Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2014 15:20:10 GMT -5
How is that any different from what happened in China? Are you claiming that the Chinese government isn't corrupt to the bone? So what did they do differently than the Russians?
Was it because there were more corrupt government officials in China who sold property to foreign investors, rather than their own friends?
Maybe it's not about free markets at all, but merely the degree of foreign capital in the country?
All industrialized countries were devastated during the 1960s? Hardly. The Marshall Plan was finished by the mid 1950s, and most Central and Western European economies were doing perfectly fine by the late 1950s.
If interventionist governance is so utterly destructive, why did the period of the West's greatest prosperity correlate with a period of increased economic interventionism?
Where do you get the idea from that it is illegal for foreign capital to invest in Eastern Europe? Plenty of companies have invested in former Eastern bloc countries.
Again, what were these "free market reforms" you are talking about that made China's economy allegedly superior to Eastern Europe?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 14, 2014 15:51:29 GMT -5
How is that any different from what happened in China? Are you claiming that the Chinese government isn't corrupt to the bone? So what did they do differently than the Russians? Was it because there were more corrupt government officials in China who sold property to foreign investors, rather than their own friends? Maybe it's not about free markets at all, but merely the degree of foreign capital in the country? The Chinese officials didn't sell government enterprises to their friends. Several Chinese officials have been executed for corruption. And they didn't merely let in foreign capital. The let Western businesses in to set up shop. This is the result: www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-20069627Yes. And the USA still didn't have any major competition until the late 1960's. Complex Question Fallacy. The 1950's were not a period of great prosperity. I lived through them, remember? Economic growth was minimal and JFK himself made a big point about that in his 1960 campaign. Where do you get the idea from that it is illegal for foreign capital to invest in Eastern Europe? Plenty of companies have invested in former Eastern bloc countries. [/quote] Not in the 1980's they didn't. They didn't start investing there until after the Soviet Union broke apart in 1991. China had a big head start. See for yourself. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China#1978.E2.80.931990Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2014 9:48:21 GMT -5
This is my response to a McAnswer post. For some reason, it got listed as a McAnswer post. How is that any different from what happened in China? Are you claiming that the Chinese government isn't corrupt to the bone? So what did they do differently than the Russians? Was it because there were more corrupt government officials in China who sold property to foreign investors, rather than their own friends? Maybe it's not about free markets at all, but merely the degree of foreign capital in the country? The Chinese officials didn't sell government enterprises to their friends. Several Chinese officials have been executed for corruption. And they didn't merely let in foreign capital. The let Western businesses in to set up shop. I never claimed that China has a completely free market. What I did say is that their economy started its unprecedented rise after some market reforms were introduced. The more free market policies are introduced, the faster the economy grows. Lately though, the Chinese government has been interfering with the market again. The effect of this interference, if it isn't stopped, will be to end their economic growth. Sorry. I meant American companies had no competition from the end of WWII to the late 1960's since most of their foreign competitors factories were destroyed. Where did you get that information? I just found a graph that gives different results. visualizingeconomics.com/blog/2011/03/08/long-term-real-growth-in-us-gdp-per-capita-1871-2009They didn't all suddenly become capitalist democracies right away. In any event, China had a head start by the late 1980's. I stand corrected. It appears that they did institute free market reforms and, as a result, had a big jump in economic growth! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Romania#Free_market_transitionen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Bulgariaen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_PolandHungary had a tougher time because they were slow to free the economy. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Hungary#Transition_to_a_market_economyI did make that claim, and according to the above links, they did have increased prosperity. It is essential for the long-term stability of the economy. They didn't need a constitutional amendment though to grant these rights to foreign investors. A simple agreement was enough for that. Had they not protected the property rights of foreign investors, the money would have fled China overnight. Apparently, when the Chinese government saw how well the free market reforms were working, they decided that institutionalizing private property rights was not such a bad thing. Quite a move from a party that is still nominally "communist." Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 15, 2014 21:39:34 GMT -5
yesterday at 4:51pm rmarks1 said: yesterday at 4:20pm mcans said:
I never claimed that China has a completely free market. What I did say is that their economy started its unprecedented rise after some market reforms were introduced. The more free market policies are introduced, the faster the economy grows. Lately though, the Chinese government has been interfering with the market again. The effect of this interference, if it isn't stopped, will be to end their economic growth.
Sorry. I meant American companies had no competition from the end of WWII to the late 1960's since most of their foreign competitors factories were destroyed.
Where did you get that information? I just found a graph that gives different results.
visualizingeconomics.com/blog/2011/03/08/long-term-real-growth-in-us-gdp-per-capita-1871-2009
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2014 12:35:44 GMT -5
yesterday at 4:51pm rmarks1 said: yesterday at 4:20pm mcans said: I never claimed that China has a completely free market. What I did say is that their economy started its unprecedented rise after some market reforms were introduced. The more free market policies are introduced, the faster the economy grows. And so far, you have avoided defining what you mean by "free market policies". Is the individual right to private property a free market policy? If yes, then this has been in place in Europe and the US for the entire last century in some places, in most places at the very least since 1945. Are privately owned banks a free market policy? If yes, then Europe and the US have been ahead of China there for centuries! Is the right for foreign companies to invest a free market policy? If yes, then that, too, has been in place in the West for far longer than in China. If "the more free market policies are introduced, the faster the economy grows" were true, then why doesn't the West grow faster than China? Lately though, the Chinese government has been interfering with the market again. The effect of this interference, if it isn't stopped, will be to end their economic growth. Bob, the Chinese government has never stopped interfering with the market!Why is this so difficult to get into your head? CHINA IS NOT A FREE MARKET ECONOMY, AND NEVER HAS BEEN. What is it with libertarians and their stupid fetish for Communist China? There is no worse example for the positive effects of free capitalism than China! Yes, they singled out foreign investors as a priviledged class superior to regular Chinese people. Maybe that's the recipe for economic success? Return to good old times where rich people are treated as being above the law, so long as they keep investing in the country?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 19, 2014 16:45:16 GMT -5
yesterday at 4:51pm rmarks1 said: yesterday at 4:20pm mcans said: I never claimed that China has a completely free market. What I did say is that their economy started its unprecedented rise after some market reforms were introduced. The more free market policies are introduced, the faster the economy grows. And so far, you have avoided defining what you mean by "free market policies". Here: "Deng's first reforms began in agriculture, a sector long neglected by the Communist Party. By the late 1970s, food supplies and production had become so deficient that government officials were warning that China was about to repeat the "disaster of 1959" - the famines which killed tens of millions during the Great Leap Forward.[9] Deng responded by decollectivizing agriculture and emphasizing the Household-responsibility system, which divided the land of the People's communes into private plots. Farmers were able to keep the land's output after paying a share to the state. This move increased agricultural production, increased the living standards of hundreds of millions of farmers and stimulated rural industry.[10] Reforms were also implemented in urban industry to increase productivity. A dual price system was introduced, in which state-owned industries were allowed to sell any production above the plan quota, and commodities were sold at both plan and market prices, allowing citizens to avoid the shortages of the Maoist era. Private businesses were allowed to operate for the first time since the Communist takeover, and they gradually began to make up a greater percentage of industrial output.[11] Price flexibility was also increased, expanding the service sector.[12]" 1984–93 During this period, Deng Xiaoping's policies continued beyond the initial reforms. Controls on private businesses and government intervention continued to decrease, and there was small-scale privatization of state enterprises which had become unviable. A notable development was the decentralization of state control, leaving local provincial leaders to experiment with ways to increase economic growth and privatize the state sector.[13] Township and village enterprises, firms nominally owned by local governments but effectively private, began to gain market share at the expense of the state sector.[14] Conservative elder opposition, led by Chen Yun, prevented many major reforms which would have damaged the interests of special interest groups in the government bureaucracy.[15] Corruption and increased inflation increased discontent, contributing to the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 and a conservative backlash after that event which ousted several key reformers and threatened to reverse many of Deng's reforms.[16] However, Deng stood by his reforms and in 1992, he affirmed the need to continue reforms in his southern tour.[15] He also reopened the Shanghai Stock Exchange closed by Mao 40 years earlier.Although the economy grew quickly during this period, economic troubles in the inefficient state sector increased. Heavy losses had to be made up by state revenues and acted as a drain upon the economy.[17] Inflation became problematic in 1985, 1988 and 1992.[16] Privatizations began to accelerate after 1992, and the private sector surpassed the state sector in share of GDP for the first time in the mid-1990s. China's government slowly expanded recognition of the private economy, first as a "complement" to the state sector (1988) and then as an "important component" (1999) of the socialist market economy.[18] In the 1990s, Deng forced many of the conservative elders such as Chen Yun into retirement, allowing radical reforms to be carried out.[15] Despite Deng's death in 1997, reforms continued under his handpicked successors, Jiang Zemin and Zhu Rongji, who were ardent reformers. In 1997 and 1998, large-scale privatization occurred, in which all state enterprises, except a few large monopolies, were liquidated and their assets sold to private investors. Between 2001 and 2004, the number of state-owned enterprises decreased by 48 percent.[14] During the same period, Jiang and Zhu also reduced tariffs, trade barriers and regulations, reformed the banking system, dismantled much of the Mao-era social welfare system, forced the PLA to divest itself of military-run businesses,[19] reduced inflation, and joined the World Trade Organization. These moves invoked discontent among some groups, especially laid off workers of state enterprises that had been privatized.[20] The domestic private sector first exceeded 50% of GDP in 2005 and has further expanded since. Also, in 2005, China was able to surpass Japan as the largest economy in Asia.[21] However, some state monopolies still remained, such as in petroleum and banking.[22] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economic_reform#1978.E2.80.9384I would say that shows a steady progression from government run industries to a privately run market. Wouldn't you? And it has been steadily eroded for the past century. In some places, the income tax is over 50%. It's difficult to spend your money on the free market if the government keeps taking your money. Privately owned, but heavily regulated by the government. And the regulation is increasing. This is why the West is stagnating. What I said is that the introduction of a free market policy in an economy that is government control will result in a large economic upturn. And that is exactly what happened. China's economy kept reducing government interference, so their economy grew in a spectacular fashion. The West started with relatively free economies, but they keep adding restrictions. That is why China's economy grew and the West's didn't. Because the West keeps introducing new restrictions. As government interference increases, economic vitality decreases. Here in the USA, thousands of pages of new restrictions are introduced every year by government agencies. I never said that China is a free market economy. What I did say is that they introduced free market reforms. This is a fact. China had a totally government run economy before the 1978 reforms. The result was disaster. They loostened controls starting in 1978. The result was amazing economic growth. Conclusion: When a government controlled economy reduces controls, it grows. In this case, the growth was spectacular. The same was true in India which is also still a heavily controled economy. To repeat, I NEVER claimed that either of these countries had a free market free from govenrment control. What I did claim is that when the controls are reduced, it frees the economy to grow. And that is exactly what happened. Well it did work, didn't it? Millions of poor Chinese were lifted out of poverty. I notice you never disputed that fact. And now private property is being supported by a change to the Chinese Constitution. One advance leads to another. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2014 21:04:44 GMT -5
Bob, so is Pragmatism the highest good in your philosophy of life?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 19, 2014 23:11:35 GMT -5
Bob, so is Pragmatism the highest good in your philosophy of life? No. Lifting people out of poverty is. And that is what free market policies do. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2014 23:16:12 GMT -5
Even free markets under a dictatorship government? That's what I meant by pragmatism, in case you didn't get it. It means getting to your ends by no matter the means. You really amaze me.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 20, 2014 8:32:00 GMT -5
Even free markets under a dictatorship government? That's what I meant by pragmatism, in case you didn't get it. It means getting to your ends by no matter the means. You really amaze me. Lily, I do not support dictatorship under any circumstances. Nor did I ever say that the end justifies the means. But isn't it amazing that the free market works even under a dictatorship? And what happens to those dictatorships when they shift to a free market? They liberalize! In Chile, the middle class grew and they threw him out. Now the same thing seems to be happening in China. They recently changed their constitution to make private property legal. Free markets lead to free minds. Incidentally Lily, both Chile and China were dictatorships long before they made economic reforms. Both did it because their economies were failing badly. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2014 15:46:00 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2014 16:07:10 GMT -5
Bob, you said that a libertarian government is one that protects private property, right? And libertarian government will inevitably lead to economic prosperity.
Why are we talking about China at all? You acknowledged that for the duration of its economic reforms, China didn't protect private property. In other words, China has never at any point followed libertarian policies.
So where is your evidence for the success of libertarian policies again?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 21, 2014 19:43:48 GMT -5
Incidentally Lily, both Chile and China were dictatorships long before they made economic reforms. China I'll grant you... Thank you for granting me China. The totalitarian nature of Mao's China is well known, as is the massive failure of its socialist policies. This link says next to nothing about any economic policies. Perhaps I missed something here. Where does it talk about economics? Actually, Chile's economy was failing badly because of their economic reforms. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_government_of_Chile_%281973%E2%80%931990%29#Economy_and_free_market_reforms
[/quote] That's not the only link on the crisis: Apparently, there was a crisis that hit all of Latin America, and there was a departure from the neoliberal model due to political intervention. Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 21, 2014 19:47:03 GMT -5
Bob, you said that a libertarian government is one that protects private property, right? And libertarian government will inevitably lead to economic prosperity. Why are we talking about China at all? You acknowledged that for the duration of its economic reforms, China didn't protect private property. In other words, China has never at any point followed libertarian policies. So where is your evidence for the success of libertarian policies again? Do you deny that China shifted economic policies starting in 1978 and that these policies were of a Libertarian nature? Let me repeat what I posted earlier in this thread: Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2014 12:50:55 GMT -5
Do you deny that China shifted economic policies starting in 1978 and that these policies were of a Libertarian nature? Is gaving a two-class society where private property is protected for one class but not for the other a libertarian policy? Because that's what they did, they lured large foreign corporations with the promise to make good on investments, but refused to protect private property for regular people. Is that what you consider a libertarian economic policy? I would say that shows a steady progression from government run industries to a privately run market. Wouldn't you? The Chinese government owns all major banks. That means, all domestic investments are going through the hands of the Chinese government. Is that what you consider a privately run market?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 22, 2014 14:41:47 GMT -5
Do you deny that China shifted economic policies starting in 1978 and that these policies were of a Libertarian nature? Is gaving a two-class society where private property is protected for one class but not for the other a libertarian policy? Because that's what they did, they lured large foreign corporations with the promise to make good on investments, but refused to protect private property for regular people. Is that what you consider a libertarian economic policy? You are totally missing the point. When they gave that guarantee to the foreign corporations, was that a move towards a freer economy or wasn't it? Of course it was. From NO people having economic freedom, now SOME people had increased economic freedom. Remember that I NEVER claimed that China was ever a libertarian society. Not even once. The only thing I claimed was that steps taken towards a freer economy would raise economic output. That certainly was what happened in China. The Chinese government owns all major banks. That means, all domestic investments are going through the hands of the Chinese government. Is that what you consider a privately run market? So? They have quite a ways to go yet. How is that relevant? Once again, I never claimed that the Chinese economy was libertarian. My only assertion was that steps taken towards a freer economy would increase economic output. That's what happened in China. And it happened to such a great extent that it has frequently been referred to as a "miracle." Do you deny that there were any changes in the direction of a free market? Do you deny the resulting increase in the economy? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2014 21:29:56 GMT -5
Remember that I NEVER claimed that China was ever a libertarian society. Not even once. And yet you hold up China as proof that libertarianism works, even though by any sane libertarian standards the population of China is less free than the population in any Western country. If you were actually looking for positive examples of libertarianism, why not point to the West? It is a fact that by the standards of most countries in the world, Europe and the US are the most libertarian societies on the planet, and it is also a fact that they are the wealthiest societies still.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 22, 2014 21:45:54 GMT -5
Remember that I NEVER claimed that China was ever a libertarian society. Not even once. And yet you hold up China as proof that libertarianism works, even though by any sane libertarian standards the population of China is less free than the population in any Western country. Yes. And I've already explained why several times.. My claim was that the introduction of free market reforms increases the growth of an economy. 1) China is not a libertarian society 2) China introduced free market reforms. 3) The Chinese economy grew by a large amount in a short time. Do you agree with this or not? The fact that China is still not a totally free economy is simply not relevant to the above facts. This proves my point. Western societies have been restricting the free market. Each year brings more and more restrictions. The Western economies are stagnating. Free market reforms lead to a rising economy. Increasing government interference leads to slower growth and stagnation. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2014 11:24:57 GMT -5
And yet you hold up China as proof that libertarianism works, even though by any sane libertarian standards the population of China is less free than the population in any Western country. Yes. And I've already explained why several times.. My claim was that the introduction of free market reforms increases the growth of an economy. 1) China is not a libertarian society 2) China introduced free market reforms. 3) The Chinese economy grew by a large amount in a short time. Do you agree with this or not? Tell me first what you mean by "free market reforms". Do you mean making it easier for foreigners to invest, while keeping the native population in shackles? Or do you mean increasing economic freedoms for everyone, e.g. by introducing a right to private property? Your argument seems to imply the latter, but the economic history of China implies the former. Libertarianism =/= making it easier for foreign investors In the 19th century, India was a great place for British investors, because they had all the economic freedom they enjoyed back in Britain. Meanwhile, Indians were prevented from engaging in the free market. Is that what you mean when you talk about "free market reforms"? Even with these restrictions the West is freer by libertarian standards than China by several magnitudes. If freedom by libertarian standards was directly translatable into economic growth, the West would grow significantly faster than China.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 29, 2014 17:37:43 GMT -5
Yes. And I've already explained why several times.. My claim was that the introduction of free market reforms increases the growth of an economy. 1) China is not a libertarian society 2) China introduced free market reforms. 3) The Chinese economy grew by a large amount in a short time. Do you agree with this or not? Tell me first what you mean by "free market reforms". Do you mean making it easier for foreigners to invest, while keeping the native population in shackles? Or do you mean increasing economic freedoms for everyone, e.g. by introducing a right to private property? Your argument seems to imply the latter, but the economic history of China implies the former. Yes, making it easier for foreigners to invest is clearly a movement towards a free market. How is it not? The success of this move led to further reforms, including the recent inclusion of private property rights in the Chinese Constitution. I never said that, did I? That is your misinterpretation. What I did say is that movement towards a free market, increases economic output, which it clearly does. Obviously not. This was a restriction imposed on a freer market and it resulted in an economic decline in India. So what you say here supports my point. You know McAnswer, it might be a good idea for you to read what I say before criticizing it. I have already said on several occasions in this thread that it is the direction of the economy, not a static view that counts. The fact is that China liberalized its economy and it grew. The West is further restricting its economy, and it is stagnating. Do you dispute that? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2014 15:53:42 GMT -5
You know McAnswer, it might be a good idea for you to read what I say before criticizing it. I have already said on several occasions in this thread that it is the direction of the economy, not a static view that counts. The fact is that China liberalized its economy and it grew. The West is further restricting its economy, and it is stagnating. Do you dispute that? The logical conclusion to this is that in order to preserve the welfare state, the Western world has to go for a full Soviet style planned economy, outlawing all forms of property and private enterprise. Then after the initial shock they can gradually re-introduce some of the freedoms that were destroyed earlier. The resulting prosperity will be much greater than if they had maintained these freedoms all along. Is that what you are trying to argue? That a Soviet style planned economy gradually opening up with a few sparse freedoms of economy (while keeping its population oppressed by a tyrannic regime) is superior to a free and open demoocratic society?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 30, 2014 16:36:30 GMT -5
You know McAnswer, it might be a good idea for you to read what I say before criticizing it. I have already said on several occasions in this thread that it is the direction of the economy, not a static view that counts. The fact is that China liberalized its economy and it grew. The West is further restricting its economy, and it is stagnating. Do you dispute that? The logical conclusion to this is that in order to preserve the welfare state, the Western world has to go for a full Soviet style planned economy, outlawing all forms of property and private enterprise. Then after the initial shock they can gradually re-introduce some of the freedoms that were destroyed earlier. The resulting prosperity will be much greater than if they had maintained these freedoms all along. Is that what you are trying to argue? That a Soviet style planned economy gradually opening up with a few sparse freedoms of economy (while keeping its population oppressed by a tyrannic regime) is superior to a free and open demoocratic society? No McAnswer, that's your Red Herring. What I said was that any economy that introduces free market policies will grow, sometimes dramatically. I also said that any economy that reduces free market policies will stagnate, at best, and probably shrink. These claims are supported by a massive amount of facts which, BTW, you have not challenged. Nothing was said about the starting point of the economy. Why? Because the starting point is irrelevant. Once again, a national economy that introduces free market policies will increase. An economy that continually adds restrictions to a free market stagnates at best and declines at worst. Both India and China now have a growing middle class and this is driving adoption of greater freedom. What you seem to miss is those "free and open democratic societies" are in decline. This is due largely to the ever increasing rules and regulations produced by their massive and ever increasing bureaucracies. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2014 12:56:50 GMT -5
The logical conclusion to this is that in order to preserve the welfare state, the Western world has to go for a full Soviet style planned economy, outlawing all forms of property and private enterprise. Then after the initial shock they can gradually re-introduce some of the freedoms that were destroyed earlier. The resulting prosperity will be much greater than if they had maintained these freedoms all along. Is that what you are trying to argue? That a Soviet style planned economy gradually opening up with a few sparse freedoms of economy (while keeping its population oppressed by a tyrannic regime) is superior to a free and open demoocratic society? No McAnswer, that's your Red Herring. It's not a red herring. It's the logical conclusion of your own argument, as laid out in your very own post: (my emphasis) Therefore, Soviet style economies that add a few scattered freedoms here and there, like China, are superior to societies where individual property is protected, but there are rules preventing force and fraud. "Rules and regulations" such as the right to own property, copyright law, patent law, or regulations against fraudulent speculation (such as insider trading). All of which were absent during the heydays of Chinese economic expansion.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 1, 2014 14:19:33 GMT -5
No McAnswer, that's your Red Herring. It's not a red herring. It's the logical conclusion of your own argument, as laid out in your very own post: (my emphasis) Therefore, Soviet style economies that add a few scattered freedoms here and there, like China, are superior to societies where individual property is protected, but there are rules preventing force and fraud. "Logical conclusion"? Then it must be a very strange sort of logic you are using. Please note that in the quote you highlighted, there is no mention whatsoever about "society", much less which society is superior or inferior. That is your addition. I was talking strictly about economics. An economy that is growing and raises millions of poor people out of their poverty is superior to an economy that is stagnating. Wouldn't you agree? You are correct though that your argument is not a Red Herring. It is a Strawman. Please forgive my error. "Rules and regulations" such as the right to own property, copyright law, patent law, or regulations against fraudulent speculation (such as insider trading). All of which were absent during the heydays of Chinese economic expansion.[/quote]Once again, you miss the point. You are looking at the reforms the Chinese didn't make. It is the reforms that they did make that boosted their economy. BTW, the right to own property was recently added to the Chinese Constitution. If China wants to keep their economy growing, they have to stay on the path to reform. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2014 4:36:53 GMT -5
I was talking strictly about economics. An economy that is growing and raises millions of poor people out of their poverty is superior to an economy that is stagnating. Wouldn't you agree? No I wouldn't. Why should I? There is no inherent value in GDP growth. What matters is the actual economic situation of the population. And I certainly prefer stagnation on a high level to growth from the bottom heap. It is neither. At worst, it may be a reduction to the absurd. Once again, you miss the point. You are looking at the reforms the Chinese didn't make. It is the reforms that they did make that boosted their economy. Indeed. They loosened regulation on foreign investment, but not their population's economic activity. They removed barriers to foreign export, not to labor unions and consumer rights. They allowed foreign co-ownership of state-owned businesses, but not private property. Bob, you have just demonstrated that the things which you consider core tenets of libertarian political ideology are completely unimportant to economic growth! In fact, since China has introduced IP protection, property rights, and basic environmental and labor regulations, their growth has been slowing down - demonstrating that the core tenets of libertarian ideology may be even detrimental to economic growth. In other words, you just falsified your very own claim that libertarianism results in an increase of economic prosperity!
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 2, 2014 9:56:51 GMT -5
I was talking strictly about economics. An economy that is growing and raises millions of poor people out of their poverty is superior to an economy that is stagnating. Wouldn't you agree? No I wouldn't. Why should I? There is no inherent value in GDP growth. So providing more jobs and raising the poor out of poverty are not suitable goals for you? So you would tell a a country with a high population of poor people that stagnation is better than growth? Then you don't care that large numbers of people around the world are in poverty? Would you like to see them stay in poverty? Is that what you are saying? And that "actual economic situation" hasn't been too good lately, has it? Especially in Spain, Italy, Greece, and Portugal. France isn't doing too well either. The problem with stagnation is that it doesn't feed people too well. The only thing that is absurd here is that you are pretending that you didn't attribute words to me that I never wrote when you obviously did. "Economy" and "society" are different words. You can look them up. Your "argument" is a Strawman. Indeed. They loosened regulation on foreign investment, but not their population's economic activity. They removed barriers to foreign export, not to labor unions and consumer rights. They allowed foreign co-ownership of state-owned businesses, but not private property. Yes. And it worked, didn't it? In fact, it worked quite well. No I didn't. The fact is that the reforms they did introduce worked. That says nothing about the reforms they did not put into place. But of course, that has never stopped you from reaching a false conclusion. Naturally, I never said (or even implied) that the core tenets of Libertarian ideology are unimportant to economic growth. What I did say is that when some Libertarian policies are put into place, there will be economic growth. From this, it simply does not follow that the other principles are unimportant. My claim is that free market policies are so powerful that even if some of them are introduced, economic growth will be increased, sometimes dramatically. Your counter-argument is that any Libertarian policies that were not introduced are therefore irrelevant to economic growth! Suppose I had said giving up smoking will improve your health. Would your counter argument then be that giving up cocaine, heroin, and sniffing glue would not improve your health? That, in effect is the argument you make here. Aside from the fact that you presented no evidence for counter-argument, you ignore the possibility that some free market policies are all that is necessary to start economic growth. The claim was never made that they all had to be introduced together. So aside from being Strawman, your argument is also a Non Sequetur. What a complete distortion. The fact is that the reforms they did put into place were free market reforms. The fact is also that their economy took off. The fact that they didn't move to the free market all at once does not negate these facts. China's growth is slowing down because it is an export economy and the world is still in a recession. Once again, the fact that the introduction of some free market policies produced a massive rise in the economy does not imply that the other policies won't work or are irrelevant. Your conclusion is a Non Sequetur. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2014 19:22:13 GMT -5
What a complete distortion. The fact is that the reforms they did put into place were free market reforms. The fact is also that their economy took off. The fact that they didn't move to the free market all at once does not negate these facts. China's growth is slowing down because it is an export economy and the world is still in a recession. The fact is that none of the initial reforms they put in place were libertarian in practice or principle. You cannot infer that libertarian policies would have lifted the Chinese population out of poverty when no such policies have been enacted in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 2, 2014 21:07:13 GMT -5
What a complete distortion. The fact is that the reforms they did put into place were free market reforms. The fact is also that their economy took off. The fact that they didn't move to the free market all at once does not negate these facts. China's growth is slowing down because it is an export economy and the world is still in a recession. The fact is that none of the initial reforms they put in place were libertarian in practice or principle. You cannot infer that libertarian policies would have lifted the Chinese population out of poverty when no such policies have been enacted in the first place. Come on McAnswer, this is the FACTS board. You've been here long enough to know that you can't just make a pronouncement without giving supporting evidence. Your unsupported declaration here is puzzling in light of the fact that I presented evidence to the contrary. Perhaps you missed it. Well here it is again. Please tell us how the following are not Libertarian Reforms: 1) De-Collectivizing agriculture 2) Divided collectivized farm land into private plots. 3) State owned industries allowed to sell production above plan quotas on the market. 4) Private businesses allowed to operate for the first time since the communist takeover.5) Privatizations accelerated after 1992 and the private sector surpassed the state sector during the 1990's Now all of these look like Libertarian reforms to me. But perhaps I am missing something. Could you please explain how these are NOT Libertarian Reforms? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2014 0:40:48 GMT -5
So granting foreign corporations control over governmental assets while leaving the population chained to a communist planned economy counts as a libertarian reform?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2014 0:42:48 GMT -5
And I guess the Tiananmen massacre counts as a triumph of libertarianism?
|
|