Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

Red Chief wrote:Toy Boy, your mistress has already expressed this brilliant observation. You can relax and return to the cozy den you have just come from.

If I find someone who is looking for an ugly pet to adopt, I'll let you know I found you a home.

Toy Boy, your mistress has already expressed this brilliant observation. You can relax and return to the cozy den you have just come from.

I know, but those bottles are starting to tap hard on your head now. Btw, you're spitting on your screen. Try a napkin...

RobbyG wrote:

Toy Boy, your mistress has already expressed this brilliant observation. You can relax and return to the cozy den you have just come from.

I know, but those bottles are starting to tap hard on your head now. Btw, you're spitting on your screen. Try a napkin...

RobbyG, don't expect an answer too soon from him. He probably forgot to tie himself to the chair and passed out and is currently laying on the floor. You are going to have to wait until he comes to and crawls back into it.

Bora Bora wrote:

RobbyG wrote:

Toy Boy, your mistress has already expressed this brilliant observation. You can relax and return to the cozy den you have just come from.

I know, but those bottles are starting to tap hard on your head now. Btw, you're spitting on your screen. Try a napkin...

RobbyG, don't expect an answer too soon from him. He probably forgot to tie himself to the chair and passed out and is currently laying on the floor. You are going to have to wait until he comes to and crawls back into it.

Yeah, the usual with zee Russianz.

All right Bora, I too think it is simple and clear.

You have asked a 'broad' question, a broad one, which I could have replied with an easy 'probably yes'.
You do not expect answers with detailed informaion or 'clarifications' by asking a broad question, instead if you are really interested in getting information, you should have asked more specific questions. I was waiting for them, but you did not raise any.

And my answering PM to you, was merely expressing myself plus stating my ideas. If I intended to insult, it would be written this way(in which you interpreted it):

You...(apply any of those names you called me), I do not like you.

So I do not care whether I made a promise or not, I will not answer any of your questions.

And you know nothing(without 'I think/I do not think', which is a typical term when people state their ideas, not accusations) about my country. So just shut up.

Do you see the difference now. And now can you understand why I think my PM was a perfectly neutral one, with an attitude of 'I do not like you, but I will keep my promise and answer your questions'.

RobbyG wrote:Doesn't matter how convenient or how inconvenient the stories might be. They all have to come out, to be discussed and for matters to be improved.

After all, wouldn't you be much happier if you could choose your personal faith? Individual freedom of choice?

So don't tell me that those women who get trafficked are always happy. When you are 10 years old and you get abducted, you don't even know what that is. A childs mind isn't even developed to grasp the impact. Its still learning! They are taken away from their lives and personal choices. Thats a gods disgrace. I wish nobody ever experiences that.

You have to understand it has to be a process, probably an extremely long one, under current complicated circumstances China is in. Changes, which are taking place each day that I myslef have also experienced, have to be made step by step. So instead of furious accusations, why not offer help in a direct and more acceptable way.

Children may have not acquired enough written knowledge, but they own more accurate instincts and are enough sensitive already, especially little girls. I sure could tell real happiness from the faked.

And the women who got 'trafficked' might not be ALWAYS happy. But do you think the root is simply them being 'trafficked'? Yes they were taken away from their lives[unbearable ones(not my imagination, they sometimes talk about how situations are so bad back home that they suffer so much)]. They were left with not much choices. If you think it over, you may understand this 'business' you are talking about is indeed a twilight zone, where right or wrong can not be easily defined.

@ WJ

Look, bottom line is this: you had an opportunity to back up your statements. I was interested to hear what you had to say, being that you are Chinese and live in China, as opposed to the article which you basically inferred as being incorrect or misleading - an article on a very serious subject. You chose to take it into another direction rather than enlighten, not only me, but other readers.

Don't be upset if people rely on the press (western or otherwise) if you aren't willing to reveal information or correct information that would help people to see the bigger picture. How do you expect people to understand what they don't actually know and are left to take information on face value from what they read in the press?

You stated that I don't know about China. You are right. I probably know as much about China as you do about the United States, or France, or Italy.

I worked for a Chinese lawyer in the states and he wrote a publication on what lead up to the Tiananmen Square protests. It was enlightening and very informative. He was not a US citizen, he was born and raised in China.

You allowed your "personal" feelings towards me override the intellectual part of you to give the opportunity to actually contribute information that anyone reading the post might have found interesting.

For now, I will continue to sort out what I read in the press until someone else comes along who can enlighten me to erroneous press or any other form of print relating to the subject based on firsthand knowledge or experience.

Thank you.

Enough has been said.

You can either stop spinning around and start asking your questions or just move on, on your own track.

WhiteJade wrote:

RobbyG wrote:Doesn't matter how convenient or how inconvenient the stories might be. They all have to come out, to be discussed and for matters to be improved.

After all, wouldn't you be much happier if you could choose your personal faith? Individual freedom of choice?

So don't tell me that those women who get trafficked are always happy. When you are 10 years old and you get abducted, you don't even know what that is. A childs mind isn't even developed to grasp the impact. Its still learning! They are taken away from their lives and personal choices. Thats a gods disgrace. I wish nobody ever experiences that.

You have to understand it has to be a process, probably an extremely long one, under current complicated circumstances China is in. Changes, which are taking place each day that I myslef have also experienced, have to be made step by step. So instead of furious accusations, why not offer help in a direct and more acceptable way.

Children may have not acquired enough written knowledge, but they own more accurate instincts and are enough sensitive already, especially little girls. I sure could tell real happiness from the faked.

And the women who got 'trafficked' might not be ALWAYS happy. But do you think the root is simply them being 'trafficked'? Yes they were taken away from their lives[unbearable ones(not my imagination, they sometimes talk about how situations are so bad back home that they suffer so much)]. They were left with not much choices. If you think it over, you may understand this 'business' you are talking about is indeed a twilight zone, where right or wrong can not be easily defined.

Furious accusations you say? I merely observed and shared some of the sources that I've taken on myself as trustworthy. I never accused you of anything. The solution I gave you is to watch those three little video's I added earlier for you to see the interviewed Chinese ladies and family members who are crying their hearts out for losing a dear family member and the trafficked woman who tried to slice her wrists because of what had happened to her.

What I read from you, is that you are basically saying that its allright, part of the progress. That the underground business, because thats what it is, since huge amoungs of money are made by abducting women and children, is a progress for the better?!? Get real girl. How can you talk right such immoral and unethic practices!

Either way, China is progressing. But eventually when the people's of China gain more income and finally obtain the social safety net that some of us have in the West, then people will stand up against the Communist Party. Its a given.
The only reason why those central planners survive, is because they use capitalism for wealth creation and growth on the backs of the people. Those Communist central planners know that their socio-economic system failed after the fall of the Soviet Union. They are scared to death that they receive the same internal struggle and protest/revolution like Tiananman Square. Thats why they love their trade surplus from manufacturing exports. It gives them power and influence in the rest of the world.
But when you grow smarter, richer and more independant, you and your people will eventually oppose the communist system and demand representation instead of moral decline, like by closing an eye for human trafficking etc, all for the 'greater good' of centrally planned growth while remaining in the saddle of Communist power. The inefficiences are just inconvenient to them, hence they ignore.

Another reminder why Communism failed and will fail again. Efficient use of resources is gained when you represent society from the bottom-up, not by planning resources top-down like in China. Even capitalist governments have problems with that, as control is more easy to coerce when you have top-down leadership institutions. Just look at America where corporations are abusing the people because government doesn't protect the consumer. America is overshooting its capitalistic system now. Totally on the wrong footing in my opinion. So when you hear about a revolution in America soon, you'll remember what I've said. I hope.

Perhaps you should introduce yourself to social-economic systems. Study a bit about communism, socialism, capitalism and social welfare. Its makes you see things from a wider perspective.

Cheers.

Human trafficking is illegal, inhuman, and by no means acceptable. But if you are aware of the existence of background stories, you may want to give it more thoughts then simply cross it out. That was what I tried to indicate.

About ideology, this is what I have learned from my teachers in school: human society has gone through primitive society>>slave society>>feudal society, and will go through capital society>>socialist society, finally communist society. The Chinese society is currently at the early stage of socialist society.

The Chinese government has never promised a perfect, golden world in near future, at the end of the path. Instead the government showed their efforts in providing better and better living conditions for people. The success is remarkable.

WhiteJade wrote:Enough has been said.

You can either stop spinning around and start asking your questions or just move on, on your own track.

I'm not the one who put a spin on it and took it off track.

At this point there is nothing you can offer that could be of any interest to me.

Move along now.

WhiteJade wrote:Human trafficking is illegal, inhuman, and by no means acceptable.

Thats the spirit. First we condemn, then we talk nuances.

But if you are aware of the existence of background stories, you may want to give it more thoughts then simply cross it out. That was what I tried to indicate.

About ideology, this is what I have learned from my teachers in school: human society has gone through primitive society>>slave society>>feudal society, and will go through capital society>>socialist society, finally communist society. The Chinese society is currently at the early stage of socialist society.

If that is clear according to your teacher, explain to me; When did the Soviet Union ever passed the stage Capitalism? To my knowledge, things are not that black and white.

My world view would rather be:
Primitive >> Feudal >> Slave >> Communism >> Socialism >> Capitalism >> and I predict: Libertarianism (growing but not even close to being acknowledged in wide circles)

The Chinese government has never promised a perfect, golden world in near future, at the end of the path. Instead the government showed their efforts in providing better and better living conditions for people. The success is remarkable.

[/quote]

Progress in China is indeed remarkable. I agree that central economic planning based on capitalistic systems is a force to be reckoned with. On the other hand, if mankind would finally evolve from warmongering idiots to freedom embracing nations, then we might see Libertarian thoughts develop the world to one giant economic engine with free trade, no protectionism, no war, cultural diversity, tolerance, property rights, international justice system etc.

Thats my utopia. Its a view, further enhanced with the benefits of Capitalism and Socialism, purely by motivating human contribution to society, without subsidies and central planning. Its a decentralized vision with the optimum use of scarce resources available on our planet. Near absolute efficiency.

Perhaps I'll write an essay about this one day.

RobbyG wrote:But when you grow smarter, richer and more independant, you and your people will eventually oppose the communist system and demand representation instead of moral decline, like by closing an eye for human trafficking etc, all for the 'greater good' of centrally planned growth while remaining in the saddle of Communist power. The inefficiences are just inconvenient to them, hence they ignore.

Another reminder why Communism failed and will fail again. Efficient use of resources is gained when you represent society from the bottom-up, not by planning resources top-down like in China. Even capitalist governments have problems with that, as control is more easy to coerce when you have top-down leadership institutions. Just look at America where corporations are abusing the people because government doesn't protect the consumer. America is overshooting its capitalistic system now. Totally on the wrong footing in my opinion. So when you hear about a revolution in America soon, you'll remember what I've said. I hope.

Perhaps you should introduce yourself to social-economic systems. Study a bit about communism, socialism, capitalism and social welfare. Its makes you see things from a wider perspective.

Cheers.

Rob, could you stop your stream of consciousness just for a minute? Communist Party is alive and feels well, despite your barcking from the corner of Europe. Socialism has shown its efficiency in MANY developing countries, including Soviet Union of cause. So your speech is only clueless fantasies and assumptions.

In reality we are watching a collaps of pure capitalism (with fewer regulations and planning and almost infinite power of international corporations and banks). The management of them had good bonuces for pumping bubbles but who eventually paid for that? Regular taxpayers.

By the way Soviet Union had pretty good welfare system. Actually socialism there was very suitable for such a good-for-nothing as you are.

I don't know how political system will be transformed but I don't think that it's going to happen within 20 years. There are a lot of things to do. Good luck!

Back to the OP. After reading a few neutral article I understand that Bora actually reised rather serious question, although in my view, the form of question was not the best. Sorry, Bora, for misunderstanding.

Anyway, I am interested in why the gender-ratio differs so much from European one and what Comminist Part is going to do with that, by modifing "on-child" policy for instance to correct the ratio in the future? I would be gratefull if WJ could clarify the situation.

RobbyG wrote:develop the world to one giant economic engine with free trade, no protectionism, no war, cultural diversity, tolerance, property rights, international justice system etc.

This is exactly the definition of 'communist world'. However I see you name it 'Libertarianism'

RobbyG wrote:my utopia. Its a view, further enhanced with the benefits of Capitalism and Socialism, purely by motivating human contribution to society, without subsidies and central planning. Its a decentralized vision with the optimum use of scarce resources available on our planet. Near absolute efficiency.

With current productive forces there's a long way to go before your Utopia comes true. Besides, we should take into consideration the dark side of human being, which might be simple internal chemical reactions that can not be erased by either education or the law.

Red Chief wrote:

RobbyG wrote:But when you grow smarter, richer and more independant, you and your people will eventually oppose the communist system and demand representation instead of moral decline, like by closing an eye for human trafficking etc, all for the 'greater good' of centrally planned growth while remaining in the saddle of Communist power. The inefficiences are just inconvenient to them, hence they ignore.

Another reminder why Communism failed and will fail again. Efficient use of resources is gained when you represent society from the bottom-up, not by planning resources top-down like in China. Even capitalist governments have problems with that, as control is more easy to coerce when you have top-down leadership institutions. Just look at America where corporations are abusing the people because government doesn't protect the consumer. America is overshooting its capitalistic system now. Totally on the wrong footing in my opinion. So when you hear about a revolution in America soon, you'll remember what I've said. I hope.

Perhaps you should introduce yourself to social-economic systems. Study a bit about communism, socialism, capitalism and social welfare. Its makes you see things from a wider perspective.

Cheers.

Rob, could you stop your stream of consciousness just for a minute? Communist Party is alive and feels well, despite your barcking from the corner of Europe. Socialism has shown its efficiency in MANY developing countries, including Soviet Union of cause. So your speech is only clueless fantasies and assumptions.

I'll ignore the Soviet talk for a minute.

In reality we are watching a collaps of pure capitalism (with fewer regulations and planning and almost infinite power of international corporations and banks). The management of them had good bonuces for pumping bubbles but who eventually paid for that? Regular taxpayers.

Chief, my friend, I can inform you that what we have seen in the US over the last 15-20 years is not PURE capitalism. Not by a long shot. Its more like corporatism if you ask me. Indeed, the socialist/capitalist countries did far better. Just look at Germany, Netherlands, France. Also, Singapore and HongKong are great examples of diversified capitalism with central planning. That worked.

By the way Soviet Union had pretty good welfare system. Actually socialism there was very suitable for such a good-for-nothing as you are.

I don't know how political system will be transformed but I don't think that it's going to happen within 20 years. There are a lot of things to do. Good luck!

In all honesty, communism has its limitations in that it doesn't elevate you out of near poverty. And if you do, you will be kicked back by the centrally planned authority as you got richer than the rest. So yes, the Soviets had food and water and pale concrete buildings block by block, but efficient use of resources? Get outta here.
Should I remind you what system eventually survived the Cold war? Its because communism was financially unviable to keep intact. It fell apart from within. Didn't need a bomb for that to happen.

Anyway, I am interested in why the gender-ratio differs so much from European one and what Comminist Part is going to do with that, by modifing "on-child" policy for instance to correct the ratio in the future? I would be gratefull if WJ could clarify the situation.

[/quote]

Good question. Lets see what Jade has to say about this...

Red Chief wrote:Anyway, I am interested in why the gender-ratio differs so much from European one .

I am interested, too. And I assume it a combination of various reasons, from culture difference to biological differences. etc.

Red Chief wrote:and what Comminist Part is going to do with that, by modifing "on-child" policy for instance to correct the ratio in the future? I would be gratefull if WJ could clarify the situation.

The population of China has grown from 400 million in 1949 to current 1.5 billion, in this case birth rate control is really important.

Here is a link of Population and Family Planning Law
http://xiongzhai.spaces.live.com/blog/c ... !649.entry

Pay attention to article 35, it is clearly stated se.x preference tests are prohibited. I guess what's to be improved is just the enforcement now.

RobbyG wrote: On the other hand, if mankind would finally evolve from warmongering idiots to freedom embracing nations, then we might see Libertarian thoughts develop the world to one giant economic engine with free trade, no protectionism, no war, cultural diversity, tolerance, property rights, international justice system etc.

Thats my utopia. Its a view, further enhanced with the benefits of Capitalism and Socialism, purely by motivating human contribution to society, without subsidies and central planning. Its a decentralized vision with the optimum use of scarce resources available on our planet. Near absolute efficiency.

Perhaps I'll write an essay about this one day.

He-he, Your Utopia reminds me Anarchism. Anarchia is a mother of order?

Red Chief wrote:

RobbyG wrote: On the other hand, if mankind would finally evolve from warmongering idiots to freedom embracing nations, then we might see Libertarian thoughts develop the world to one giant economic engine with free trade, no protectionism, no war, cultural diversity, tolerance, property rights, international justice system etc.

Thats my utopia. Its a view, further enhanced with the benefits of Capitalism and Socialism, purely by motivating human contribution to society, without subsidies and central planning. Its a decentralized vision with the optimum use of scarce resources available on our planet. Near absolute efficiency.

Perhaps I'll write an essay about this one day.

He-he, Your Utopia reminds me Anarchism. Anarchia is a mother of order?

Rather limited government. Just enough to enforce limited regulations needed to protect the consumer and for defensive measures of the nation. So no big warmachine or military industrial complex.

Simply all resources aimed at improving society by eliminating big government, fraud and abuse, misallocation of capital and scarce resources. That is what I consider a free market capitalist economy with a human mindset based on Libertarian thinking, like the ones of Ron Paul, as an example.

Ludwig von Mises was a great thinker in Liberty and individual freedom. Same with Friedrich Hayek and Murray Rothbard. I also like some views from Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand. http://www.mises.org.

RobbyG wrote:Same with Friedrich Hayek and Murray Rothbard. I also like some views from Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand.

Wow, So well-known faces. As far as I understand, Anglo-American World has lived reading every single word of their economic theories and was rearranged according to their templates. Margaret Tatcher declared love to them.

Your Utopia has just come in reality as anti-Utopia. It's pretty common for any Utopia.

Red Chief wrote:

RobbyG wrote:Same with Friedrich Hayek and Murray Rothbard. I also like some views from Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand.

Wow, So well-known faces. As far as I understand, Anglo-American World has lived reading every single word of their economic theories and was rearranged according to their templates. Margaret Tatcher declared love to them.

Your Utopia has just come in reality as anti-Utopia. It's pretty common for any Utopia.

Hold there. Important point you make.

In our current capitalist system we kept hanging on the opposite figure of Friedrich Hayek. Namely, John Maynard Keynes. Hence the use Keynesianism.
Nearly every study book you read about economics in Universities accross the globe, including ivey league Harvard, Yale and Princetons, are based on the econimc thoughts in the book written by J.M. Keynes in 1936. 'The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money'.
This theory might have worked nice after WWII, but was incomplete and nothing useful when government debt levels are too high, as is happening in the developed world today.

Friedrich Hayek was the utter opposite of Keynes, as his economic theory was based on the Austrian school of economics. Nobody listened to this guy back then. He said:
No stimulus efforts to revive an economy as this leads to misallocation of capital and resources from productive sources in the private sector to government created jobs, which costs way more to sustain. Its the boom that causes the problem, not the bust. The bust is merely the correction, a purging of malinvestment and overcapacity from the system. Milton Friedman even showed that the Great depression was prolonged because of government intervention and trade barriers during the 1930's.

This is not Utopia. Its real. The only utopia I hold is a peaceful world. The free market system is viable and mostly in place today as long as government stays out of the the market and merely focusses on fraud and abuse, defensive measures and consumer protection. Then its job is complete.

The private sector creates viable jobs and allocates efficiently. That is where economic growth comes from. Nothing else.
The role of government is to protect and serve, but in a very limited size as it takes more resources away from the private sector to function when it grows bigger. Then government becomes a drag on economic growth.

RobbyG wrote:The free market system is viable and mostly in place today as long as government stays out of the the market and merely focusses on fraud and abuse, defensive measures and consumer protection. Then its job is complete.

The private sector creates viable jobs and allocates efficiently. That is where economic growth comes from. Nothing else.
The role of government is to protect and serve, but in a very limited size as it takes more resources away from the private sector to function when it grows bigger. Then government becomes a drag on economic growth.

I read the books of both authors but it looks like both approaches have proven their inefficiency in real World.

In my view, China is the cause of last crisises in 1997/8 in SE Asia/Russia and last global one. It proves a simple idea of Karl Marx, that sustainable growth without development of real sector is not possible.

With launching such a big disturbance as China, economic system became open, but all theories were developed for the closed one. The government incentives for cars in US for instance came to the coffers of Toyota and another Japs. More globaly stimulating demand increses import (read better for China) instead of creating new jobs in homecountries.

On the other hand, Anglo-American World tried to save financial sectors but eventually understood that beeing survived the sector don't invest money to the real one.

Red Chief wrote:

RobbyG wrote:The free market system is viable and mostly in place today as long as government stays out of the the market and merely focusses on fraud and abuse, defensive measures and consumer protection. Then its job is complete.

The private sector creates viable jobs and allocates efficiently. That is where economic growth comes from. Nothing else.
The role of government is to protect and serve, but in a very limited size as it takes more resources away from the private sector to function when it grows bigger. Then government becomes a drag on economic growth.

I read the books of both authors but it looks like that both approaches has proven their inefficiency in real World.

In my view, the approach of Friedrich Hayek has never been implemented in a broad measure. There is no level playing field, so we are bound to have protectionism and trade barriers, so that one nations benefits and the other loses. There has to be more free trade without government intervention on monetary policy. Interest rates need to be set by the market, not by Federal Authority like the FED. Thats the problem of booms, followed by the natural reaction, the bust.

I've explained my view about the FED involvement in the private sector here, by addressing the monetary policy of the US, from here on and downwards in the topic:
dubai-politics-talk/iran-shooting-itself-the-foot-doing-this-t40668-60.html#p329033

I recommend you read that and give your view about that, Chief.

In my view, China is the cause of last crisises in 1997/8 in SE Asia/Russia and last global one. It proves a simple idea of Karl Marx, that sustainable growth without development of real sector is not possible.

Interesting, can you explain more about that view?

With launching such a big disturbance as China, economic system became open, but all theories was developed for closed systems. The government incentives for cars in US came to the coffers of Toyota and another Japs. More globaly stimulating demand increses import (read better for China) instead of creating new jobs in homecountries.

On the other hand, Anglo-American World tried to save financial sectors but eventually understood that beeing survived the sector don't invest money to the real one.

I agree with what you are saying. The US got rid of financial regulation (deregulation) during the 90's and let the private sector have its way. Now the financial services sector in the US is 15 procent of total GDP, which is way to large for people who only shift paper rents from table to table, without manufacturing real products for export.

Now this bailout of the financial system is nothing but damaging to the real economy, because taxpayers need to pay for public debt from increased taxes. This is so non-productive policy. Doesn't make sense.
It does make sense for a bunch of crooks politicians who want to be reelected by bailing out their special interest who finance their campaign with contributions, I mean WallStreet and the Big Three automakers and its worker unions.

But this is not capitalism! This is corporate cronyism. Capitalism is based on the premise of creative destruction. Companies with good management and prudent standards need to be rewarded with increased market share, while bad managed companies need to go bankrupt. That is totally defied now by government policy. And those 'US central planners' now think they can revive the private sector by lowering interest rates to zero so to keeps banks solvent and hope to see loans flowing to the real economy, preferably the consumer /retail industry which is 70 percent of US GDP. MADNESS. Never gonna work.

Same mistake that Franklin D. Roosevelt made by continuing and expanding the Hoover stimulus programs during the Great Depression. They hope to increase spending from renewed aggregate demand, but they use borrowings from domestic or foreign lenders, who otherwise would be investing in the organic growth of the private sector. Now government redirects those funds into non-viable and expensive government projects. Again, so unproductive.

What the US does is just insane. I know the financial system had to be saved to keep the interbank lending market open, so wages could be paid when liquidity dried up in 2008. But a bailout with no serious strings attached, while totally ignoring the average citizen is just plain wrong. It shows how wrong the US system really is. Politics in the US is corrupt and the people there know it. There is no difference in the two party system, although the media appears it to be so. No words for what happened in the US.

Jobs exported to China and India, US manufacturing sector is depleted, only thing left is the technology sector and a bunch of multimillionaire paper money shifters in the financial services sector and a 12.5 Trillion dollar national debtload, approaching 90 percent of a 14 Trillion dollar economy, not even mentioning the unfunded liabilities arising from Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare totalling 65 Trillion dollars, or 500 percent of US GDP.

Just insane.

Friedrich Hayek was the utter opposite of Keynes, as his economic theory was based on the Austrian school of economics. Nobody listened to this guy back then.

A nice jolly rap video, explaining these two opposite economists:

That's a cool video!


A quick question - and I apologise for the tangent - but shouldn't true free-market liberals argue that interest rates and exchange rates be set by the market? If both are free floating, then the market will decide where to invest etc?

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:That's a cool video!


A quick question - and I apologise for the tangent - but shouldn't true free-market liberals argue that interest rates and exchange rates be set by the market? If both are free floating, then the market will decide where to invest etc?

Cheers,
Shafique

Thats basically what I'm proposing following the thoughts of Friedrich Hayek, along with the entire Austrian school of economic thought.

RobbyG wrote: a bunch of crooks politicians who want to be reelected by bailing out their special interest who finance their campaign with contributions, I mean WallStreet and the Big Three automakers and its worker unions.

But this is not capitalism! This is corporate cronyism. Capitalism is based on the premise of creative destruction. Companies with good management and prudent standards need to be rewarded with increased market share, while bad managed companies need to go bankrupt. That is totally defied now by government policy. And those 'US central planners' now think they can revive the private sector by lowering interest rates to zero so to keeps banks solvent and hope to see loans flowing to the real economy, preferably the consumer /retail industry which is 70 percent of US GDP. MADNESS. Never gonna work.

He-he, after destruction of ineffective real economy by Tatcher the UK financial sector accounts for 30% of GDP, but whole service one contrubutes 76% to GDP there.

It's not about poor management but about full destruction of most industries (automative for instance) as non-competitive. If governments remove trading bars almost 100% of industry will be shifted to China within a very short period.

Red Chief wrote:

RobbyG wrote: a bunch of crooks politicians who want to be reelected by bailing out their special interest who finance their campaign with contributions, I mean WallStreet and the Big Three automakers and its worker unions.

But this is not capitalism! This is corporate cronyism. Capitalism is based on the premise of creative destruction. Companies with good management and prudent standards need to be rewarded with increased market share, while bad managed companies need to go bankrupt. That is totally defied now by government policy. And those 'US central planners' now think they can revive the private sector by lowering interest rates to zero so to keeps banks solvent and hope to see loans flowing to the real economy, preferably the consumer /retail industry which is 70 percent of US GDP. MADNESS. Never gonna work.

He-he, after destruction of ineffective real economy by Tatcher the UK financial sector accounts for 30% of GDP, but whole service one contrubutes 76% to GDP there.

It's not about poor management but about full destruction of most industries (automative for instance) as non-competitive. If governments remove trading bars almost 100% of industry will be shifted to China in a very short period.

If governments removed the trading barriers earlier on, then the Big Three would have understood much earlier that their business model was unviable. If protectionism was absent, then GM would have been restructured already, losing some jobs more slowly and the sector would transform itself over a decade or so. But now, suddenly the real truth becomes obvious! They didn't specialize their product lines. They didn't innovate fast enough with Toyota and Nissan. Look what happened! Tens of thousands of layoffs in the automotive industry and related aftermarket suppliers, not gradually, but instant!

As an industry, the big three were simply aiming at production numbers while reneging on product innovation while oil prices remained low. Only because oil prices remained low until 2000, were they able to continue with the gazzguzzlers. In Europe we have taxes on fuel. So that companies are incentived by a thrift consumer. So the automakers like BMW, Mercedes and Opel did listen to the changing market circumstances. Same with Ford, who had a huge customer base in Europe and now shows to be the most viable Car manufacturer in the US, if we focus on the Big Three, namely: General Motors, Chrysler and Ford.

So, opening trade barriers is good, since it keeps an industry alert and innovative. GM and Chrysler have been sleeping for 2 decades and living on government bailouts. Now they have a huge problem with labor Unions who are staggering because the wages need to come down to make the business viable again. At least in Europe they have the better incentives in the market place, although alot of it is still subsidized.

The solution in the developed world is to eliminate trade barriers and minimum (sticky) wages. Wages need to be dynamic, following the market demand of labor and products. Unfortunately, the reality will one day come in the form of more and more market share being lost to the emerging markets. It requires alot of adjustments from current day social welfare systems. Those are not viable in the long run. Europe is going to get real issues with sticky wages in the future. Guaranteed that reform is needed.

Just look at the workers that are jumping to get onto the global bandwagon, from the former soviet satelites, Eastern Europe, Asia and Pacific. All willing to work for 10 times less than a high paid European and American.

You can stop this short with trade barriers, but in the end, you'll lose either way. Innovation lets you keep the edge. Denial never worked.

Well, Rob. If you wish let's emphasize on von Hayek.

I read only one book of the author "The Road to Serfdom". Of cause it's a pamphlet, but many his ideas are there. To be franck his arguments both with Marx and Keynes are not convincing.

In my view, there are some weeknesses:
1) No interest to demand. Demand=supply.

According to Marx capitalist always tries to minimize expenses, including wages, but in this case who will buy products as the main difference of this crunch from previous one that the main driver of economy is mass demand nowadays? In contrast, in XIX century and at the beginning of XX century lives of workers were pretty basic and consumption of upper classes defined economy.

2) Model of Hayek assumes absolutely flexible wages or salaries of employees, but most of them are united in trade unions which signed collective agreement with employers.

Moreover, majority of people has loans and if their income drops drastically due to crisis they imediately go bancrupt. One author calls it "privatised Keynesism": the situation when ordinary people (instead of government) take the huge debt and then suffer the most in crisis.

I partly agree that it's not only weekness of theory but rather its practical realisation. The situation was defined by artificial stimulation of demand. Low interest rate was the main driver. It isn't sustainable.

A fascinating discussion guys - keep it up.

I'm not familiar with Hayek's theories (so something else to read up on).

What is his view on free movement of labour?

Cheers,
Shafique

Red Chief wrote:Well, Rob. If you wish let's emphasize on von Hayek.

I read only one book of the author "The Road to Serfdom". Of cause it's a pamphlet, but many his ideas are there. To be franck his arguments both with Marx and Keynes are not convincing.

In my view, there are some weeknesses:
1) No interest to demand. Demand=supply.

According to Marx capitalist always tries to minimize expenses, including wages, but in this case who will buy products as the main difference of this crunch from previous one that the main driver of economy is mass demand nowadays? In contrast, in XIX century and at the beginning of XX century lives of workers were pretty basic and consumption of upper classes defined economy.

I've read 'The Road to Serfdom' also, so we have something to talk about. Its a very good introduction to his views indeed.

Let me quote Hayek for you as this basically answers your question:

One argument frequently heard is that the complexity of modern civilization creates new problems with which we cannot hope to deal effectively except by central planning. This argument is based upon a complete misapprehension of the working of competition. The very complexity of modern conditions makes competition the only method by which a coordination of affairs can be adequately achieved.

There would be no difficulty about efficient control or planning were conditions so simple that a single person or board could effectively survey all the facts. But as the factors which have to be taken into account become numerous and complex, no one centre can keep track of them. The constantly changing conditions of demand and supply of different commodities can never be fully known or quickly enough disseminated by any one centre.

Under competition - and under no other economic order - the price system automatically records all the relevant data. Entrepreneurs, by watching the movement of comparatively few prices, as an engineer watching a few dials, can adjust their activities to those of their fellow entrepreneurs.

In conclusion: Solving the economic problem, by decentralization plus automatic coordination through the price system, is the best possible solution. The method of central planning/direction is incredibly clumsy, primitive and limited of scope i.e. very inefficient in allocating resources.

2) Model of Hayek assumes absolutely flexible wages or salaries of employees, but most of them are united in trade unions which signed collective agreement with employers.

Most of the time, monopolies exist only because government policy supports this. When monopolies are created, small companies have a problem with obtaining market share due to price agreements between monopolies as in cartels. This needs to be reversed.
If monopolies do exist, then profits are increasingly growing for these companies, which in turn will require labor unions to demand higher wages. So when a government allows monopolies to exist, then you must allow labor unions for workers to demand equal pay and benefits too.

Of course, this is all leading to exploitation and profiteering and the size of these companies make them sluggish and less capable to react to market demand, leaving the consumer with higher prices for less desirable products. So the solution is to erradicate and fight monopolies. Without monopolies there is no need for labour unions and prices, wages will be dynamicly set by the market.

Moreover, majority of people has loans and if their income drops drastically due to crisis they imediately go bancrupt. One author calls it "privatised Keynesism": the situation when ordinary people (instead of government) take the huge debt and then suffer the most in crisis.

Well, it is obvious that privitization requires personal responsibility, together with the added benefits of personal freedom of choice. Everything comes at a price.

So when people take huge loans and can't pay them off, the same rule of law applies for companies that behave badly, resulting in bankruptcy. Everybody is treated equal, when making equal mistakes. So you have to be informed to make good choices, be able to pay your loans and government can guide this process by some consumer protection law, which requires the lender to inform you about costs and potential pittfalls.

Not everybody makes good decisions, and that is what capitalism is build upon. Creative destruction. The people with smart decisions thrive while the people with bad decisions dive. A rule of law can acquit you from (part) of your liabilities. For that we have Western style bankruptcy codes and laws.

Not in Sharia law of course, since your individual liberty would be taken away from you in jail. The highest price one can pay.

I partly agree that it's not only weekness of theory but rather its practical realisation. The situation was defined by artificial stimulation of demand. Low interest rate was the main driver. It isn't sustainable.

The theory can be debated, but realistically we have issues with governments that are not aligned in one level playing field. Protectionism is a problem. E.g. China is centrally planned and unwilling to let its currency float to market rates, artificially lowering its Yuan (RMB) exchange rate to keep manufacturing exports higher than the market would set it. China is too much focussed on trade surplus, while not increasing the domestic consumption and purchasing power accordingly. Thats why the US wants China to revalue the Yuan (RMB), but China has a different plans. Its not a free market world economy. This invokes other governments to introduce trade barriers to protect and maximizing its own interests. So there is no laissez faire situation. Just marginally.