Britain is too precious for mankind to be allowed to be destroyed

[Mad Indian]

Capitalism is meant to make the rich ever richer, and make the poor even poorer. If you think wealth in a capitalist society is the result of hard-work you need to take a much closer look at actual Laissez-faire that miserably failed Europe and led to things like Marxism.

Socialism gives the rich a chance to stay rich, and the poor a chance to get rich. If anything, socialism is the system that rewards hard work.

Oh boy, you have got the whole defn. of captialism and socialism wrong.

Here, lets have a discussion on this matter here if you must http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/politics-society/14291-socialism-capitalism-2.html

Also, read the blog posted by W.G.EWALD sir. In post #18:thumb:

 

[Son of Govinda]

No I don't...

Social democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Social market economy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Corporate capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

^ Socialism has come a long way since the time of Karl Marx and Marxist Socialists.

 

[Mad Indian]

No I don't...

Social democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Social market economy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Corporate capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

^ Socialism has come a long way since the time of Karl Marx and Marxist Socialists.

Look at the criticism section of these. Also, the general criticisms for socialism also applies to the social democracies.

Again, did you look in the thread I provided and did you read the post 18#?? THat post pretty much says everything what I have to say regarding why Socialism is equal to non sense, atleast IMO. Anyway, if you disagree with the post 18, then we can have the debate there.

 

[Son of Govinda]

Look at the criticism section of these. Also, the general criticisms for socialism also applies to the social democracies.

Again, did you look in the thread I provided and did you read the post 18#?? THat post pretty much says everything what I have to say regarding why Socialism is equal to non sense, atleast IMO. Anyway, if you disagree with the post 18, then we can have the debate there.

Yeah... post #18 is full of terrible cliches and conjecture.

Read social market economy above ^ it's the middle way between Socialism and Corporate Capitalism with elements of Social Democracy blended in. It's one of the reasons Germany's economy is so resilient today.

"At first controversial, the model became increasingly popular in West Germany and Austria since in both states economic success (Wirtschaftswunder) was identified with it. From the 1960s, the social market economy was the main economic model in mainland Western Europe, pursued by administrations of both the centre-right (led by the Christian Democratic Union - CDU & Christian Social Union of Bavaria - CSU) and the centre-left (led by the Social Democratic Party - SPD). In the 1960s, Yugoslavia adopted a modified social market economy and thereafter had average GDP growth of 6.1% for 30 years until the 1980s."

Many social market economies have far higher growth rates than moderate corporate capitalist states(USA).

 

[Mad Indian]

Yeah... post #18 is full of terrible cliches and conjecture.

Read social market economy above ^ it's the middle way between Socialism and Corporate Capitalism with elements of Social Democracy blended in. It's one of the reasons Germany's economy is so resilient today.

I personally think Germany would do much better without that socialism carp.

This is what socialism does, Tax a lot. Get that tax money. Waste half of it or more in the bureaucracy, since no one really cares about the money being wasted, and give one quarters of what is looted from the earning citizens to the lazy ----tards.

I earn Ten lakhs per month, and i am forced to pay 30% tax while some one, not earning at all or being a irregular lazy ass does not need to pay taxes, while he is entitled to my money. How is that fair, or meritocracy?

Look, when I pay 10% tax, when i am earning 10 lakhs while some one else is earning 1 lakh and he is paying 10%, I still pay ten times more tax than him. So How does that make sense. Why should I work for some one else?

 

[Mad Indian]

Yeah... post #18 is full of terrible cliches and conjecture.

So point out the defects in the logic provided in that post?

"At first controversial, the model became increasingly popular in West Germany and Austria since in both states economic success (Wirtschaftswunder) was identified with it. From the 1960s, the social market economy was the main economic model in mainland Western Europe, pursued by administrations of both the centre-right (led by the Christian Democratic Union - CDU & Christian Social Union of Bavaria - CSU) and the centre-left (led by the Social Democratic Party - SPD). In the 1960s, Yugoslavia adopted a modified social market economy and thereafter had average GDP growth of 6.1% for 30 years until the 1980s."

And China is growing at a pace of 10 % for more than a decade now, under captialism. Besides, if that socialism is so great, why is the western europe reeling under so much pressure? The truth is, the western system of socialism is simple process of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Nothing more. It will work so long as the Peter is there with money to rob.

Many social market economies have far higher growth rates than corporate capitalist states(USA).

What is the per capita income of these states? Which citizen is better off, the citizen of USA or that of the socialist ones?

 

[Mad Indian]

That aside , care answering my other question regarding why India/China did better with a decentralised system in 17th/18th century?

 

[Son of Govinda]

So point out the defects in the logic provided in that post?

1) Capitalism produces faster growth than socialism. Ever heard someone say, "A rising tide lifts all boats?" It's very true. Why do you think most poor people in this country have refrigerators, microwaves, and televisions that we think of as basic necessities even though those items are considered to be luxuries in much of the world?

^ Arbitrary statement with no actual figures to back it up

2. 2) Capitalism works in concert with human nature while socialism works against it. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." That famous quotation from Karl Marx is at the heart of communism and socialism. It runs completely contrary to human nature.

^ Another arbitrary political statement that has nothing to do with actual economic theory.

3) Capitalism rewards merit. Socialism rewards mediocrity. Who gets rewarded in a capitalist society? People who can produce. If you come up with a hot new product, give people a service they want, or entertain them better than they can find elsewhere, they will pay you handsomely to do it.

^ Another arbitrary political statement that has nothing to do with actual economic theory.

4) Capitalism is freedom while socialism is slavery. Socialists often use envy to trick people into becoming angry at successful people instead of the ones who are really taking away their freedom.

^ This is referring to Marxist socialism not a modern Social Market Economy/Social Democracy. Social democracy is strictly against class warfare, and emphasizes cooperation of all classes.

5) ) The marketplace does a much better job of allocating resources than socialism's central planning. As Ronald Reagan noted, "Millions of individuals making their own decisions in the marketplace will always allocate resources better than any centralized government planning process."

^ This is also referring to Marxist socialism and does not represent modern Social Market Economies/Social democracies. Social Market economies emphasize private ownership with the government not playing a passive role via regulation.

 

[trackwhack]

I was talking about the same

Come on, start the name calling already

Quite some time back I decided against having a 'discussion' with you. However occasionally I will quote you so many years later you get a chance to read through some of the non-sense you posted and have a good laugh.

 

[Mad Indian]

1) Capitalism produces faster growth than socialism. Ever heard someone say, "A rising tide lifts all boats?" It's very true. Why do you think most poor people in this country have refrigerators, microwaves, and televisions that we think of as basic necessities even though those items are considered to be luxuries in much of the world?

^ Arbitrary statement with no actual figures to back it up

America has the third highest PCI in the world

2. 2) Capitalism works in concert with human nature while socialism works against it. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." That famous quotation from Karl Marx is at the heart of communism and socialism. It runs completely contrary to human nature.

^ Another arbitrary political statement that has nothing to do with actual economic theory.

This is infact the point. The reason for failure of socialism is that it works against human nature.

And The economics should include human behaviour too for making correct/ accurate prediction

3) Capitalism rewards merit. Socialism rewards mediocrity. Who gets rewarded in a capitalist society? People who can produce. If you come up with a hot new product, give people a service they want, or entertain them better than they can find elsewhere, they will pay you handsomely to do it.

^ Another arbitrary political statement that has nothing to do with actual economic theory.

Not really. he is right. Who is benefitted from socialism? a lazy turd, who does not work and lives off a welfare while a hard working member earning a lot is penalised with excess taxes

4) Capitalism is freedom while socialism is slavery. Socialists often use envy to trick people into becoming angry at successful people instead of the ones who are really taking away their freedom.

^ This is referring to Marxist socialism not a modern Social Market Economy/Social Democracy. Social democracy is strictly against class warfare, and emphasizes cooperation of all classes.

Did you miss the part where he explains this state ment?

here let me explain. When you pay, 65% of your income as tax, you lose your freedom to spend on the service you want. For instance, you will be forced to take the medical service of the govt hospital, which you may or dont want to go. Again, the Govt services are always inferior and inefficient compared to private firms. This is what Socialism does. By making us pay more taxes, it makes us the slaves of the govt.

5) ) The marketplace does a much better job of allocating resources than socialism's central planning. As Ronald Reagan noted, "Millions of individuals making their own decisions in the marketplace will always allocate resources better than any centralized government planning process."

^ This is also referring to Marxist socialism and does not represent modern Social Market Economies/Social democracies. Social Market economies emphasize private ownership with the government not playing a passive role via regulation.

Dude? Seriously?

Services like medicine and education are better served under private practice than under a public funded one through extensive taxation. Period. Extrapolate on anything you want

 

[Mad Indian]

Quite some time back I decided against having a 'discussion' with you. However occasionally I will quote you so many years later you get a chance to read through some of the non-sense you posted and have a good laugh.

Oh my god, when there is nothing to add to defend what you said, you usually resort to name calling. Why stop now?

And the genius in the forum is always right and his name is trackwhack.

Lets see what you have done in this thread shall we?

I said this in regard to the system followed in 17th/18th century

In practice we were. We did have a decentralised economy.- Do you agree or not?

If not, what economy did we have?

and you said this, quoting it

Quoting for posterity. He was referring to 17th and 18th century India.

For which I said this

I was talking about the same

Come on, start the name calling already

For which you have replied completely unrelated

Quite some time back I decided against having a 'discussion' with you. However occasionally I will quote you so many years later you get a chance to read through some of the non-sense you posted and have a good laugh.

Though I am puzzled you have not name called so far.

 

[Son of Govinda]

America has the third highest PCI in the world



This is infact the point. The reason for failure of socialism is that it works against human nature.

And The economics should include human behaviour too for making correct/ accurate prediction



Not really. he is right. Who is benefitted from socialism? a lazy turd, who does not work and lives off a welfare while a hard working member earning a lot is penalised with excess taxes



Did you miss the part where he explains this state ment?

here let me explain. When you pay, 65% of your income as tax, you lose your freedom to spend on the service you want. For instance, you will be forced to take the medical service of the govt hospital, which you may or dont want to go. Again, the Govt services are always inferior and inefficient compared to private firms. This is what Socialism does. By making us pay more taxes, it makes us the slaves of the govt.



Dude? Seriously?

Services like medicine and education are better served under private practice than under a public funded one through extensive taxation. Period. Extrapolate on anything you want

"here let me explain. When you pay, 65% of your income as tax, you lose your freedom to spend on the service you want. For instance, you will be forced to take the medical service of the govt hospital, which you may or dont want to go. Again, the Govt services are always inferior and inefficient compared to private firms. This is what Socialism does. By making us pay more taxes, it makes us the slaves of the govt."

^ Germany and many other Social Market Economies have private healthcare with subsidies for those who are unemployed or can't afford insurance.

"Serivices like medicine and education are better served under private practice than under a public funded one through extensive taxation. Period. Extrapolate on anything you want"

^ I'll agree with you on Medicine needing to remain private, but primary education should be a right for all citizens regardless of class or wealth. Every Social Market Economy allows private schools so you can't complain about freedom here.

 

[Mad Indian]

Germany and many other Social Market Economies have private healthcare with subsidies for those who are unemployed or can't afford insurance.

Thing is, if the people are working and plan their expenses right, then they can always save it up in medical insurance and the subsidies are not needed. Giving subsidies is like a drug. Its hard to get rid of that.

^ I'll agree with you on Medicine needing to remain private, but primary education should be a right for all citizens regardless of class or wealth. Every Social Market Economy allows private schools so you can't complain about freedom here.

Even I am not a completely heartless evil capitalist, who cooks poor for food mate. I too think education upto higher secondary must be compulsory. And the higher studies can be helped with loans which have to be cleared from the salary the student will earn. But ideally, education must be private, which must be affordable to all.

And regarding medicine, ideally speaking the medicine should remain private, though it should be affordable to all. But since this is not an ideal world, we can support the poor with free emergency services and some public hospitals, in a bare minimum charge. There is a limit to socialism. Thats why i said, I want center right economic policy and not far right capitalism.

But again, the people here are all for the western type of complete social democracy with crazy tax rates and increased support program for poor/lazy. My question is Where does it stop?

 

[civfanatic]

In practice we were. We did have a decentralised economy.- Do you agree or not?

If not, what economy did we have?

A decentralised economy by itself is not an indicator of "capitalism". Traditional tribal economies are the most decentralised economies of them all, are they "capitalistic"?

The economy of pre-colonial India did have a private sector of merchants and bankers, but the state played a huge role in encouraging economic development as an employer and consumer; the export market for India was actually quite small compared to the domestic market, which provided most of the impetus for economic development. During the Mughal Empire, Indian society was highly militarized, with perhaps up to 26 million people (i.e. about one-fourth of the population) relying on the military/state for their livelihoods. This included the mansabdars, all the soldiers for whom they were responsible, and their numerous servants and retainers, as well as the urban artisans and workers who supplied the military/state apparatus with their required goods. Indeed, out of Emperor Akbar's reported annual income of 99 million silver rupees (the largest annual revenue in the world at that time), an estimated 85% went to financing this military machine and paying the salaries of all the people involved in it. The millions of people on state salaries in turn led to an increased demand for manufactured products (especially cloth textiles), leading to the growth of village cottage industries. Furthermore, the Mughal aristocracy, the jagirdars, and the zamindars also formed an important market for expensive luxury goods, which accounted for about 5% of the total national product of India.

Also, the Indian economy was at its peak not in the 18th century but during the late 16th century (in the reign of Akbar) through the 17th century. After Aurangzeb's reign the Mughal Empire fell apart and the Indian economy went into decline in the 18th century. When the British colonised us we were already on a downward spiral.

 

[Mad Indian]

A decentralised economy by itself is not an indicator of "capitalism". Traditional tribal economies are the most decentralised economies of them all, are they "capitalistic"?

Its true that decentralised economy can mean tribalism too but, the issue we are talking here is Mughal India/ Or any other pre-colonial era India for that matter from the IVC. India was a wealthy state, with Capitalism/freemarket, without looting the nearby countries. My point was exactly that. Creation of wealth does not mean looting of the other nations. And socialism never creates any good wealthy/good economy. It only creates a bubble economy, built on debts , doomed to collapse on its own and descend top chaos, Just like USSR, or presently PIIGS.

The economy of pre-colonial India did have a private sector of merchants and bankers, but the state played a huge role in encouraging economic development as an employer and consumer; the export market for India was actually quite small compared to the domestic market, which provided most of the impetus for economic development. During the Mughal Empire, Indian society was highly militarized, with perhaps up to 26 million people (i.e. about one-fourth of the population) relying on the military/state for their livelihoods. This included the mansabdars, all the soldiers for whom they were responsible, and their numerous servants and retainers, as well as the urban artisans and workers who supplied the military/state apparatus with their required goods. Indeed, out of Emperor Akbar's reported annual income of 99 million silver rupees (the largest annual revenue in the world at that time), an estimated 85% went to financing this military machine and paying the salaries of all the people involved in it. The millions of people on state salaries in turn led to an increased demand for manufactured products (especially cloth textiles), leading to the growth of village cottage industries. Furthermore, the Mughal aristocracy, the jagirdars, and the zamindars also formed an important market for expensive luxury goods, which accounted for about 5% of the total national product of India.

Again, that is not state sponsored socialism. There was no obligation on the govt to control the production or supply. Nor was the intend of helping Military intended to help the economy through socialism. The Mughals, indeed had a good military and they supported the military for a strong military and not for supporting them per se. This might have helped the artisans, but that is the trickle effect of the spending in the military by the Mughals. In essence, the taxes were used for the maintanence of the bureacracy, infrastructure and military, which is the whole point. Thats the ideal way for the govt to run, without interfering in the lives of the citizens, just making sure that the national defence and other stuff are maintained. This is again not a socialism and still the people were wealthy and better off . Hence my point.

Also, the govt spending on Military was not debt based but real , meaning, the taxes collected were spent for the military unlike what we have now, whcih is nothing but a debt generated non sense in the socialist economies.

Also, the Indian economy was at its peak not in the 18th century but during the late 16th century (in the reign of Akbar) through the 17th century. After Aurangzeb's reign the Mughal Empire fell apart and the Indian economy went into decline in the 18th century. When the British colonised us we were already on a downward spiral.

Ah the thing is, I brought 18th century/17th century as just a reference. The precolonial India was a wealthy state, without being a socialist one. You can change the 17/18th century in all my posts, and still the content of my posts will not change nor will the logic in it. Also, the reason for the decline of the Indian economy was because of the absence of Industrial revolution, which could have corrected itself, if not for the British colonisation.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

"Britain is too precious for mankind to be allowed to be destroyed."

Fine. Turn it into a museum.

 

[Singh]

I quite like Britain, but they have already changed. From a nation of innovators and engineers it has turned into a nation of chavs and compensation seekers.

 

[panduranghari]

Yes, ol miss maggie T was very wise indeed...

as evidenced by world financials, it is unfortunately the capitalist west that has been living off others money and are soon running out of it. As evidenced by the debt that Europe and North America owe to the rest of the world!!

She was wise? Perhaps not as she brought in regulations which allow kids to call up the police so that parents or teachers are arrested if the kids are disciplined. Wise! my foot!

 

[Ray]

Well, all countries have their plusses and minuses!

 

[W.G.Ewald]

A decentralised economy by itself is not an indicator of "capitalism". Traditional tribal economies are the most decentralised economies of them all, are they "capitalistic"?

Could be.