Buy From China

As for permitted and encouraged industries, the principles that govern them is quite clear. They are there for china to gain expertise in certain sectors that are not performing very well.

http://www.china.org.cn/english/CU-c/76756.htm

(longer list of irrelevance)

In addition, these guidelines were promulgated after 2000, LONG AFTER SOCIALIST ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT has already talken place.

So, if one is still inclined to ask -- What is socialist? What is capitalist? -- it is better for such a moron to stop reading media propaganda and actually get a decent education.

Guidelines are not relevant to the topic. Businesses in the US are under guidelines. We are still Capitalist. Foreign invest regulation, restricted or promoted, still changes nothing in the economic model.

Nothing of what you said changes anything. It's not even relevant to the topic. The very fact a reform was needed indicates Socialism does not work. The fact that 70% of China's GDP is under private control, proves it is Capitalistic. None of your 'evidence' supports or is even related to your point. You are still wrong, sorry.

Clearly I know far more about Socialism and Capitalism. I only asked you, because you come up with thing completely unrelated to the topic, and cite them as proof. Which means you are either insane, or have a different concept of both words than what is true. I was trying to see if you knew what the words meant. So far the answer is still either insane, or ignorant. I still can not figure which of those is your problem.
 
Werbung:
Well I had hoped by being enraging, you would go learn something, but that didn't work. So here goes another round of pointing out the obvious to everyone else reading, that clearly you do not get.



Chinese Economic Reform

"As of 2005, 70% of China's GDP is in the private sector"
The dominant means of production is Capitalism.

The thing about statistics is that one actually needs some brain to interpret it.

Does your 'private sector' include TOWNSHIP INVESTEMENTS, a cooperative-type enterprise more like socialism (that is autonomous to the central government) than any form of capitalism you could think of??

Bet your washington post source neglected to mention this.

When 70% of the GDP is Capitalism, I don't see how this a 'limited amount'.

Propaganda works especially well on the dim-witted.

I have already given you a source that says the majority of the gdp is from industries that are restricted or prohibited.

And if you consider that the private sector in china also include townships, then you'd get a better picture of what I'm talking about.

Further, and perhaps you can explain this, but I do not see how foreign investment, restricted or otherwise, has anything even remotely to do with Capitalism. I'm sorry, I just do not see it.

Because the bulk of investors in foreign countries are capitalists. Duh?

Back to my point before, my company has ZERO foreign investment. We are capitalist. So if a company in China has zero foreign investment, yet is privately owned, privately operated, like the Guiyang Hong Yue Food Products Co. which earns $6 million yearly and employs 250 people... how is this not Capitalism? Just explain the logic, because according to the dictionary copy I posted in the prior post, that is Capitalism.

I did explain.

Prior to the civil war, did the us have a slavery or capitalist mode of production?

Can any academic in the field of economics consider the uk economy as feudal?

Or what do you call some third world nations with one or two provinces still engaged in share-cropping?

The development of a society's mode of production doesn't happen simultaneously nor homogenously.

Capice?

Ok then everyone in the entire world, including those in China complaining about the Capitalistic economy, are idiots, but you.

Have you seen any credible academic asserting that the uk has a feudal economy -- with its queen, princes dukes, etc?

I can imagine how it must be difficult for you but do try to avoid simple-mindedness.

You seem to be reading into this article much more than is actually there. Again, back to my previous question, how does restrictions on foreign investment have anything to do with Capitalism? You seem to be reading into this article the idea that restricting foreign investment means they are all under public control. This is not stated anywhere in this article.

Because investments by individuals within china, of such magnitude and extent is next to impossible. Only an entire town working cooperatively could possibly do that.

Everything was nationalized when the communists took over, remember? Duh?

Again, perhaps these industries do constitute the bulk of state owned production. But that just means exactly that, this is the bulk of state owned production. State owned production only accounts for 30% of China's GDP. The rest of it is privately owned production.

Those industries constitute the bulk of chinese production and exports.

I wonder why, even if logic points directly at a dog, you are intent on seeing fleas?

So you point out that the bulk of, the states owned 30%, is in these areas... well yippy. I just pointed out that the other 70% is private. Which point is more valid to our topic?

Your 70-30 gdp split is, at best, an approximation -- more likely, from the same mixed-economy propagandists who cannot imagine a socialist nation having an effecient economy. Perhaps the same sort of propagandists who asserted that japanese technology can never be at par with us technology.

I also keep asking the question, if socialism works... why was there a need for reform to begin with? You realize that the Chinese socialism started prior to, and was completed, in 1956. So from 1956 to 1979, there was uninterrupted socialism, and a virtual elimination of all private business.

Oh? You do not think capitalism underwent a series of reforms historically to be where it is right now?

That is 23 years of domination of a socialist economy. During that time, China's economy was in the gutter. They were a backwards screwed up nation that in 1981, 53% of the population lived in poverty. Again, socialism never works. But by 2001, the poverty rate was 8%, that being after the reforms that allowed for Capitalism.

Nonsense.

Who developed the transportation, communication, mining, energy, technology, etc infrastructure in the country that makes all these possible, hmmm? The private sector?
 
Guidelines are not relevant to the topic. Businesses in the US are under guidelines. We are still Capitalist. Foreign invest regulation, restricted or promoted, still changes nothing in the economic model.

Nothing of what you said changes anything. It's not even relevant to the topic. The very fact a reform was needed indicates Socialism does not work.

LOL.

There is no reason why a socialist economy couldn't be market-oriented. Nor is a highly centralized economy particular to a socialist economy.

The fact that 70% of China's GDP is under private control, proves it is Capitalistic. None of your 'evidence' supports or is even related to your point. You are still wrong, sorry.

I don't think you even know what you're talking about.

GDP = consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports), or,

GDP = C + I + G + (X-M)

Tell me, when a billion people consume goods and services, is that a capitalist or socialist consumption, hmmm?

When government spends on infrastructure, military, etc., is that a socialist or capitalist spending?

And I suppose anyone is importing and exporting to and from china of such magnitude other than the state?

Clearly I know far more about Socialism and Capitalism. I only asked you, because you come up with thing completely unrelated to the topic, and cite them as proof. Which means you are either insane, or have a different concept of both words than what is true. I was trying to see if you knew what the words meant. So far the answer is still either insane, or ignorant. I still can not figure which of those is your problem.

You don't even know gdp and you purport to know more than me?
 
LOL.

The thing is, it isn't just a 'bit more'. Its more like a third of what you would normally pay for the same product. My chinese-assembled laptop costs 1/3 of an ibm or an apple notebook and performs just as well, if not better. This will only get better in time.
At least, that's what China's sales-and-marketing folks are saying. :rolleyes: (Maybe they could get jobs with BUSHCO's Homeland Security).

 
The thing about statistics is that one actually needs some brain to interpret it.

Does your 'private sector' include TOWNSHIP INVESTEMENTS, a cooperative-type enterprise more like socialism (that is autonomous to the central government) than any form of capitalism you could think of??

Bet your washington post source neglected to mention this.

It is good to admit you need help interpreting. I will help you.

Fan Gang is one of China's best-known economists. He directs the National Economic Research Institute, a Beijing think tank affiliated with the China Reform Foundation.

He had this to say to a reporter for the BusinessWeek.
Q: What's the role of the state sector vs. the private sector?
A: The major reform achievement has been in privatizing state enterprises. The private sector accounts for 70% of gross domestic product. There are 200 large state companies -- basically, they are in utilities, some in heavy industries, some in resource industries. Traditionally, this is where governments have invested.​

Further, listed as reasons for the need for reform, was the failure of the Co-ops. So... without any doubt, it can be concluded that Co-Ops are considered public, and Socialist. Not private. Further, Co-ops were introduced nearly 10 years prior to the 1978 reforms, so again, it can be assumed that Private Sector means... private sector. Do you need to know how 'is' is defined too?

Propaganda works especially well on the dim-witted.

I have already given you a source that says the majority of the gdp is from industries that are restricted or prohibited.

And if you consider that the private sector in china also include townships, then you'd get a better picture of what I'm talking about.

Restricted from foreign investment. Peachy. That doesn't stop a Chinese citizen form opening a private business that is in that industry. That business would be capitalist. So... it's not relevant to the topic. Still wrong sorry.

According to Mr Fan Gang who is directly advising the Chinese government, he says private sector means exactly what private sector means. I'm sorry, you are wrong.

Because the bulk of investors in foreign countries are capitalists. Duh?

Still irrelevant. Let's say that China completely banned all foreign investment. The people of China are engaging in Capitalism without us. Just like all those stories I mentioned. So, I'm sorry, I still do not see a relevant point.

Prior to the civil war, did the us have a slavery or capitalist mode of production?

Can any academic in the field of economics consider the uk economy as feudal?

Or what do you call some third world nations with one or two provinces still engaged in share-cropping?

The development of a society's mode of production doesn't happen simultaneously nor homogenously.

Capice?

Chocolate is TASTY and Indo-China has RICE! Prior statement was as relevant as above response.

None of what you just said was a valid point. We are talking about whether the people of China are engaged in Capitalism or Socialism. The defining factor being who owns the means of production.

Hence, a private company, privately owned, privately hiring 250 people, and privately selling on an open market, is in fact Capitalism.

Have you seen any credible academic asserting that the uk has a feudal economy -- with its queen, princes dukes, etc?

Can a person open a food company and air conditioning company privately and sell stuff with no government control?

I can imagine how it must be difficult for you but do try to avoid simple-mindedness.

I normally do, but you are so entertaining to shoot down.

Because investments by individuals within china, of such magnitude and extent is next to impossible. Only an entire town working cooperatively could possibly do that.

Fan Gang, who would know more than yourself said:
The major reform achievement has been in privatizing state enterprises. The private sector accounts for 70% of gross domestic product.​

It seems you are wrong again. I'm used to it though. You?

Everything was nationalized when the communists took over, remember? Duh?

And now it's not?... duh?

Those industries constitute the bulk of chinese production and exports.

I wonder why, even if logic points directly at a dog, you are intent on seeing fleas?

Fan Gang: "Private companies have been behind the recent boom in capacity." I think I believe him more than you. Oh, and go to dictionary.com to look up the word "private" or Wiki for "Private companies".

Your 70-30 gdp split is, at best, an approximation -- more likely, from the same mixed-economy propagandists who cannot imagine a socialist nation having an effecient economy. Perhaps the same sort of propagandists who asserted that japanese technology can never be at par with us technology.

Odd, Fan Gang who is directly advising the government says it's likely more than 70 percent because unlike Co-ops and State-run companies, private sector is hard to document.

Oh? You do not think capitalism underwent a series of reforms historically to be where it is right now?

Nice deflection... 2 points for creative evasion. Try answering the question :)

Who developed the transportation, communication, mining, energy, technology, etc infrastructure in the country that makes all these possible, hmmm? The private sector?

Who developed a 53% poverty rate? Further, why is one of China's stated goals of the reform to deploy and update their dilapidated infrastructure?
 
There is no reason why a socialist economy couldn't be market-oriented. Nor is a highly centralized economy particular to a socialist economy.

This is getting better and better. So do tell, if government owns all means of production, explain how it is not a centralized.

I don't think you even know what you're talking about.

GDP = consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports), or,

GDP = C + I + G + (X-M)

Tell me, when a billion people consume goods and services, is that a capitalist or socialist consumption, hmmm?

When government spends on infrastructure, military, etc., is that a socialist or capitalist spending?

And I suppose anyone is importing and exporting to and from china of such magnitude other than the state?

You don't even know gdp and you purport to know more than me?

If you can't answer the questions you asked, then clearly yes, without question I undeniably know a ton more than you. So does everyone it seems. You don't see anyone coming to your defense, and I don't need any help since all the evidence is on my side.

It's ok though. I'm toying with you. I only wish you worked for Hilliary. You would sink her campaign in minutes. Just get on Dateline, and spout all this while expressing your support for her, and she's done.
 
It is good to admit you need help interpreting. I will help you.

Fan Gang is one of China's best-known economists. He directs the National Economic Research Institute, a Beijing think tank affiliated with the China Reform Foundation.

He had this to say to a reporter for the BusinessWeek.
Q: What's the role of the state sector vs. the private sector?
A: The major reform achievement has been in privatizing state enterprises. The private sector accounts for 70% of gross domestic product. There are 200 large state companies -- basically, they are in utilities, some in heavy industries, some in resource industries. Traditionally, this is where governments have invested.​

I'll make it easy for you. A country is a producer at the same time consumer. And when 1 billion souls consume goods and services, it would reflect considerably on its gdp.

The question you need to ask is -- who is providing for the necessities of these 1 billion souls?

And when you look at the restricted and prohibited catalogue, the basic necessities are being produced by the state -- either in its central government or the de-centralized towns.

Further, listed as reasons for the need for reform, was the failure of the Co-ops. So... without any doubt, it can be concluded that Co-Ops are considered public, and Socialist. Not private. Further, Co-ops were introduced nearly 10 years prior to the 1978 reforms, so again, it can be assumed that Private Sector means... private sector. Do you need to know how 'is' is defined too?

Nonsense.

Towns were given a measure of autonomy from the central government. However else you might want to misrepresent this, a town is still an appendage of the state. They invest like a cooperative and they themselves work.

This is rudimentary developmental economics even the world bank and the asian development bank are promoting in the various under-developed countries of the world. Vietnam has shifted to the chinese (rather than soviet) style socialist model and it has worked tremendously for them as well.

Restricted from foreign investment. Peachy. That doesn't stop a Chinese citizen form opening a private business that is in that industry. That business would be capitalist. So... it's not relevant to the topic. Still wrong sorry.

The thing is, chinese individuals or corporations are not the ones making tremendous headway. It is still township investments that are more considerable -- which you continuously assert is a form of capitalism. It simply is not.

According to Mr Fan Gang who is directly advising the Chinese government, he says private sector means exactly what private sector means. I'm sorry, you are wrong.

GDP again?

Who do you think would consume FINISHED PRODUCTS -- the state or individuals, hmmm?

Hey look! 1 billion chinese are consuming their own products! That means a huge chunk of gdp is from the private sector! Hurray for capitalism!

NONSENSE.

Still irrelevant. Let's say that China completely banned all foreign investment. The people of China are engaging in Capitalism without us. Just like all those stories I mentioned. So, I'm sorry, I still do not see a relevant point.

I'm starting to pity how your mind works.

Chocolate is TASTY and Indo-China has RICE! Prior statement was as relevant as above response.

You are saying that capitalism exists in china. Of course it does -- in a vastly reduced and regulated scale.

Feudal land relations still exist in the uk, on a vastly reduced scale.

That doesn't make the uk economy feudal, does it?

None of what you just said was a valid point. We are talking about whether the people of China are engaged in Capitalism or Socialism. The defining factor being who owns the means of production.

Hence, a private company, privately owned, privately hiring 250 people, and privately selling on an open market, is in fact Capitalism.
And since when is 250 people working for a private company the 'people of china', eh?

Unbelievable! Its like talking to a retard!

Can a person open a food company and air conditioning company privately and sell stuff with no government control?

Using what capital, eh?

I normally do, but you are so entertaining to shoot down.

Your posts in this thread is nothing but simple-minded.

Fan Gang, who would know more than yourself said:
The major reform achievement has been in privatizing state enterprises. The private sector accounts for 70% of gross domestic product.​

It seems you are wrong again. I'm used to it though. You?

Look at the equation for gdp and you would realize that only direct private investments are attributable to capitalism. Consumption, state investments (particularly in infrastructure), imports and exports aren't. Duh?

Fan Gang: "Private companies have been behind the recent boom in capacity." I think I believe him more than you. Oh, and go to dictionary.com to look up the word "private" or Wiki for "Private companies".

Companies with a majority state ownership isn't exactly private, now, is it?

Odd, Fan Gang who is directly advising the government says it's likely more than 70 percent because unlike Co-ops and State-run companies, private sector is hard to document.

Nonsense.

China was in economic ruin prior to their socialist revolution. The country was divided into spheres of influence by the western powers. During that time, western-led capitalism was rampant.

That was the situation with vietnam as well.

Its called NEO-COLONIALISM -- a form of capitalism designed to suck an entire hemisphere of the earth dry. It is the reason why under-development in some parts of the world still exists.

And now that everybody knows better (except perhaps the uneducated and hopelessly igonorant) you still propose unbridled capitalism to be the world's pre-eminent mode of production? The very reason why most asian countries kicked their colonial masters out is precisely this. Nobody wants more of the same.

Nice deflection... 2 points for creative evasion. Try answering the question :)

I did. All modes of production, existent and obsolete, underwent development within their respective frameworks. Capitalism was backward once, employing children and starvation wages to squeeze every cent of profit from a human person.

There is no reason why socialism would not develop under its own unique experiences.

If the analogy still doesn't work, perhaps the defect is at your side of the discussion.

Who developed a 53% poverty rate? Further, why is one of China's stated goals of the reform to deploy and update their dilapidated infrastructure?

Because their soviet-style central economy did not work. Duh?

And just because this particular socialist experiment did not work, there is no reason to suppose that all forms of socialism wouldn't work too.

Its called chinese-style socialism, btw. Duh?
 
This is getting better and better. So do tell, if government owns all means of production, explain how it is not a centralized.

When you give autonomy to towns or entire regions, you are, in fact, de-centralizing production, are you not?

Satisfied?

If you can't answer the questions you asked, then clearly yes, without question I undeniably know a ton more than you. So does everyone it seems. You don't see anyone coming to your defense, and I don't need any help since all the evidence is on my side.

It's ok though. I'm toying with you. I only wish you worked for Hilliary. You would sink her campaign in minutes. Just get on Dateline, and spout all this while expressing your support for her, and she's done.

The only place capitalism enters the gdp equation is through gross investments. Or do you need me to explain simple algebra as well?

This doesn't even include investments in land and infrastructure, since the government owns and invested state funds on these.

I can think of quite a number of places in your anatomy where you can shove your gdp statistics in, since you don't know what you're talking about.
 
Monopolies are not anti-thetical to capitalism. It is the inevitable consequence of the concentration of capital. In the us, the government simply breaks a monopoly into tiny pieces. In the global stage, there is nothing to do this. That is why there is the imf-wb.

Monopolies exist when there is a lack of competition between organizations, like when they are the same entity.

Competition is a cornerstone of capitalism. Capitalism fails without it. Then when it fails it will be replaced by a different capitalism.

The state owns everything and everyone owns the state.

That's a nice cliche but when the state comes to take away your home try telling the sherrif that you are really the owner of the state.


Of course not.

At one point prior to the start of human civilization, everyone owned everything in common. Tribes got what they needed from nature and shared it with everyone.

No. The biggest guy with the biggest club owned whatever he wanted. Then after civilization the biggest group with the biggest club owned whatever they wanted.
It is the same thing with communism -- except human society has in his fingertips, the vast storage of human knowledge at his disposal.

I know it sounds ideal, but when you actually think about it, it is the only logical thing to do given an exponentially increasing human population living within finite resources. The human race simply cannot go on producing things for ever-increasing profits. At some point, the sustainability of human existence would come into the equation.

That is the beauty of capitalism. The various forces that drive the world are always in equalibrium. The number of people and the amount of resources will always adjust so that there is a balance. Even if there were a one-world benevolent (cough) communistic government, as soon as the number of people became too great for the amount of resources the world had to offer there would be an adjustment so that either more resources were produced or less people were produced.
 
I'll make it easy for you. A country is a producer at the same time consumer. And when 1 billion souls consume goods and services, it would reflect considerably on its gdp.

The question you need to ask is -- who is providing for the necessities of these 1 billion souls?

And when you look at the restricted and prohibited catalogue, the basic necessities are being produced by the state -- either in its central government or the de-centralized towns.

When you look at the list of restricted and prohibited catalogue, you realize this is only restrictions on foreign investment, not restriction on domestic capitalism. When you realize that 70% of the GDP is under private production, you realize it's a Capitalist economy. And according to the people in China, I'm right. Try again :)

Towns were given a measure of autonomy from the central government. However else you might want to misrepresent this, a town is still an appendage of the state. They invest like a cooperative and they themselves work.

This is rudimentary developmental economics even the world bank and the asian development bank are promoting in the various under-developed countries of the world. Vietnam has shifted to the chinese (rather than soviet) style socialist model and it has worked tremendously for them as well.

In 1954, the nations of North Vietnam and South Vietnam had developed their own economic structure, reflecting different economic systems with different resources and trading partners. South Vietnam maintained a free-market economy with ties to the west. It established the first Airline under Emperor Bao Dai, named Air Vietnam.

The unification of Vietnam in 1976, led to the imposition of North Vietnam's centrally planned economy into the South. The country made no significant economic progress for the next twenty years. After the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of Soviet aid, the leadership of Vietnam accepted the need for change. The country introduced economic reforms that created a market economy in the mid 1990s.

Ah good example there! 20 years of failed socialism, and 90s reform to Capitalism! I love it when someone cites evidence that proves I'm right.

The thing is, chinese individuals or corporations are not the ones making tremendous headway. It is still township investments that are more considerable -- which you continuously assert is a form of capitalism. It simply is not.

No I never asserted anything over the sort. The article I list several posts ago listed the failure of Co-Ops here as a reason for the need for the 78 reforms to a Capitalist economy. I love the straw man. Claim I said something I didn't and prove you own false theory wrong. Nice.

While we're at it, how about a source detailing the success of these Co-Ops. As in an article or other evidence, not of their existence, but of their actual progress. I have read that private farms and food production succeeding where Co-ops are failing. That people are leaving collectively owned Co-Ops by droves for privately owned farms that pay much better, and produce far more food.

GDP again?

Who do you think would consume FINISHED PRODUCTS -- the state or individuals, hmmm?

The individual always consumes. But who produces the consumed goods? The state or private sector? According to Fan Gang, 70% of the consumed goods are produced by the Private Sector. Tell you what, if you are right, then you should take all these people to court. Because they all say you are wrong. Let me know how it goes for ya.

Hey look! 1 billion chinese are consuming their own products! That means a huge chunk of gdp is from the private sector! Hurray for capitalism!

Sad that basic ideas escape you. But at least it's fun to debate someone at Forrest Gump's level.

I'm starting to pity how your mind works.

I don't even have pity for you now. I just laugh :)

You are saying that capitalism exists in china. Of course it does -- in a vastly reduced and regulated scale.

Yeah, that vastly reduced and regulated "70% of the economy" scale.

Feudal land relations still exist in the uk, on a vastly reduced scale.

That doesn't make the uk economy feudal, does it?

Can a private citizen make air conditioners and food products privately and sell them privately? Can they in China? (hint: the answer is the same for both questions)

And since when is 250 people working for a private company the 'people of china', eh?

Not a relevant question. The point undeniably made, was that it can be done by anyone. All the companies in the stories I listed were private citizens of China, no different than any other citizen. They were able to do what they did under the reforms. They didn't get approval from government, they don't answer to government, and they are not controlled by government. This is a hallmark of Capitalism.

Unbelievable! Its like talking to a retard!

I know! I'm not even using reading skills for high school, and still I'm defeating every point you have made! In fact, for the most part, I'm still waiting for you to make a point! lol

Using what capital, eh?

Basic reading skills should allow you to know the answer to that question from the articles I posted. If you are lacking in this area, I will find simpler articles that use fewer long words, or I will translate the article into a 4th or 3rd grade reading level and retype them here. Let me know either way.

Your posts in this thread is nothing but simple-minded.

At least I know what Capital was used by the Shi brothers to start the privately owned and run Guiyang Hong Yue Food Products Co.

Look at the equation for gdp and you would realize that only direct private investments are attributable to capitalism. Consumption, state investments (particularly in infrastructure), imports and exports aren't. Duh?

As so you don't know who produced the Consumed goods? You don't know who produced the exports? You can't tell which were produced by a state run company over a private company? Then do tell, how do you really know if the state run industries are producing anything? I'm amused by you. I'd love to debate you in a college setting!

Companies with a majority state ownership isn't exactly private, now, is it?

According to Fan Gang of China, when the state sells off their companies to private ownership, it divests itself 100% from the company. So a company with zero percent state ownership isn't exactly public now, is it?

China was in economic ruin prior to their socialist revolution. The country was divided into spheres of influence by the western powers. During that time, western-led capitalism was rampant.

Not even remotely relevant. The point made was that for 23 years it was 100% socialist. During that time, the country achieved 53% poverty rate. Now after Capitalist reforms, China is an economic power with a poverty rate lower than 8%.

(some babble not really worth responding to because it didn't have a point)

I did. All modes of production, existent and obsolete, underwent development within their respective frameworks. Capitalism was backward once, employing children and starvation wages to squeeze every cent of profit from a human person.

There is no reason why socialism would not develop under its own unique experiences.

If the analogy still doesn't work, perhaps the defect is at your side of the discussion.

Only if you mean by socialism developing, means converting to Capitalism, because that is what China has done. Capitalism hasn't changed, it's been regulated. Before those regulations, the means of production was under private control, and still is after the regulations.

In China, before all means of production was under state control, now 70% the economy is under private hands. This is not Socialism.

Because their soviet-style central economy did not work. Duh?

Nope, socialism never works. It didn't under the Soviet style, the Maoist style, nor the Communist style. Nope, the Capitalist style... works wonders every time.

And just because this particular socialist experiment did not work, there is no reason to suppose that all forms of socialism wouldn't work too.

Its called chinese-style socialism, btw. Duh?

Go read some history. There's no reason to suppose all forms of socialism do not work except history that shows it.
 
When you give autonomy to towns or entire regions, you are, in fact, de-centralizing production, are you not?

Satisfied?

The only place capitalism enters the gdp equation is through gross investments. Or do you need me to explain simple algebra as well?

This doesn't even include investments in land and infrastructure, since the government owns and invested state funds on these.

I can think of quite a number of places in your anatomy where you can shove your gdp statistics in, since you don't know what you're talking about.

No actually you can't. I'll prove once again, you are wrong, as always.

No, complete autonomy of towns is not possible. The central government always has authority over the town. Further, all profit was given to the government from any town or region. This to me is centralized economy.

Let's review some history, since you don't know it. From Wiki:

In 1957 about 93.5 percent of all farm households had joined advanced producers' cooperatives. However, Chinese leaders became increasingly concerned over the relatively sluggish performance of agriculture and the inability of state trading companies to increase significantly the amount of grain procured from rural units for urban consumption.

Socialistic Co-Operatives do not work? Shocked.

"Great Leap Forward" plan: Further reorganization of agriculture was regarded as the key to the endeavor to leap suddenly to a higher stage of productivity. A fundamental problem was the lack of sufficient capital to invest heavily in both industry and agriculture at the same time. To overcome this problem, the leadership decided to attempt to create capital in the agricultural sector by building vast irrigation and water control works employing huge teams of farmers. Mobilization of surplus rural labor and further improvements in agricultural efficiency were to be accomplished by a "leap" to the final stage of agricultural collectivization--the formation of people's communes.

Go Communes!!

Ninety-eight percent of the farm population was organized into communes between April and September of 1958. Very soon it became evident that in most cases the communes were too unwieldy to carry out successfully all the managerial and administrative functions that were assigned to them.

Awww, but they still worked right?

The result of the "Great Leap Forward" was a severe economic crisis. In 1959, 1960, and 1961, improperly constructed water control projects, and other misallocations of resources that had occurred during the overly centralized communization movement resulted in disastrous declines in agricultural output. In 1959 and 1960, the gross value of agricultural output fell by 14 percent and 13 percent, respectively, and in 1961 it dropped a further 2 percent to reach the lowest point since 1952.

Again... I'm so shocked. The Co-Ops did not work, and the Communes did not work. What could the solution possibly be!?!

The most successful reform policy, the contract responsibility system of production in agriculture, was suggested by the government in 1979 as a way for poor rural units in mountainous or arid areas to increase their incomes. The responsibility system allowed individual farm families to work a piece of land for profit (capitalism) in return for delivering a set amount of produce to the collective at a given price. Agricultural production was also stimulated by official encouragement to establish free farmers' markets (capitalism) in urban areas, as well as in the countryside. In agriculture the contract responsibility system was adopted as the organizational norm for the entire country, and the commune structure (socialism) was largely dismantled. By the end of 1984, approximately 98 percent of all farm households were under the responsibility system (capitalism), and all but a handful of communes had been dissolved. Private entrepreneurship and freemarket activities were legalized and encouraged in the 1980s. Individual enterprise--true capitalism-- was allowed, after having virtually disappeared during the Cultural Revolution, and independent cobblers, tailors, tinkers, and vendors once again became common sights in the cities.

That's right, true Capitalism, works every time. So let's review. Socialism - Failed. Communism - Failed. Capitalism - success. Class dismissed.
 
LOL

The prc and vietnam are capitalist economies?

Let me guess -- east timor and myanmar are not capitalist economies?

Economic dissertation conducted by clowns never fail to humor.
 
LOL

The prc and vietnam are capitalist economies?

Let me guess -- east timor and myanmar are not capitalist economies?

Economic dissertation conducted by clowns never fail to humor.

The deeper lesson is that countries where the people are free will succeed and countries where they are not won't.

Now, since communism and socialism cannot exist where the people are free they will fail. After all the basic tenet of socialism is that the state will take money from the people and the people are not free to own their own money.

We have that here in the US too, but it does not characterize our system, it is just an unfortunate part of it. This theft by congress is morally and inherently wrong but it is a neccessary evil and there are limits set by the constitution. When we cross the line and this is not just a part of who we are but defines who we are then all is lost. We need to fight this trend kicking and screaming.



"As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions."
-- James Madison, National Gazette essay, March 27, 1792

"The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."
-- James Madison, speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 16, 1788

We must confine ourselves to the powers described in the Constitution, and the moment we pass it, we take an arbitrary stride towards a despotic Government."
-- James Jackson, First Congress, 1st Annals of Congress, 489

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to E. Carrington, May 27, 1788

"When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."
-- Thomas Jefferson
 
LOL

The prc and vietnam are capitalist economies?

Let me guess -- east timor and myanmar are not capitalist economies?

Economic dissertation conducted by clowns never fail to humor.

lol Too funny. I know this hard, but PRC is a Capitalist economy. Everyone... as in... EVERYONE... knows it :) (I can hear fuses popping in your brain from here) :D

Vietnam isn't quite there yet, but a free market is significant movement toward Capitalism. More importantly, when it was pure socialism, *shocked* it didn't work. ;)

I noted that you could not respond to any of the evidence. Clinton is proud of you! ...or does that depend on how you define 'is'? :rolleyes:
 
Werbung:
lol Too funny. I know this hard, but PRC is a Capitalist economy. Everyone... as in... EVERYONE... knows it :) (I can hear fuses popping in your brain from here) :D

Vietnam isn't quite there yet, but a free market is significant movement toward Capitalism. More importantly, when it was pure socialism, *shocked* it didn't work. ;)

I noted that you could not respond to any of the evidence. Clinton is proud of you! ...or does that depend on how you define 'is'? :rolleyes:

I can understand people like you frothing in the mouth in academic discussions. You are not only hampered by your own prejudice, you can only view social phenomona in 'pure' terms.

Your idea of 'pure' anything is a vain effort by your incompetent mind to comprehend something that is simply beyond it. At best, it merely serves to perpetuate a rigid and impenetrable prejudice -- which you have the temerity to peddle as intellectualism.
 
Back
Top