A hard left Government
May 31st, 2007 at 6:28 pm by David FarrarJordan Carter has done an interesting post on what NZ might be like in 2007 if Labour had implemented hard left policies, rather than merely leftwing policies [my terminology not his].
He wistfully says NZ might have:
* Health spending at 10% of GDP and no waiting lists or fees in the health sector
* Reversal of the 1991 benefit cuts
* A return to national awards (and implicitly compulsory unionism)
* Free education from pre-school to tertiary and universal student allowances
* More widespread public transport
* Retain tariffs, not pursue any free trade deals
* Much higher taxes on high income earners and more support for low income families
* Public spending around 10% of GDP higher
Jordan bemoans that such a policy wishlist would never succeed today, as the public don’t want it, because no one is selling the merits of a more left-wing approach.
Jordan is absolutely correct that such a wishlist would lead to any Govt trying to do that being a one term wonder.
But not because it would be unpopular. Oh telling NZers that they can have free health, free education, more welfare and the Easter Bunny so long as those rich bastards get fucked over with more tax would probably be very popular at first.
Until the economy collapses, which it would. I’d actually love Labour to try and implement such a programme. It would be their last ever term in Government.
Related posts:
- Government Expenditure
- Debt under a Labour-led Government
- The Role of Government
- Why this is an extremist Government
May 31st, 2007 at 10:15 pm
He forgot the big one: Money growing trees!
Vote:May 31st, 2007 at 10:45 pm
He missed the big one though – money bearing trees! And what are the chances of that when in coalition with the Greens? (Slim to none – and Slim just left town!)
Vote:May 31st, 2007 at 10:54 pm
and your rightwing/nationals’ formula..?..is..
privatise/charge the mug-punters the most you can..
(c.f…nationals’ power-reforms..)..?
make the sick pay..?
widespread road-tolling..?
and more benefit cut/’reforms’..?
make everyone ‘user-pay’ (+ interest) for education..?
and more/big tax cuts for the rich..?
and about $6 pw tax cuts for the low-paid..?
(and at what cost..?..those tax cuts..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:May 31st, 2007 at 11:01 pm
I would have voted for more money for schools and universities, more money (in the form of written off tertiary debt) to retain public sector staff in health, education and the CRI’s.
I would have supported more money for public transport.
I would have supported student allowances/dole for all students (though increased fees to increase the incentive to stay and work in New Zealand) and all non working partners (those with children) of those working.
I would have also supported more public housing (to cope with the immigration influx).
And a broadband network.
And a capital gains tax – allowing a cut in interest income tax to a once and for all 20% withholding.
I would have fixed the currency – what’s the point of having world leading interest rates to attract foereign capital if this makes investment in production untenable because of the impact on the currency.
And I would have increased GST (a free trade friendly way of limiting spending on consumer imports) – with a zero rate for food.
This to ensure the budget still had a surplus for the Cullen Fund after Kiwi Saver.
Vote:May 31st, 2007 at 11:02 pm
What would have happened?
(1) the reduction of govt debt, which Jordan has, in the past, applauded, would not have occured at all.
Vote:(2) Greater exodus of capital and businesses over to Australia
(3) Almost no improvement in the health sector, because the money would simply have been absorbed to no effect, like the actual spend-up has been
(4) reduced domestic competition as smaller businesses fail to be able to absord Jordan’s national awards agreements.
(5) higher costs to domestic consumers due to retained tariffs.
June 1st, 2007 at 2:40 am
Then the heartless evil national party would have to fix all the mess, or muddle around trying to do so without killing to many sacrid cows (and risk voter vengence).
Be careful what you wish for, the effects of economic decline would be very hard on New Zealand, and by the time NZ realises that things must change (regardless of the cost) we will have slipped down the OECD even more.
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 7:02 am
SPC claims he would vote for all those things. I don’t hear him saying he would pay for it though – presumably he wants everyone else to pay.
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 8:09 am
Ummm, why is anyone taking a post made by JC seriously??
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 8:12 am
yes david..it’s called the ‘common-good’..
as opposed to your/nationals’ ethos..the ‘more for me-good’..
why don’t you try raising that subject amongst all those white men in suits..?
who will be at that rightwing conference you are going to..?
oh..! that’s right..!..not much point ..eh..?
you lot celebrate the robber-barons..and are largely..wannabe robber-barons..
so any ideas/ideals of a
‘commongood’
..are..well..’laughable..!.’..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 8:30 am
SPC quoteth thusly:
“I would have also supported more public housing (to cope with the immigration influx).”
Ummm, we have enough trouble housing the domestic population. Wouldn’t you say this is an immigration issue, rather than a housing one?
PS: Jordan is a raving looooooon.
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 8:34 am
More pissing in the wind there from Phil. If a rabid Greenie yells in isolation, does he make a noise? To bring some more maturity to this I say: Over 50% over 50% over 50% nyah nyah!!
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 8:44 am
Actually Phil U the ideas / ideals of a commongood being forced upon someone via an autocratic degree is saddening rather than laughable.
Typically we support a true ideal of commongood where people support each other through choice.
But of course the left can’t understand the idea of people actually choosing to help each other can you? (That $160 million granted to an american university today must really confuse you)
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 9:10 am
Carter: Health spending at 10% of GDP and no waiting lists or fees in the health sector
If Carter hasn’t yet understood that waiting lists cannot be solved by throwing more money at health care, he never will. Health care has to be rationed somehow, and if its not price that does it then its waiting lists.
I am really unimpressed with Carter. He lacks insight on most things, he puts Labour party allegiance in front of reason whenever necessary, and this wishlist in particular displays some really low quality thinking.
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 9:18 am
It’s funny that Phil thinks the robber barons are those who pay the taxes rather than those who live off them.
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 9:24 am
I see you’ve been to argument school Mr. Farrar,
“Until the economy collapses, which it would. I’d actually love Labour to try and implement such a programme. It would be their last ever term in Government”.
All rhetoric, no backup.
That’s a lot of blustering there.
How about this?
Vote:When Key gets elected he will pull off his head and reveal himself to be Roger Douglas (have you ever seen them in the same room?)
June 1st, 2007 at 9:37 am
David -
Its funny that you think however the capitalist system distributes resources without intervention (ie the most powerful control the assets and decide how produce is redistributed, naturally ensuring the most goes to themselves and ordinary jokers have to fight amongst themselves for a pittance) is ‘natural’. Whereas, society collectively redistributing some of those resources through the mechanism of the State to ensure a hint of equality and fairness, not to mention funding the education and health of the workforce the rich need to produce the wealth in the first place, is not natural.
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 9:38 am
“A return to national awards (and implicitly compulsory unionism”
An awards system would in no way necessitate compulsory unionism – I certainly doesn’t in France where 80% of people are covered by awards yet only 14% belong to a union. Also, the idea that the economy would collapse if we had an awards system is just laughable – i.e. Ireland, the wonder country of the OECD undertook its vast economic expansion with an awards system in place. They also have about 50% union density (New Zealand has about 20%).
All the other changes probably go too far. I would however knock off tax on the first $10,000 of income.
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 9:56 am
Sam Dixon – you’re mistaken in your belief that a free market is one without intervention. A free market is one in which supply and demand are unregulated except by the country’s competition policy, and rights in physical and intellectual property are upheld. This creates an equitable distribution of wealth in the long-term.
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 9:59 am
“This creates an equitable distribution of wealth in the long-term.”
I hope the US isn’t your example of this …
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 10:41 am
JG-
“A free market is one in which supply and demand are unregulated except by the country’s competition policy, and rights in physical and intellectual property are upheld. This creates an equitable distribution of wealth in the long-term.”
How?
Inequalities of wealth tend to magnify, not diminish in a free market. If you have wealth you can hoard it, thsoe without are forced to rely on you for work to surivive, you get to decide the division of the fruits of production, you give the biggest slice to yourself, extending your control over the means of production and enabling an even more uneven distribution of wealth. Its a simple cycle.
In a most simple exmaple, if you own a whole bunch of land (perhaps inherited from an ancestor, who maybe killed off the orginal inhabitatns or subjecated them) and people want to work your land to grow food you can set conditions by which they get just enough of their production to survive on and you get the rest, which you can sell for personal wealth or trade for more land or other capital, and repeat the cycle on a larger scale.
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 11:03 am
“I hope the US isn’t your example of this …”
Really, only a delusional extreme leftist fuckwit of the first order would suggest it. Good grief, there’s no hope for you people..
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 11:39 am
where then..?..redbaiter..where..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Not anywhere people like you Phil are socially and politically ascendant. Ever heard of the dark ages Phil? A time in Europe when sorcerers and magicians and superstition held sway and lead was turned into gold and people were bled for their illnesses and civilization was retarded for a century or more.
Ever heard of that Phil? Its what socialists have done in the 20th century, not only to Europe but everywhere they have proliferated. You’re not going to continue to do the same this century Phil.
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 12:05 pm
PhilU:
Why bother? Nobody cares about what he has to say anyway.
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Free markets are regulated by the people in them having choice in how to spend their money.Its far more effective than State regulation which is cumbersome and blunt….see Exxon…the market had already delivered its verdict and withdrawn its investment before the clueless State had even got out of bed.The US has not been a free market for quite some time….just freer than many others.
If they had been a true free market the war in Iraq would not have happened for starters…that was due to big bad government.
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 12:37 pm
A selection of todays freemarket jokes
“Health care has to be rationed somehow”.
ummm, yeh people need to stop getting ill.Now!
“Free markets are regulated by the people in them having choice in how to spend their money.”
Please supply a real example of this, a real example or are you just dreaming.
“This (free market) creates an equitable distribution of wealth in the long-term.”
Ummmm. How long is long term? In my lifetime? Real examples please.
Jordan has raised some very valid points. Most of things he has suggested will be huge issues in the next three decades of politics.
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 1:20 pm
“The US has not been a free market for quite some time….just freer than many others.
If they had been a true free market the war in Iraq would not have happened for starters…that was due to big bad government.”
This really is some utopian stuff James. You forget that free markets produce huge concentrations of wealth – market mechanisms (economies of scale) produce monopolies and oligopalies. Concentration of wealth inevitably translates into concentration of political power. These guys then lobby for corporate welfare. Then you end up with Halliburton etc … then you end up with “Big, Bad Government”, endless profiteering wars etc …
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 1:57 pm
“He wistfully says NZ might have:
* Health spending at 10% of GDP and no waiting lists or fees in the health sector”
Canada’s on 10.4% (2005, per Health Canada/Sante Canada) and there’s no sign the waiting lists are disappearing there.
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Wow, here we are debating hard economics and the right is nowhere to be seen. A few snide remarks from Redbaiter and some strange stuff from James.
James -
If you’re going to say pure “free markets create an an equitable distribution of wealth in the long-term.” you’re going against what any leading economist will tell you, and you’re going aginst the simple maths of utility optimisation of self-interested actors (that’s us, by the way). And, what, your example is Exxon took some steps to prevent another accident that cost them one of their ships, a shitload of oil, and had made their name synonymous with environmental disaster without the government forcing them to?
oh, and, that, somehow, it was the lack of free markets in the most free market economy in the world that casued it to go into a stupid war while many less-free market countries emplored it not to.
Been an interesting week on the old kiwiblog – Christians get embarrassed over the Tamaki issue,
DPF makes a fool of himself by not understanding the basics of inflation before he spouts off,
and now there’s no substanive debate coming from the right on the inequity inherant in the free markets society chooses to use as its basic forum for trade and that it is society’s right to address via the mechanism of the State.
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Sam
If you’re going to say pure “free markets create an an equitable distribution of wealth in the long-term.” you’re going against what any leading economist will tell you
Really? Isn’t “equitable” a normative judgment on which economics has little to offer? I suspect economists are reluctant to offer their views on what is equitable because they recognise they have no particular expertise on the matter.
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 3:21 pm
“the right is nowhere to be seen.”
Debating economics or anything with indoctrinated socialists is about as interesting as arguing the existence of God with the Exclusive Brethren.
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 3:51 pm
ben -
while its true that equitable isn’t precise like equal, it does have a flavour of getting a fair share in return for fair effort.. note the exmaples above of what happens in free markets as wealth and power get concerntrated n the hands of the few and the rest are left to slave for what cruumbs they can get… I don’t think many people would have a trouble saying those are not equitable outcomes.
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 5:27 pm
“the right is nowhere to be seen”
Vote:Probably because we’ve all gone to our beach houses.
June 1st, 2007 at 8:29 pm
Viva inequality….you may not get what you want but what you deserve.
Vote:Welcome to the market lefties.
June 1st, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Free markets have a far wider distribution of wealth across the board than any socialist system which just ensures equal poverty across the board….except for the tiny elite at the top living like kings on the backs of their subjects…opps I mean Comrades..See Zimbabwe,North Korea,Cuba,USSR,China before reforms,etc etc etc…the average person in a western country with even a semi free market has a higher standard of living than even the upper echelons in Socialist backwaters.
But the goal of a free market (meaning free people trading together)is NOT the equal distribution of wealth….its to let people become as rich and properous as they can by virtue of their own productive efforts.Those who make others better off by supplyiong wanted goods and services are rewarded…those who offer nothing of value to others are not….simple and just, no free lunches.
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 8:51 pm
This really is some utopian stuff James. You forget that free markets produce huge concentrations of wealth – market mechanisms (economies of scale) produce monopolies and oligopalies.”
Crap….dealt with above
” Concentration of wealth inevitably translates into concentration of political power. These guys then lobby for corporate welfare. Then you end up with Halliburton etc … then you end up with “Big, Bad Government”, endless profiteering wars etc.”
Which is what happens in the absense of a free market which is the scenario you have described.A free market as I define it….and as it actually is if it can even be called a free market is where people trade freely in all sphears….social,economic,romantic etc…and the Government,who’s only function is to protect and allow the trading to continue unhindered by force or fraud stays out of it.
A complete separation of State from economics makes your example above impossible….but then there is no free market in operation in the US….its big, bloated government control overseeing things to a large degree.
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Sam Dixon reminds me of the character in the Holy Grail: “Look at the inequity inherent in the free market! I’m being oppressed…”
No one cared in the film either.
Vote:June 2nd, 2007 at 12:03 am
Hey Phil, PJ, Sam, etc why not take all that wealth away from the horrid capitalists and redisribute it like Robert Mugabe did in Zimbabwae?
I’m sure the people of Zimbabwae are really greatful that there is now less inequality and that market forces have been tamed.
Oh, and that great solution for finding sufficient money for state programs – just run those currency printing presses 24 7. Don’t worry about nasty capitalist things like keeping the money supply in check.
Vote:June 2nd, 2007 at 12:18 am
“I’m sure the people of Zimbabwae are really greatful that there is now less inequality and that market forces have been tamed.”
This is an example of political simplicity so as to prove your economic ideology is somehow the natural answer to evil.
…but to help you along simple man .ZIMBABWE – not communist – but dictator. Repeat till understood.
Vote:June 2nd, 2007 at 1:06 pm
…but to help you along simple man .ZIMBABWE – not communist – but dictator. Repeat till understood.”
And the real difference is what exactly….? Mugabe is an avowed Communist…or was last time I checked.But the repression and poverty are par for the course under a non Capitalist system.
Vote:June 2nd, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Back to your (not so) neutral corners boys and girls. As long as Sam, philu, sonic et al value inputs and the rest value outputs, there will never be anything to debate.
Try solving something simple about equity. Like, oh … for example ……. the valuation of teacher’s remuneration.
The same polarity will occur with one side saying that they work hard and give lots of effort into teaching so all should be paid the same while the other claims that some are worth much more than others because of the quality of teaching and the learning outputs that they generate.
An equitable distribution of the country’s wealth (in reality the amount that a Government can take from productive members of society) will always founder on the definition of “equitable”
Marx vs the Rest
philu looks for examples of successful capitalism while I look for examples of successful socialism. So far I can find plenty of examples of dramatic failure and collapse of socialist states – can’t find too many among capitalist societies. Comes down to sustainability I suppose! what a hell of a word that. SUSTAINABILITY
Vote:June 2nd, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Ahh, the old robber barons eh! let’s take a quick look at one of them: Andrew Carnegie.
By the age of 12 he was working 12 hours a day, six days a week as a bobbin boy in a Pittsburgh cotton mill, earning $1.20 a week. At 14 he became a telegraph delivery boy, earning $2.50/week, and went on to become an operator. He was so good at this that his salary rose to $25/month.
In 1853 he was hired by Thomas Scott, the General Superintendent of the Pennsylvania Railway. In 1868, 33 years old, he had an annual income of $50,000, thanks to the tutelage of Scott, and numerous shrewd investments he had made in iron works, railways and telegraph lines.
After a visit to the Bessemer steel works in Sheffield, England, Carnegie focused on steel production, and by the mid 1880s was the dominant player in the industry. His management philosophy was simple: innovate constantly, invest heavily in the latest equipment and technology and save most of the profits from good years, to take advantage of opportunities in bad years. By 1897, the Carnegie Steel Co. alone produced more steel than all of Britain. In 1899, profit was $21 million, the following year, $42 million. And so one of the great fortunes was amassed.
Carnegie wrote “a man who dies rich, dies disgraced”, and subsequently gave away almost his entire fortune, building 5000 town libraries amongst other substantial endowments.
And then there’s John Jacob Astor, whose Astor Library today forms the core of the New York Public Library, the largest privately financed library in the world. Henry Clay Frick gave his incomparable art collection to the city of New York, along with his 5th Avenue mansion to house it, and $15 million to maintain it. John D Rockefeller donated millions, almost beyond counting, to worthy causes across America. J. P. Morgan’s art collection, the largest ever in private hands, is now mostly in the Metroploitan Museum, the Wadsworth Atheneum and the Morgan Library, which also houses one of the world’s great collections of manuscripts and rare books.
These “robber barons”, between them created the modern industrial economy, amassed fortunes in the doing, and then gave most of it away to charities and worthy public causes.
I for one, am happy to celebrate them.
Vote:June 2nd, 2007 at 4:16 pm
“A free market as I define it….and as it actually is if it can even be called a free market is where people trade freely in all sphears….social,economic,romantic etc…and the Government,who’s only function is to protect and allow the trading to continue unhindered by force or fraud stays out of it.”
That’s why I call it utopian James, you’re platonic “free-market” has never existed and will never exist.
Also, like sam Dixon has pointed out to you there isn’t one reputable economist will say that a free market produces an equitable distrbution of wealth (NZ and USA), say compared to a social democratic economy (Scandanavian countries). I actualy find it quite frustrating to point out to you because it’s such a well established fact.
Vote:June 2nd, 2007 at 4:38 pm
James et al -
you may recall the point of this conversation was whether it was justifiable for society to redistribute resources because free markets are unable to allocate them in an equitable way – wealth goes to those in power, power goes to the wealth, everyone else gets fukked.
hence we are not saying that all resources should be redistributed equaly in some kind of communist system – we’re saying it is fine for society to use the State to address flaws in the mechanism of trade/ production (the free market/capitalism) society has chosen. We are ony justifying the current system not calling for some communist utopia, its your mystical free market without regulation that some how works out fairly thats utopian
Vote:June 2nd, 2007 at 5:50 pm
That’s why I call it utopian James, you’re platonic “free-market” has never existed and will never exist.”
The point is that the closer you get the better off everyone becomes…history has shown that in Hong Kong,The US (19th century) et el.Nothings perfect but we should try to get as close as possible…
“Also, like sam Dixon has pointed out to you there isn’t one reputable economist will say that a free market produces an equitable distrbution of wealth (NZ and USA), say compared to a social democratic economy (Scandanavian countries).”
Of course not because an equal distribution of wealth only occurs under a authoritarian/socialist/fascist economy.Free markets aren’t about equality and “fairness”…they are about liberty and free trade.” The fact that the Scandanavin countries are moving away from welfare to private provision of services shoots your case down.The average black American enjoys a higher standard of living than the average Swede…food for thought…
“I actualy find it quite frustrating to point out to you because it’s such a well established fact.”
Its an irrelevant fact.Ask the Austrian economists and they will tell you something quite different than that of the discredited Keynesian school.
“you may recall the point of this conversation was whether it was justifiable for society to redistribute resources because free markets are unable to allocate them in an equitable way – wealth goes to those in power, power goes to the wealth, everyone else gets fukked.:”
And I said that was bullshit.It is not free markets that do that…its state run mixed economy’s.If the State has no part to play in the workings of the economy, which is the base position a free market rests on, then acquiring political power (force) by having earned economic power (wealth) (two quite different things)can’t happen.
“hence we are not saying that all resources should be redistributed equaly in some kind of communist system – we’re saying it is fine for society to use the State to address flaws in the mechanism of trade/ production (the free market/capitalism) society has chosen.”
That is not the States role…if it preforms it it must become a rights violater and authoritarian…our libertys will be stripped away as is happening now…no thanks.
“We are ony justifying the current system not calling for some communist utopia, its your mystical free market without regulation that some how works out fairly thats utopian”
People freely trading to mutual benefit are utopian? Open your eyes and look about you…its happening millions of time s a day all over the world….no politicians required.
And lets call it what it is that you want….a society where people are threatened and forced to hand over their property for the unearned benefit of another.Its theft.by what right do these other have to enslave you and your property to their wants?…and how do they get this unequal right that you don’t have? Is need a license to enslave others to your service?
And free markets are always regulated…to a far higher standard than Governments can match.The free consumer with their own money in their pockets and the freedom to choose is master of even the biggest multi-national.Companies have to earn and maintain their profits by servicing a fussy and demanding market…they get it wrong and we punish them by withdrawing our custom.happens to the Biggest…Coca Cola,McDonald’s,Glaxo Klien,Subway,Exxon etc…all punished by the consumers for actions that annoyed them.The Government by contrast has no such worries as it can demand your money by force without offering anything of value in return.And it can pretty much ride rough shod over the wants and wishes of the taxpayer who is powerless….see the Anti smacking bill.Thats why its services suck, no incentives or penalties if it fails to deliver….
Vote:June 2nd, 2007 at 6:34 pm
“The average black American enjoys a higher standard of living than the average Sweden…food for thought”
Proof … statistics?
“an equal distribution of wealth only occurs under a authoritarian/socialist/fascist economy.”
You said the opposite of this in your previous post. Which one is it?
“Free markets aren’t about equality and “fairness”…they are about liberty and free trade”
Trite rehtoric James –
Here’s a popular definition of liberty ”
“freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control”
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Liberty
Now in free market (NZ, US) unions are ideally marginalised, and most people work for corporations and businesses that are for the most part despotic and unaccountable. In a social democratic economy unions usualy play a part in the employment relationship, acting as a counterveiling force to the power of the employer. They proivide freedom from despotic control by holding employers accountable for their actions – in other words they facilitate liberty, whereas a free market takes away liberty.
So in sum, social democracy is about fairness, liberty and relative equality. “Free markets” or “free trade” is simply put, the tyranny of capital
Vote:June 2nd, 2007 at 7:08 pm
“philu looks for examples of successful capitalism while I look for examples of successful socialism”
examples of successful socialism:
The first world has built modern economies on various socialist distributions of capital built by an aspiring workforce. The work part is essentially an economic game of various fairness/ unfairness built to deliver a variety of advances faster. (the rat race)
Recently idiots have tried to convince us this isn’t the case . Their revision is based on a real sad denial. They want the historic socialist part of the equation reduced or in some obscene dreams, removed completely. This is disturbing in that it is at a basic minimum in most nations already.
To justify this they point out the brutal regimes of dictators who have used policies that are just as obscene as any free market dream and just as irrelevant to any real modern discussion on empowering people. James leave your act party pamphlets alone for a minute and go and have a look outside
Vote:June 2nd, 2007 at 7:09 pm
“philu looks for examples of successful capitalism while I look for examples of successful socialism”
examples of successful socialism:
The first world has built modern economies on various socialist distributions of capital built by an aspiring workforce. The work part is essentially an economic game of various fairness/ unfairness built to deliver a variety of advances faster. (the rat race)
Recently idiots have tried to convince us this isn’t the case . Their revision is based on a real sad denial. They want the historic socialist part of the equation reduced or in some obscene dreams, removed completely. This is disturbing in that it is at a basic minimum in most nations already.
To justify this they point out the brutal regimes of dictators who have used policies that are just as obscene as any free market dream and just as irrelevant to any real modern discussion on empowering people. James leave your act party pamphlets alone for a minute and go and have a look outside
Vote:June 2nd, 2007 at 7:55 pm
James:
It looks like you haven’t been exposed to much non-neoliberal thought. So I thought that you may benefit from watching this most excellent lecture by the world’s most quoted scholar. Just try and suspend your prejudices for a second and open your mind to what the man’s saying. It might balance out your opinion some what.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAxl7bM4NoI&mode=related&search=
Vote:June 3rd, 2007 at 12:38 am
Fuck off….I’ve had this debate with so many socialist newbies over the years it’s tiresome.All that happen is you distort and lie about the facts submitted. I submit reality and history as my evidence…
Chomsky argues against a straw man as is his M.o. He’s a liar and evader.Its not Capitalism He’s arguing against….its State control….but he’s too stupid to realise it.
No free market has been allowed to exist …..as PJ and others have acknowledged. So what’s really to blame? State involvement in the market….as it’s always been.
Vote:June 3rd, 2007 at 12:49 am
NZ has never had a free market…just mixed economies.But the morons who inhabit the place know no different.Has anyone ever been able to not pay tax….? No…then there is no free market operating… simple.In a free market there is no taxation….work it out noddies…
Vote:June 3rd, 2007 at 1:15 am
O.K Put heroin on the free market. You’ll have a regulation in days.
or put guns in a free market. You’ll have a regulation in hours.
Stop dreaming about something that is so open to quick manipulation – humans would never knowingly vote to live in such an anarchy, such economic anarchy.
Vote: