Another Proof of Marx's Folly: Cuba

[The Messiah]

You were the one to point out that they decreased, right, you do the honours.

You said it decreased from 96% to 90% which clearly you made up.

 

[Naren1987]

Here my boy, read this link (List words ending with ism) while you are enjoying these:

What a convenient way to end the debate, when you've run out of ground.

 

[pmaitra]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
List of countries by Human Development Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Where are the two respective countries placed?
And it's powerful only because of the numbers, not due to the system.

I don't care. PRC is doing pretty well. They are doing much better than Taiwan. HDI is just a statistical tool, doesn't say everything.

BTW, if I had to take that very same HDI, how about we get back to the topic and compare socialist Cuba with Capitalist Haiti? There you go, that was a boomerang you did not expect did you?

P.S.: I had asked the same question earlier, and as usual, people avoided answering them.

What a convenient way to end the debate, when you've run out of ground.

I am still debating with you. Adux is metally unstable and he likes the merry go round. A lollypop with keep his mouth busy from spouting expletives.

 

[Naren1987]

You said it decreased from 96% to 90% which clearly you made up.

Really?, then you show us the poverty figures.

 

[Adux]

British Indian Empire was Capitalist.

Ok, since you have Attention Deficit Disorder, I shall repeat: British Indian Empire was Capitalist.

Yup, and the American Revolution didnt happen.

Karl Polanyi argued that capitalism did not emerge until the progressive commodification of land, money, and labor culminating in the establishment of a generalized labor market in Britain in the 1830s. For Polanyi, "the extension of the market to the elements of industry – land, labor and money – was the inevitable consequence of the introduction of the factory system in a commercial society."[44] Other sources argued that mercantilism fell after the repeal of the Navigation Acts in 1849

A new group of economic theorists, led by David Hume[42] and Adam Smith, in the mid 18th century, challenged fundamental mercantilist doctrines as the belief that the amount of the world's wealth remained constant and that a state could only increase its wealth at the expense of another state.

The British Empire at the time operated under the mercantile system, where all trade was concentrated inside the Empire, and trade with other empires was forbidden. The goal was to enrich Britain—its merchants and its government. Whether the policy was good for the colonists was not an issue in London, but Americans became increasingly restive with mercantilist policies[17]
Britain implemented mercantilism by trying to block American trade with the French, Spanish or Dutch empires using the Navigation Acts, which Americans avoided as often as they could. The royal officials responded to smuggling with open-ended search warrants (Writs of Assistance). In 1761, Boston lawyer James Otis argued that the writs violated the constitutional rights of the colonists. He lost the case, but John Adams later wrote, "Then and there the child Independence was born."[18]

 

[The Messiah]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
List of countries by Human Development Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Where are the two respective countries placed?
And it's powerful only because of the numbers, not due to the system.

According to that pakistan and India are the same.

Its common sense that smaller countries rise quicker.

 

[Adux]

Here my boy, read this link (List words ending with ism) while you are enjoying these:

Such a Loser, Lost again! When i should him the theory of merchantilism for his assertion that it is a made up word, then he starts comparing British Colonial exploitation of India as capitalism, which clearly shows he has no idea what 'CAPITAL' means nor even what 'capitalism' means.

 

[Naren1987]

I don't care. PRC is doing pretty well. They are doing much better than Taiwan. HDI is just a statistical tool, doesn't say everything.

And I don't care for your criteria for prosperity.
What is it again, anyway.
Please show us the poverty rates, hunger rates, and other indices for the two countries?

BTW, if I had to take that very same HDI, how about we get back to the topic and compare socialist Cuba with Capitalist Haiti? There you go, that was a boomerang you did not expect did you?

Again, I did admit that culture was a factor for differences in prosperity.
PRC and Taiwan are the same ethnic group, the same culture, the same race.
And Capitalism worked better in Taiwan for the Han ethnic group.

P.S.: I had asked the same question earlier, and as usual, people avoided answering them.

What was your question?

 

[Naren1987]

According to that pakistan and India are the same.

Its common sense that smaller countries rise quicker.

Not only those countries, but even large countries like India.

 

[Bangalorean]

Personally, I am completely in favour of the capitalist camp.

Mind you, I am not saying that crony capitalism or "naked capitalism" is a good thing. We need capitalism with strong government regulators. Government regulation should be impartial, and should not set up hurdles in the way of business. The telecom model in India is an ideal scenario, IMHO. We have a strong regulator in the form of TRAI. We have the Airtels and Vodafones and Ideas - nice mix of Indian private enterprise and foreign capital injection. And we also have a government player in the form of BSNL. End of the day, the consumer can choose.

I cannot believe anyone would want a throwback to the pre 1991 days of licence raj, even after seeing for ourselves that the current system is much better than the old one. We can see results with our own eyes, isn't it?

 

[pmaitra]

And I don't care for your criteria for prosperity.
What is it again, anyway.
Please show us the poverty rates, hunger rates, and other indices for the two countries?

I have already talked about Taiwan earlier. Can you pick up the conversation from there?

Also, please provide a comparison of PRC and Taiwan on all aspects, and do not forget to include US financial and military aid.

Let us have hard facts on the table and then we can talk.

Again, I did admit that culture was a factor for differences in prosperity.
PRC and Taiwan are the same ethnic group, the same culture, the same race.
And Capitalism worked better in Taiwan for the Han ethnic group.

Yes, Capitalism worked well for Taiwan because it get a lot of money from the US as aid and socialism also greatly changed USSR and PRC from a backward state to a very prosperous state, each (until the collapse of the USSR in the first case).

What was your question?

It's got something to do with Cuba and Haiti. You are not reading my posts. Also, I recommend you read the thread from the beginning. I think you jumped in the middle.

 

[pmaitra]

Mind you, I am not saying that crony capitalism or "naked capitalism" is a good thing. We need capitalism with strong government regulators. Government regulation should be impartial, and should not set up hurdles in the way of business. The telecom model in India is an ideal scenario, IMHO. We have a strong regulator in the form of TRAI. We have the Airtels and Vodafones and Ideas - nice mix of Indian private enterprise and foreign capital injection. And we also have a government player in the form of BSNL. End of the day, the consumer can choose.

Perfect example.

I cannot believe anyone would want a throwback to the pre 1991 days of licence raj, even after seeing for ourselves that the current system is much better than the old one. We can see results with our own eyes, isn't it?

License Raj was a bad idea and I am glad it is gone. The current system is better than the previous one except when it comes to income disparity, where it has failed miserably.

 

[The Messiah]

Personally, I am completely in favour of the capitalist camp.

Mind you, I am not saying that crony capitalism or "naked capitalism" is a good thing. We need capitalism with strong government regulators. Government regulation should be impartial, and should not set up hurdles in the way of business. The telecom model in India is an ideal scenario, IMHO. We have a strong regulator in the form of TRAI. We have the Airtels and Vodafones and Ideas - nice mix of Indian private enterprise and foreign capital injection. And we also have a government player in the form of BSNL. End of the day, the consumer can choose.

I cannot believe anyone would want a throwback to the pre 1991 days of licence raj, even after seeing for ourselves that the current system is much better than the old one. We can see results with our own eyes, isn't it?

What makes you come to that conclusion ?

Point me towards one post in this thread thats says we should go back to pre 1991.

And India does not follow capitalism. It is mixed economy, so why should credit go to capitalism ?

 

[pmaitra]

And India does not follow capitalism. It is mixed economy, so why should credit go to capitalism ?

Golden words.

 

[Naren1987]

I have already talked about Taiwan earlier. Can you pick up the conversation from there?

Also, please provide a comparison of PRC and Taiwan on all aspects, and do not forget to include US financial and military aid.

Let us have hard facts on the table and then we can talk.




Yes, Capitalism worked well for Taiwan because it get a lot of money from the US as aid and socialism also greatly changed USSR and PRC from a backward state to a very prosperous state, each (until the collapse of the USSR in the first case).



It's got something to do with Cuba and Haiti. You are not reading my posts. Also, I recommend you read the thread from the beginning. I think you jumped in the middle.

1.I think Taiwan kicks PRC ass in all indicators, from healthcare to education to GDP per capita, you saw those stats in the link.
2.Taiwan got US aid, OK, can we then talk about the Chinese advantage of rare earth mineral deposits as an advantage.
This development came at a very heavy price, how many people were killed by the Mao and Stalin?
And there's nothing Socialist about the Coastal Chinese economy.

 

[Naren1987]

And India does not follow capitalism. It is mixed economy, so why should credit go to capitalism ?

Because it is only the private sector that has performed well, the public sector is a disaster.

 

[The Messiah]

Because it is only the private sector that has performed well, the public sector is a disaster.

Yup we should get rid of rbi and all banking regulations, to name a few

 

[pmaitra]

1.I think Taiwan kicks PRC ass in all indicators, from healthcare to education to GDP per capita, you saw those stats in the link.
2.Taiwan got US aid, OK, can we then talk about the Chinese advantage of rare earth mineral deposits as an advantage.
This development came at a very heavy price, how many people were killed by the Mao and Stalin?
And there's nothing Socialist about the Coastal Chinese economy.

Well that is what you think.

The reality is that PRC is doing much better than Taiwan. However, are these two countries comparable? One is huge and the other is tiny. One has no US aid while the other has US aid. One has to fend for itself while the other is protected by the US. Hell, even Cuba was doing great when they had Soviet economic aid. Yet, PRC is the big talk in all the economic fora. Can you tell me why?

Let us compare India with countries that are comparable, shall we? Taiwan does not fit the bill.

 

[Bangalorean]

What makes you come to that conclusion ?

Point me towards one post in this thread thats says we should go back to pre 1991.

And India does not follow capitalism. It is mixed economy, so why should credit go to capitalism ?

I didn't read each post on this thread in detail, that is why I didn't point fingers at anyone - I just made a general statement that we should not go back to the bad old days.

As for your question on 'credit to capitalism'. Name 24 government companies that are doing beautifully well, and have earned India recognition, and deliver world class services.

You will not be able to. I can name many more than 24 private companies which satisfy said criteria.

'Mixed economy' is just a term. What component of that mixed economy is doing well, and which is the laggard?

 

[Bangalorean]

Yup we should get rid of rbi and all banking regulations, to name a few

You do know the difference between government regulators and government companies?