Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Krusher on February 06, 2006, 10:38:47 AM
-
The University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes has published the findings of a poll of 20 countries which shows that 61% of people in those countries agree with the statement “the free enterprise system and free market economy is the best system on which to base the future of the world.” 28% disagreed.
The highest level of support was from China (74%) followed by the Philippines (73%), the US (71%), and India (70%).
Only 36% of French agree with the proposition while 50% disagree. With the exception of Argentina (42% in favour), Russia (43%) and Turkey (47%) all other countries showed a 57% or higher degree of support for free enterprise.
Nowhere did a majority disagree.
There is, however, strong (74% on average) support for more regulation of large companies to protect workers. Global companies are not particularly trusted (41%). Poorer countries tend to be more trusting — though not by much whereas mid and upper income countries tend to be least trusting.
Sixty-four per cent of those with higher education believe in free enterprise. For those with low education the figure falls to 56%.
Fifty-six per cent of those with low education believe that there should be greater regulation to protect investors whereas for those with high education the figure is 50%.
All of this suggests that people are apt to mistrust what they see as power over which they have no control. This is certainly true with respect to attitudes towards the regulation of large companies. Such companies are also generally perceived to belong to an establishment with too much influence over government. In believing that there should be more regulation of large companies people are, of course, expressing trust in their own governments to handle such regulation without corruption or the creation of too much red tape. This may be optimistic
-
Hey Boroda, what would Stalin do?
-
He would humanistically invite you to a workers paradise (gulag) in Siberia then humanistically shoot you whan you failed to produce enough. That is as long as you didn't say, think or listen to anything that may be construed as non corrct thought according to humanistic leader comerade stalin......
-
...
The goal of "free enterprise" is for one company to eventually rule the world.
If you don't think so, well, I guess you aren't a capitalist after all.
-
And there's more than one enterprise with profits at stake, and more than one entrepreneur up for the fight.
Were you one of the smart kids at school, would you have argued to the teachers your high grades needed to be spread out to the rest of the class?
-
Originally posted by Urchin
...
The goal of "free enterprise" is for one company to eventually rule the world.
How did you arrive at this conclusion?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
How did you arrive at this conclusion?
x2
-
Lassiez-Faire capitalism.
Which if you are a capitalist, is the only kind.
The strong crush the weak, and grow stronger.
Thats almost poetic, actually.
-
Sixty-four per cent of those with higher education believe in free enterprise. For those with low education the figure falls to 56%.
Funny, isn't it?
Free enterprising isn't a panacea. It works in some cases, and in some cases it doesn't. Again, it's not American Manichaean "black/white" concept of "good and evil".
Free enterprising is good for unimportant fields. For soda manufacuring or brewing beer it may be good to some extent, but if we need result fast and guaranteed - it is useless. Good example is "free enterprising" in Russian military industry during WWI: it failed miserably. "Free enterprises" were unable to make such a simple thing as rifle gunsight. Government centralised planned factories had no problems making much more complicated machinery. At the same time US weapon companies failed to produce rifles for Russian government, failing both in quantity and quality. Would you be so kind to explain it?
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Funny, isn't it?
Free enterprising isn't a panacea. It works in some cases, and in some cases it doesn't. Again, it's not American Manichaean "black/white" concept of "good and evil".
Possibly, but the question was,
“the free enterprise system and free market economy is the best system on which to base the future of the world.”
I was surprised that in Communist China 74 percent agreed.
-
Originally posted by mietla
Hey Boroda, what would Stalin do?
I'd say about 43% of the population would suddenly dissapear;)
-
Originally posted by Krusher
Possibly, but the question was,
“the free enterprise system and free market economy is the best system on which to base the future of the world.”
I was surprised that in Communist China 74 percent agreed.
Why do I have the feeling that the poll only took place in Hong Kong?
-
Whats communism?
-
Originally posted by Tumor
Whats communism?
TUMOOOOOORRR!
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Funny, isn't it?
At the same time US weapon companies failed to produce rifles for Russian government, failing both in quantity and quality. Would you be so kind to explain it?
Horsepucky. The Nagants made by Remington under contract for the Czar are significantly higher in quality, fit, finish and accuracy than those made in Russia and are highly sought after by collectors. In fact, a large number of those Nagants russia failed to pay for (and hence were not shipped to Russia) are still in service at our National Military Acadamies.. It should also be noted that russia also screwed Nagant in Belgium for his design work on the Mosin Rifle magazine and receiver, and then with your partners in the crime of patent theft the French; whom you also screwed for the machines to make them out of license in the Tula factory.. which the russians promptly copied and sent to Ishevesk.
I own a Remington made model 1891 Nagant, it makes the crude crap churned out of Tula and Ishevesk look like.... crude crap.
Typically, your government (bolshevk, imperial, communist, makes no difference) would contract with american and other foriegn companies for goods and then on reciept fail to pay for them and continue the contract and then send them off to your state factories for copy/reverse engineering.
Sadly, theft and reverse engineering of american designed and patented processes and products is something that's been a common practice world wide for over 100 years. The chinese are currently most adept at it and in a ironic twist, they are now screwing you too for engines and airframe license infringements.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
...
The goal of "free enterprise" is for one company to eventually rule the world.
If you don't think so, well, I guess you aren't a capitalist after all.
That's like saying that Einstein's goal by developing E=MC2 was the destruction of Nagasaki.
It was a possible outcome, but it wasn't his purpose.
The purpose of capitalism is to increase the standard of living by harnessing entrepreneurialism and competition in a free market and thus allowing for the most efficient allocation of scarce resources. Interesting use of rhetoric, ascribing an incredibling improbable and unsavory outcome as the purpose of a philosophy and then saying if one doesn't believe it they are not a capitialist.
Lassiez-Faire capitalism.
Which if you are a capitalist, is the only kind.
The strong crush the weak, and grow stronger.
Thats almost poetic, actually.
Once again with the rhetoric, this time using emotionally loaded language and images.
In a free market, it does occur the the "strong crush the weak". But you also see the smaller, more efficient companies that more readily respond to demand beating "stronger" less effiecient companies.
Throughout history, how many people have been crushed, killed, oppresed or enslaved by "strong" governments? How many by strong companies.
Throughout history, how many monopolies have orginated out of a free market? How many have orginated in government interference in a market?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Throughout history, how many monopolies have orginated out of a free market? How many have orginated in government interference in a market?
No fair! No fair!
You're tubing the end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it debate before we even get to the gory, interesting part!
;)
-
Better get dem tin foil hats, folks.
:noid
I agree with Thrawn. :)
-
did boroda actually say that remington 91's are inferior? I know he said that only government could produce things in an emergency but I expected that drivel...
I allways thought that it was private U.S. companies that procuced the most of everything in WWII...
I think that I would really enjoy reading the history books that boroda was raised on. You would think that one of the worlds only (past tense) superpowers could have done a better job of countering all the U.S propoganda and false history..
Instead... here we were laughing at soviet russia when we should have been in awe.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
That's like saying that Einstein's goal by developing E=MC2 was the destruction of Nagasaki.
It was a possible outcome, but it wasn't his purpose.
The purpose of capitalism is to increase the standard of living by harnessing entrepreneurialism and competition in a free market and thus allowing for the most efficient allocation of scarce resources. Interesting use of rhetoric, ascribing an incredibling improbable and unsavory outcome as the purpose of a philosophy and then saying if one doesn't believe it they are not a capitialist.
I hate argue like a conservative, but this word just jumped out at me.
Whats the purpose of competition? In a competition.. are there winners and .. dare I say.. losers? It works that way in sports (for now, God knows how long that'll last).
I guess the rhetoric thing is a compliment, thanks! I've been working on it! :aok
]Originally posted by Thrawn
Once again with the rhetoric, this time using emotionally loaded language and images.
In a free market, it does occur the the "strong crush the weak". But you also see the smaller, more efficient companies that more readily respond to demand beating "stronger" less effiecient companies.
Throughout history, how many people have been crushed, killed, oppresed or enslaved by "strong" governments? How many by strong companies.
Throughout history, how many monopolies have orginated out of a free market? How many have orginated in government interference in a market?
Hehe, just because most strong companies haven't had the chance yet to crush, kill, oppress , or enslave people doesn't mean they wouldn't if our governments would just let go of their silly communistic notions and go with a pure capitalist system, for the good of humanity. Just look at the Industrial Revolution for an example of your eutopia by the way, or wait ~20-30 years, because that situation will be repeating itself throughout much of the world.
Hell, our "democratic" government (which I think is fundamentally incompatible with capitalism anyway) is influenced quite heavily, if not owned outright, by corporate interests. It is only a matter of time before the Western governments stop interfering with the capitalist's "right" to exploit workers, in order to 'save' the economy. I think it will take longer for the European governments to come around, but they've always been a little more "socialist" anyway. I expect to see company health benefits follow pension plans into the toilet, followed eventually by minimum wage laws and overtime. Probably a few years after this, workplace safety regulations will be relaxed in order to allow Western companies to "compete more effectively in a global economy".
Anyway, enough soapboxing, it is just my opinion. But I think it'd be a great time to be a budding capitalist, if you don't mind ****ing your country up the bellybutton for a paycheck.
Oh thrawn, let me apologize for editing this, but I didn't see the last part of your post.
I'm definately not an expert, but I am aware of my country's history (at least marginally lol). The late 1800's was a time were lassiez faire capitalism was allowed to flourish. The result was an imbalance between rich and poor that went unrivaled until very recently in US history.
The early 1900's was a backlash to this, and the Federal Government was involved in breaking many monopolies that formed earlier. Some examples from "wikipedia" (hey, its a quick and dirty search, sorry) are the Norther Securities Company, Standard Oil, and the American Tobacco Company.
Examples of "government mandated" monopolies, or monopolies caused by government interfernce included some French salt monopoly in the late 1700's, but that was the only example I came across in my quick Wikipedia search.
-
Democracies incompatible with capitalism... Amazing thought Urchin...
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Sadly, theft and reverse engineering of american designed and patented processes and products is something that's been a common practice world wide for over 100 years. The chinese are currently most adept at it and in a ironic twist, they are now screwing you too for engines and airframe license infringements.
All that hate towards us might give you heart attack someday.
-
What is amazing about it? Hell, it probably isn't even original.
What is the fundamental premise behind democracy?
Compare that to the fundamental premise behind capitalism and I think you'll see a contradiction. At least, I do.
-
That political ideas compete amonst the population so that the better ideas win out over the worse ones by the choices of the voters.
This is exactly the same as capitalism and the opposite of communism, which is, naturally, why truly free democratic nations tend towards capitalism and opressive communistic and fascit countries tend towards other more centrally planned systems like the nazi war exconomy of 30s or the soviet system or cuba etc.
-
Democracy (from Greek δημοκρατία (demokratia), δημος (demos) the common people + κρατειν (kratein) to rule + the suffix ία (ia), literally "the common people rule").
The definition of capitalism given in dictionaries has changed over time. For example, the 1909 Century Dictionary defined capitalism as:
The state of having capital or property; possession of capital.
The concentration or massing of capital in the hands of a few; also, the power or influence of large or combined capital.
Just got those two from Wikipedia.
I'm not an extraordinarily brilliant person... but those two definitions seem fundamentally incompatible.
I never thought you for an idealist though Grun, it is kinda sweet :). Blah.. that was a low blow.. edited it out lol.
-
The common people do rule in capitalism. Do you own a car? Shoes? A TV?
I'm willing to bet that you put some thought into which car or TV you last bought and selected the best you could afford and bought them. Unfortunately, by buying lets say a Toyota, you are helping crush GM.. And thats precisly whats happeniong, common people are buying more and more quality Toyotas and less crappy Chevys so GM is getting clobbored. Thats your fault. You evil democratic captitalist!!!
GM has tons and tons of capital, but crappy product and the resuls are well just read the news...
So who would yov rather have making decsiopns about which car company should dominate the market? A comitte of 300 million American consumers voting with their hard earned dollars in a free capitalist market after examing the choices on the market or would you prefewr some small enlightened central planning commitee to tell us all whaic car companies shpuld and shouldnt dominate?
-
Boroda should be banned.
Originally posted by Boroda
Free enterprising is good for unimportant fields. For soda manufacuring or brewing beer it may be good to some extent, ....
I mean for even coming close to saying beer is unimportant, ban Boroda.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
I hate argue like a conservative, but this word just jumped out at me.
I have found that the way one argues has nothing to do with being a liberal or a conservative, but one's willingness to be open minded.
Whats the purpose of competition? In a competition.. are there winners and .. dare I say.. losers? It works that way in sports (for now, God knows how long that'll last).
Yes, but it was the implication of your use of the word "strong" that I disagreed with. It invokes images of the big evil corporation destroying the poor small business just trying to get by. At least it did with me, perhaps that wasn't your intention. And sure enough it does happen. But there are a series of free choices that are made for such a thing to come about. In a socialist society those free choices are taken away. Big fan of freedom here. The small business doesn't have to sell, the supplier doesn't have to blacklist them. The smaller business can go after a different niche, or not go head to head with big business in trying to reduce price through economy of scale...or what have you.
Hehe, just because most strong companies haven't had the chance yet to crush, kill, oppress , or enslave people doesn't mean they wouldn't if our governments would just let go of their silly communistic notions and go with a pure capitalist system, for the good of humanity.
Just because monkeys haven't flown out my butt doesn't mean they won't. But speculating on what may or may not happen doesn't change the historical record of what has or hasn't happened.
Just look at the Industrial Revolution for an example of your eutopia by the way, or wait ~20-30 years, because that situation will be repeating itself throughout much of the world.
The situation is repeating itself throughout much the world vis a vis globalisation of the market. And although the Industrial Revolution has it tragic points, I imagine we would agree that in the long term it was beneficial. And although many socialist would probably argue that it was socialist laws that ended things like child labour, I would disagree.
What ended child labour and the like was the increase of standard of living caused by capitalists investing thus leading to increased production.
Say you have a family of six, yet you can only afford to feed four. Well, two kids are going to die. If you had the option of sending one child to a coal mine and so feed everyone would you? A socialist would deny that option and cheerfully kill off the two kids blithley ignorant of reprocussion of their act.
Maybe the socialist is a little cleverer than that though. The socialist decides to tax the more wealthly and give the wealth to the family of six. What the socialist doens't realise is that by stealing that wealth to be spent on consumable goods that it can't be invested. And so the current low standard of living is maintained, and in the long term they are doing as least as much damage to the standard of living, but in all likelyhood more.
Hell, our "democratic" government (which I think is fundamentally incompatible with capitalism anyway)...
I agree.
...is influenced quite heavily, if not owned outright, by corporate interests. It is only a matter of time before the Western governments stop interfering with the capitalist's "right" to exploit workers, in order to 'save' the economy.
And a socialists solution to government interference and redistrubution of wealth to corporations is to give the government more power to do so? Mindboggling. I believe the way to stop government working in lock step with corporations is to make sure they don't have the power to do so in the first place.
But I don't there isn't an equivalence between evil corporations and evil governments in my books. In a capitalist society, I can exercise free choice not deal with companies I think are immoral. I can't do that with my govenment.
There was a company that purchased coaco beans that where harvest by slaves in western Africa. After I found out about this I decided that I didn't want to support such a company with my hard earned dollars, so I freely chose not to buy their products. Great.
Through Canada's Kyoto commitments my government takes by hard earned dollars through threat of coersion, and gives it to tyrannical governments in western Africa. No free choice for me there.
I expect to see company health benefits follow pension plans into the toilet,
If you want to pay for someone else's health care or pensions, feel free to do so with your money. It's immoral in my opinion to try and force another to do so.
followed eventually by minimum wage laws and overtime.
Ah minimum wage, where unions and politians fool people into supporting them by convincing them that increase in wage means an increase in the standard of living, instead of a decrease. Minmum wage just makes it harder for the companies under such laws to compete, increases cost of goods (decreasing actual purchasing power of that wage), and increases unemployment. What's more it takes away the freedom for a person to work at a lower wage. I imagine that's part of the reason why there are so many illegal aliens in the US.
Probably a few years after this, workplace safety regulations will be relaxed in order to allow Western companies to "compete more effectively in a global economy".
Perhaps, but people would be free to work there or not as they decided. If things got as bad as that (and it would have to be pretty bad for people to work in dangerous evironment for what I would assume to be little pay in North America), and you had to chose between working in a potentially hazardous environment or letting your family starve what would you do. A socialist wouldn't let you make that choice, they know what's best for you.
I'm definately not an expert, but I am aware of my country's history (at least marginally lol). The late 1800's was a time were lassiez faire capitalism was allowed to flourish. The result was an imbalance between rich and poor that went unrivaled until very recently in US history.
But is the "income gap" a meaningful statistic regarding standard of living. Let's imagine two countries whose per-capital wealth is measured in dollars.
Country A
90% of the popluation makes $4,000/yr
10% of the popluation makes $5,000/year
Country B
90% of the popluation makes $40,000/yr
10% of the popluation makes $100,000/year
Which coutries citizens have a higher standard of living? "B" obviously. But I imagine socialists there would still complain about how thier income gap was worse than "A's". Forfend that people in the lower strata could always make the free choice to limit consuming thier wages, invest it and become yet more wealthy.
The early 1900's was a backlash to this, and the Federal Government was involved in breaking many monopolies that formed earlier. Some examples from "wikipedia" (hey, its a quick and dirty search, sorry) are the Norther Securities Company, Standard Oil, and the American Tobacco Company.
Fair enough.
Examples of "government mandated" monopolies, or monopolies caused by government interfernce included some French salt monopoly in the late 1700's, but that was the only example I came across in my quick Wikipedia search.
My country was practically founded on government monopolies, Hudson's Bay Company owned half of it. Telephone service, aviation, healthcare, tons of it up here.
But I bet you know of quite a few more that perhaps you didn't realise were. Many States have monopolies on alcohol distribution, there are licencing monopolies at all levels of government. Many cities have monopolies on services such as tap water distribution, use of public land. Most countries have a monopoly on what currency you can use. As if it's governments business what me and someone else freely decide to use to exchange wealth.
And it's almost guaraunteed that anytime a government has or gives a monopoly over something, it's going to be done much more inefficiently than if it was done through capitalism.
I read the wikipedia article about Standard Oil, apparently there was one group of people that thought they were doing a fine job...their customers. Funny that.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
That political ideas compete amonst the population so that the better ideas win out over the worse ones by the choices of the voters.
No, the most popular ideas win out. If you have a nation of savers and investors, that have a stake in the country then good ideas win out. If you have a nation of consumers that don't have long term goals and live in debt and blow thier money on crap then stealing more money from the savers becomes popular. Hey look, I just describe most western nations.
This is exactly the same as capitalism and the opposite of communism, which is, naturally, why truly free democratic nations tend towards capitalism.
Then why has the US tended more and more towards socialism as it moves away from a republic and towards a more and more liberal democracy.
-
You guys seem to be argueing about two things going together when neither of them (thankfully) exists... least not here.
We do not have a "democracy". not a pure one in any case... the "common people" can't vote to burn all redheaded children for instance.
A democracy is a horror... Our form only works because it is a democracy that is limited by a strong constitution that gurantees certain human rights that can not be infringed.. We also do not vote one every law... we are arepresentitive republic. We have checks and balances on moronic democracy. Democracy is government by "the whim of the people"
We also do not have a pure capitalism. even so... every time a big company swallows smallet competition he creates some competion in the niche market the big company can't be nimble enough to meet all the demand... they rarely even try... GM isn't making 69 camaros but several small companies are.... at huge prophits... If GM did it.... the small company would seek to satisfy another group left out by GM.
With a Democracy tempered with a strong human rights constitution and a form of capitalism that limits big business's ability to be nimble you get...
A country with freedom and great choice in a myriad of goods at cheap prices....
With socialism or communism.... you get... soviet russia or china or even england. High prices and a government that can do whatever it wants with no gurarentees for "the common man".
And yes.... no matter how many people try it how many ways.... It is that simple.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Funny, isn't it?
At the same time US weapon companies failed to produce rifles for Russian government, failing both in quantity and quality. Would you be so kind to explain it?
In 1914-18, NOBODY made arms of the quality we make now. At Springfield Armory, they were making 1903 Rifles in a government factory. There was a heat treating problem, causing rifles to burst. Rifles made by Remington and others didn't have the problem. Hmmm...
Before WW2, all our torpedos were made in a government factory. The famous torpedo failures are well documented. During WW2, private companies made practically all our weapons.
Boroda, you can find examples on both sides of the argument. Nothing is proven, either way.
-
Originally posted by rshubert
Boroda, you can find examples on both sides of the argument. Nothing is proven, either way.
Wise statement.
I only used that arguments to prove that private enterprising isn't an absolute solution to all problems. At least here in Russia it have proven to be a disaster.