house was at stake...had he and his colleagues not succeeded we would have become homeless), b) a huge amount of work, at least at the beginning, c) a delayed return. If you work for a wage, you get your money every month. If you invest your money to start a new business you may wait years before you get a return...and sometimes you end up broke and indebted instead. <br /><br />Nobody is preventing the workers from pooling resources and starting a worker-owned factory...the problem is that few people are keen to face the risks and wait until there is a return.<br /><br />I think we have a fundamental disagreement about what capitalism and socialism is. To me, Haiti is a socialist country (for the reasons I explained above), to you it is a capitalist country for mostly the same reasons I consider it socialist. Regardless of what you call it, I find it puzzling that you clearly see a problem in one scenario (government power is prone to abuse and is in fact actively abused by powerful interest groups), but miss (or try to explain it away) it in a different one (socialist Cuba, which does indeed work as a one huge monopolistic corporation). You mention US hostility towards Cuba, but you fial to mention the incredible amount of support by the Soviet Union and ( to a much smaller extent) current Russia. Cuba was subsidized by the USSR as it had a strategic location in the Cold war...same reason the US tried to break the regime there much more than they did for example in East Germany or Czechoslovakia.<br /><br />Now, CIA may have done (and may still be doing) a lot of bad stuff. But what has that to do with capitalism? CIA is a government organization (and, being a secret service, it is in a way a state within a state). There are probably very nasty regimes in other South American countries. But in each and every case, it is through the state, through the government that the abuse is being done. You see that and are still apologetic of more government power. I don't understand that :)Tiborhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06909198697863768859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-25729943341843172112014-09-16T11:11:23.072-07:002014-09-16T11:11:23.072-07:00Would you agree that if, hypothetically, the free ...<i>Would you agree that if, hypothetically, the free market was a stable arrangement, that it would be a desirable thing?</i><br /><br />I tend to doubt it, but it's hard to say because it has never existed, at least in a capitalist society. What I think free markets don't do, which they need to do, is look at the real world instead of living in their theoretical world. As I mentioned Ha Joon Chang looks at the real world closely. There can be no question that the managed capitalist societies of S Korea, the US during WWII, Japan, Britain, these are the world leaders, and they experienced their most rapid economic growth during the period of stronger government management. I stand by my claim that Haiti is among the best examples of government getting out of the way of corporations, which in the real world means corporations manipulating the government to serve their interests, including making it difficult to start a competing business. The government can't raise the minimum wage above a level acceptable to the major corporations. Can't levy taxes, can't impose regulations preferred by ordinary people. That's why when a hurricane goes through Haiti you'll have tens of thousands dead and the same hurricane will not cause any death in Cuba.<br /><br />Cuba's a tough place to live in comparison to the US, but do a fair comparison and compare it to it's neighbors, who haven't been subjected to a crippling embargo and don't have US based terrorist action being implemented to undermine the government. Do you know that from the US biological weaponry was introduced that required Cuba to slaughter it's entire pig population? Do you know that CIA operatives worked with a man that ultimately bombed a Cuban civilian airliner in what was the worst act of terrorism in our hemisphere involving an airline prior to 9-11? George H W Bush pardoned the admitted mastermind, which allowed him safe haven in Miami. We are at war with this country for reasons I explained above, and yet they still produce a decent life for their people. Way better than their neighbors. Look at their life expectancy, their education level.<br /><br />A blogger can complain about Castro in Cuba, but try that in El Salvador where reporters just get hacked to death with machetes for complaining. The violence from the right wing military dictatorships imposing capitalism by force is much worse than Castro, it's just that we don't talk about it.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-3676635281157649832014-09-16T11:11:11.726-07:002014-09-16T11:11:11.726-07:00I don't consider companies that are owned by t...<i>I don't consider companies that are owned by the workers (so that they are in fact the owners) to be socialist.</i><br /><br />I can't help but laugh reading this. Capitalist propagandists have been hard at work obscuring what Socialism is, because often I find that when it becomes clear people don't think it's so bad, and capitalists don't want that. Why? Because on capitalism the wealthy get the bulk of the wealth while doing none of the work. Socialism has no room for investors. You want to earn money you have to work like everybody else. Capitalists don't like the sound of that naturally.<br /><br /><i>Have you been to Cuba?</i><br /><br />I have not, nor have I been to the Dominican Republic, but a friend was recently there. You can vacation there, but they let you know that you don't want to leave the protected zone of the resort. Same in Jamaica. Life's pretty tough in Cuba, but like I said before still much better than life in capitalist states nearby for the ordinary person. This despite a very strict embargo and a terrorist war coming from the US.<br /><br />And that terrorist war makes really good sense. You can read from US planners why they needed to implement it. If Cuba is left to it's own devices it will probably succeed, then it will be a model for others to pursue, a model that leaves investors without the large cut they take. That means more for ordinary people and consequently a better life for them. So for instance places like Guatemala and Honduras are havens for US corporations. The laborers add a lot of value, but via property rights they are deprived of it and it is shipped to investors. If people from Guatemala or Honduras started keeping all the value they produce for themselves that means they'd likewise have a better life. That means less going to the investors, most of whom are in the US. So right wing military dictatorships have to be installed in these countries to prevent them from following Cuba's example.<br /><br /><i> I agree that Cuba is a socialist country....The workers there hardly have a say, the factories are owned by the state and that in turn is de-facto owned by a small ruling clique.</i><br /><br />It's pretty clear to me that you really don't know what socialism is and as stated before I don't think you know what capitalism is. Not trying to sound mean or anything and I'm very sympathetic because I was in the same boat years ago. Go to Wikipedia and just read what Socialism is and what Capitalism are.<br /><br /><i>To me, socialism means more government power</i><br /><br />I think if you read from socialists you'll find that this is not true (not that I've read much). One book I would recommend, one of my favorite books from which I learned a great deal, is David Schweickart's "Against Capitalism".Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-52177551566074754162014-09-16T10:47:59.091-07:002014-09-16T10:47:59.091-07:00Jon:...one more thing (sorry)
http://generacionye...Jon:...one more thing (sorry)<br /><br />http://generacionyen.wordpress.com/<br /><br />This is the blog of Yoani Sanchez...I accidentally posted a different website (also this is in English, not Spanish).Tiborhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06909198697863768859noreply@blogger.com