The intellectual dark web

[dre]

From Milton Friedman
"And you ask whether it’s Hong Kong that has to put up police to keep people from Hong Kong going into China, or it’s China that has to put up police to keep people China going into Hong Kong? So look at the way people vote with their feet before you judge which society gives em better conditions. But in any event—"

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Matata

No one at all?:

Yes, No one at all has suggested that Capitalism has been a failure. None of those quotes even suggest that even if Capitalism eventually breaks down and leads to wide spread revolution and strife that it would have been a failure.

I think people in this thread acknowledge the success that Capitalism has been thus far when restrained by good regulation.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by dre

From Milton Friedman
"And you ask whether it’s Hong Kong that has to put up police to keep people from Hong Kong going into China, or it’s China that has to put up police to keep people China going into Hong Kong? So look at the way people vote with their feet before you judge which society gives em better conditions. But in any event—"

Then there is the exodus of freedom-seeking socialism refugees from Sweden fleeing to Estonia...

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Azure

Capitalism, if it IS failing, is only failing because we the people don't give a s&^t about it anymore. We no longer involve ourselves in politics, we don't vote as much as we should, etc,etc. As a result a small percentage of the capitalistic world has been able to steer things in their direction, i.e. corporations with too much power.

At the end of the day greed, ambition, money....all those things you hold responsible for creating this supposed downfall of capitalism has also given everyone in the western world a pretty nice life. We've just gotten off track from those core principles, like with this stupid gender politics crapshow.

Originally Posted by Makarov

Then there is the exodus of freedom-seeking socialism refugees from Sweden fleeing to Estonia...

Sweden is still a free market....

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

There are monocultures. Let's start with Korea and Japan.

Japan is currently dealing with the bigger issues that you are thinking about and they haven't even reached the 'is immigration good' question. Because it is non-existant.

Japan received 20,000 asylum requests in 2017. They accepted 20.

Immigration is not solely comprised of refugees, and refugees are a very small part of the immigration and multicultural issue.

I guess I should rephrase the question: Can you even name a monoculture that has not/will not have to embrace multiculturalism in order to survive? Japan is a perfect example, they’re old, dying, and have been steadily increasing immigration for the past 30 years to fix that, but they’re have to do it a lot faster.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Sweden is still a free market....

Of course. But it's markets are (by most measures) significantly less free than Estonia or Canada.

This suggests to me that Mr. Friedman's quote is not very helpful or insightful.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Matata

Capitalism has directly resulted in creating the freest, wealthiest, most progressive, most inclusive and most technology advanced nations in human history, by a staggeringly huge margin.

There has never been a successful socialist state, but they'll get it right next time, all they require is complete control of a nations resources. What could go wrong?

Only a few hundred million more deaths and the socialist system will finally be perfected!

Rise of global capitalism:





And of course, the worlds most abject current failure is once again a socialist experiment gone wrong. As has happened over, and over, and over again.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...nezuela-hunger

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Immigration is not solely comprised of refugees, and refugees are a very small part of the immigration and multicultural issue.

I guess I should rephrase the question: Can you even name a monoculture that has not/will not have to embrace multiculturalism in order to survive? Japan is a perfect example, they’re old, dying, and have been steadily increasing immigration for the past 30 years to fix that, but they’re have to do it a lot faster.

I think embrace is a tricky word. Japan is not embracing immigration or else they'd do it faster and give immigrants more rights.. They are slowing doing it forcefully, holding on to as much as they can. There are visa and permanent resident status. I don't believe there is a path to citizenship or if there is it takes a very long time and you need a Japanese name.

imagine if we made a requirement for Canadian Citizenship - changing to a legal English or French name.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Sweden is still a free market....

There is no such thing as a free market. There are controls placed on pretty well every market. Unless you are bartering for goods and services, the market is not free. Our markets are extremely regulated, and for good reason. Completely free markets are subject to greed and abuse by those with all the resources and assets.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by New Era

There is no such thing as a free market. There are controls placed on pretty well every market. Unless you are bartering for goods and services, the market is not free. Our markets are extremely regulated, and for good reason. Completely free markets are subject to greed and abuse by those with all the resources and assets.

I agree but for simplicity it's still a "free market" - A unregulated free market is an extreme idiotology

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Of course. But it's markets are (by most measures) significantly less free than Estonia or Canada.

This suggests to me that Mr. Friedman's quote is not very helpful or insightful.

For the most part it is true (his quote) - always exceptions but Sweden is far from a socialist country - it has a social programs with a regulated free market economy (just like every free market economy)

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Of course. But it's markets are (by most measures) significantly less free than Estonia or Canada.

That depends on how you look at it. Sweden maintains an attractive private business environment (it has a lower corporate tax rate than Canada or the U.S.), and pays for its social programs with high rates of income and sales taxes on citizens working in those private businesses.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

That depends on how you look at it. Sweden maintains an attractive private business environment (it has a lower corporate tax rate than Canada or the U.S.), and pays for its social programs with high rates of income and sales taxes on citizens working in those private businesses.

Shouldn't Capitlaism vs Socilidm be purely defined as the % of GDP that is controlled by centralized governments?

https://data.oecd.org/gga/general-go...t-spending.htm

What you can see from the Data is that in developed nations the government controls between 40% and 60% of spending. Hard to argue it's just Capitalism when 40% of spending is centrally planned.

I don't think we have ever seen a purely capitalist society attempted the way we have seen purely socialist society's attempted.

[Matata]

Originally Posted by GGG

Yes, No one at all has suggested that Capitalism has been a failure. None of those quotes even suggest that even if Capitalism eventually breaks down and leads to wide spread revolution and strife that it would have been a failure.

I think people in this thread acknowledge the success that Capitalism has been thus far when restrained by good regulation.

Must of been the pairing of the words "failure" and "capitalism" that made me think that the failure of capitalism was being discussed.

Considering the rising popularity of socialism in the west, especially among academics and the youth, I think it's a worthwhile exercise to remind people that capitalism is the greatest success story in human history and socialist is vastly more dangerous than it's proponents will acknowledge.

[PsYcNeT]

I like how everyone here is falling over themselves to explicitly agree (but not too agreeably) that every successful economy in the world is Capitalist, but no no no they aren't extreme Capital-"C" Capitalist, of course they have social programs and safety nets and regulation, to have any less would be stupid!

...but in any other conversation, suggesting a slight nudge to the left on social or economic policies gets you labelled a Communist who wants to bring back the potato line and give free money to the undeserving.

It's kind of cool to look at this really high-level though, we're all just asking for inches on a political line that spans miles.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Matata

Must of been the pairing of the words "failure" and "capitalism" that made me think that the failure of capitalism was being discussed.

Considering the rising popularity of socialism in the west, especially among academics and the youth, I think it's a worthwhile exercise to remind people that capitalism is the greatest success story in human history and socialist is vastly more dangerous than it's proponents will acknowledge.

I think you need to say regulated Capitalism with significant involvement from centrally planned governments. As the link above shows the top Nations in the world use a mixture of capitalism and socialism.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

I agree but for simplicity it's still a "free market" - A unregulated free market is an extreme idiotology

And unregulated free market is not a market by virtue of not having any reliable, enforceable method of transferring value. A market exists by virtue of regulation, not the absence of it. At the very least, there needs to be regulations that define property ownership and valid methods of exchanging one thing of value for another.

The free in free market doesn't refer to free from regulations, but rather, freedom of choice both on the producer's and consumer's side. In a free market, you are free to purchase a product from any producer that supplies it, and sell your product to any consumer that wishes to purchase it, so long as your transactions operate within the rules of that market.

There are also successful, not at all free markets. For example, there are organ transplant markets where chains of organ donor and recipients work together to allow for more optimal transplants than otherwise may have been possible. The donor and recipient don't even get to know who their organs are coming from or going to, just that the person they would have donated to had they been a better match will be getting the organ they need in exchange.

[Thor]

This is not Deepak Chopra

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

I agree but for simplicity it's still a "free market" - A unregulated free market is an extreme idiotology

Ah, okay. When you distill something down it is a simplification. When someone else distills something down it is an extreme idiotology. Nice to know.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I like how everyone here is falling over themselves to explicitly agree (but not too agreeably) that every successful economy in the world is Capitalist, but no no no they aren't extreme Capital-"C" Capitalist, of course they have social programs and safety nets and regulation, to have any less would be stupid!

...but in any other conversation, suggesting a slight nudge to the left on social or economic policies gets you labelled a Communist who wants to bring back the potato line and give free money to the undeserving.

It's kind of cool to look at this really high-level though, we're all just asking for inches on a political line that spans miles.

A little like you throwing about the "alt-right" label anytime someone is inches right of you?