Apple's New Announcement coming soon

[TotallyOz]

I just hate the adversarial system in US politics - and in most political systems, for that matter.

 

I agree. I am not sure a better way to do it. I would like to see 3 or 4 or even 5 strong parties in the USA. I'd be with the Green Party.

[Guest voldemar]

Aren't the concepts pretty good? Isn't it only when you get humans involved that the concept is corrupted?

Well, now I understand what you mean by being socialist in ideal world. Do you have CNBC in Pattaya? They now showing as an ad a brilliant piece of 1979 interview of Milton Friedman with Phil Donahue. Donahue asks Friedman whether he ever had doubts in capitalism..

Watch Friedman brilliant response where , in particular, he asks Donahue to find angels who will organize the world on better principles and notes that he does not trust even Donahue himself to do that...

[Guest voldemar]

I just hate the adversarial system in US politics - and in most political systems, for that matter. Every single programme one sees on TV has to have one rep from the Republicans and another from the Democrats - or someone screams "unfair". They then present their entrenched positions and start arguing. Nothing concrete results. This is not reasoned debate. It's who can shout the loudest! It's all so ridiculously childish!

 

Occasionally you get a couple of more moderate politicians - and that's such a relief. When you look at the horrendous mess politicians have made in the US, Iceland, Ireland, the UK, Greece, Portugal etc., there surely has to be a more effective way of governance in this day and age. And yes, I know it was the bankers who caused the most recent disaster. But governments have an oversight and regulatory role, and I do not relieve any of them from blame.

Nevertheless, at the moment UK parliamentary system works much better than American one.

Slim majority in UK (whenever they rich consensus in their ranks) can push tough measures through. In US every piece of legislation goes through various transformations until huge majority satisfied. The end result frequently has nothing to do with original intentions...

I am just wondering how are they going to cut deficit spending...

As one of my colleagues put it: bringing new people to congress like putting virgins in whorehouse. Either they throw themselves out of the window or loose their virginity...

[Guest]

Aren't the concepts pretty good? Isn't it only when you get humans involved that the concept is corrupted?

 

The concepts are really poor. What socialism does is tax success & subsidise indolent failure.

We see enough of that in the UK. Whole families of spongers who never have any intention of working. Those of us who do work get more & more tax & now we hear we will not get our state pension until 66 or 67.

Low tax regulated capitalism is the fairest system. That rewards the people who deserve rewarding. Those who choose not to work need their expectations reduced.

[Guest fountainhall]

What socialism does is tax success & subsidise indolent failure . . . Whole families of spongers who never have any intention of working. Those of us who do work get more & more tax . . . Low tax regulated capitalism is the fairest system. That rewards the people who deserve rewarding

I come from a family that would never have thought of voting for the Labour party (in the UK). It was merely a matter of principle more than one of conviction based on ideals and policies. When I was permitted to vote, I simply followed that trend. I gave up that right to vote voluntarily when I moved overseas, and have not voted in 32 years. Were I to vote now, I would not vote for either of the two major parties. Like Michael, I'd probably vote 'Green'.

 

In the last 32 years, I have spent the majority of my time in two countries with low tax capitalist systems - Hong Kong and Japan. Whilst there, I have seen how spectacularly successful the capitalist model can be. But I have also witnessed its failures - the squatter shacks dotting Hong Kong's hillsides, poor people living in virtually caged accommodation, thousands sleeping in cardboard boxes at railway stations in Tokyo's wealthy districts, a man who was the Head of one of the major divisions in Japan's National Broadcaster NHK (enjoying a large office, car and driver) reduced to working in the corner of a 20-man office in a poor part of Tokyo because his pension did not afford him enough for a basic living in his retirement.

 

I do not believe unbridled capitalism is a moral system, nor one that will work in most places. Hong Kong may have at one time been, in the words of Milton Friedman, "the last bastion of unfettered capitalism", but it was far from pure capitalism by the 1970s. Indeed, even Hong Kong’s own administrators coined the phrase for their economic model as “positive non-interventionism”. But that did not stop them intervening to build the huge new infrastructure projects required by the massively increasing population and putting in place basic safety nets for those who could not keep up. Those years saw greater state intervention and supply of public services, followed in the 1980s by a further extension of state functions, regulations and activities.

 

As discussed in another thread, however, for decades Hong Kong was mostly a centre of migrants who had nothing, desperate to work to provide the basics for their families - food on the table, a roof over their heads and education for their children. Such a society will put up with a great number of hardships. Few societies in the developed world will do so. Pure capitalism therefore just can not work. Present day western societies are made up of a huge melange of widely different people with different needs, wants and desires. Capital gain is far from the driving force for many and such concepts as the mobility of labour are totally outdated with workers no longer prepared to migrate to find better paying jobs.

 

On the other hand, I agree in part with z909. I do not believe a pure socialist or Marxist system will work either. In my view there has to be some sort of in-between economic and social model that adapts to suit each society

[Guest voldemar]

I come from a family that would never have thought of voting for the Labour party (in the UK). It was merely a matter of principle more than one of conviction based on ideals and policies. When I was permitted to vote, I simply followed that trend. I gave up that right to vote voluntarily when I moved overseas, and have not voted in 32 years. Were I to vote now, I would not vote for either of the two major parties. Like Michael, I'd probably vote 'Green'.

 

In the last 32 years, I have spent the majority of my time in two countries with low tax capitalist systems - Hong Kong and Japan. Whilst there, I have seen how spectacularly successful the capitalist model can be. But I have also witnessed its failures - the squatter shacks dotting Hong Kong's hillsides, poor people living in virtually caged accommodation, thousands sleeping in cardboard boxes at railway stations in Tokyo's wealthy districts, a man who was the Head of one of the major divisions in Japan's National Broadcaster NHK (enjoying a large office, car and driver) reduced to working in the corner of a 20-man office in a poor part of Tokyo because his pension did not afford him enough for a basic living in his retirement.

 

I do not believe unbridled capitalism is a moral system, nor one that will work in most places. Hong Kong may have at one time been, in the words of Milton Friedman, "the last bastion of unfettered capitalism", but it was far from pure capitalism by the 1970s. Indeed, even Hong Kong’s own administrators coined the phrase for their economic model as “positive non-interventionism”. But that did not stop them intervening to build the huge new infrastructure projects required by the massively increasing population and putting in place basic safety nets for those who could not keep up. Those years saw greater state intervention and supply of public services, followed in the 1980s by a further extension of state functions, regulations and activities.

 

As discussed in another thread, however, for decades Hong Kong was mostly a centre of migrants who had nothing, desperate to work to provide the basics for their families - food on the table, a roof over their heads and education for their children. Such a society will put up with a great number of hardships. Few societies in the developed world will do so. Pure capitalism therefore just can not work. Present day western societies are made up of a huge melange of widely different people with different needs, wants and desires. Capital gain is far from the driving force for many and such concepts as the mobility of labour are totally outdated with workers no longer prepared to migrate to find better paying jobs.

 

On the other hand, I agree in part with z909. I do not believe a pure socialist or Marxist system will work either. In my view there has to be some sort of in-between economic and social model that adapts to suit each society

The argument that Milton Friedman made in above mentioned interview with Phil Donahue is that self-interest is the major motivational force in human behavior and nobody invented

anything else which would substitute it. Many people "dreamt" about the better way of society organization that capitalism but every concrete attempt to implement it failed:

former Soviet Union, communist China, all Estern European block, Cuba, North Korea...

you name it...

The only real hope for mankind is technological and scientific progress which provides more resources, improves quality of life ... But even in this area self-interest is a driving force.

Any time when various kinds of socialists are trying to interfere with this process, we all suffer. The good example is permanent harassment and demonization of farma companies...

Permanent aquisation of greed, demand of free medications etc. I am strongly convinced that the reason that we still do not have treatment of AIDS and cancer is the direct result of this type of socialist interference.

Socialism in all forms is pure evil . Capitalism may be brutal and unfair to some but it leads to prosperity and abundance and through varios charity channels eventually benefits all. We all know that people like Buffet and Gates eventually giving up most of their wealth and it is fine: it gives example that capitalism has room to accomodate better features of human animals without jeopordazing major genetic mechanism of progress.