Are we losing what makes B.C. special?
- Thread starter agentaqua
- Start date
- Status
Let's take China for one example. Approx 400 years ago they were capitalistic superpower in the world stage. Various events made them arrive at communism. Which they say they still are, but they are not.
The rise of a quasi capitalistic system for the last few decades has brought them back to being the second largest economy in the world with ever increasing standard of living for the middle class.
Of course they have their problems, but it was the renewed sense of capitalism and is going in the opposite direction that will make them our boss in the near future. Be careful what you wish for.
The rise of a quasi capitalistic system for the last few decades has brought them back to being the second largest economy in the world with ever increasing standard of living for the middle class.
Of course they have their problems, but it was the renewed sense of capitalism and is going in the opposite direction that will make them our boss in the near future. Be careful what you wish for.
cracked_ribs
Well-Known Member
The problem with most critiques of "trickle down economics" is that they tend to define it purely in terms of evidence for something they don't like, i.e. "look at all this money that's moved offshore."
But there's rarely any recognition of the fact that we don't have good case studies for alternatives. We have no idea whether implementing stricter tax policies would have kept the money here or not. It's entirely possible that failure to implement those tax breaks would have meant five times as much money leaving. If that's the case, trickle-down economics are a massive success, because only twenty trillion dollars have moved offshore.
People forget that in democratic countries, there's not really a "stick" option. Just a carrot. You either make it attractive to do business, or big businesses won't play your game. The ultimate example is Venezuala...that's what happens when you take a stick approach in a carrot game. You briefly impress left wing economists by nationalizing industries and giving "the people" a share. NDP and Labour Party types go all gushy for you and make a bunch of public statements about people before profits.
Then private enterprise pulls out because the climate is hostile, and your country falls apart, and the people are holding a nice fat share of nothing. Left wing economics destroy countries. Right wing economics have huge problems and generate inequality and don't take the environment into account very well. But they work on a fundamental level because they run on self-interest to make people organize efficiently.
The famous example is the pencil. No government program to connect logging operations with mills with carbon pressing operations with tin mining with rubber extraction and refinement with manufacturing with shipping and distribution is ever going to work efficiently: attempts to make government coordinate that kind of thing are universally a disaster.
But you take people involved in all the above industries...they may hate each other. They may come from countries that hate each other. They may be exclusively interested in nothing beyond their own pocketbook. But not only do they work together every day, whether they realize it or not, but they've been doing so for generations, with incredible efficiency, because pencils are available for a nickel, everywhere you look.
Well, everywhere except places like Venezuela.
But there's rarely any recognition of the fact that we don't have good case studies for alternatives. We have no idea whether implementing stricter tax policies would have kept the money here or not. It's entirely possible that failure to implement those tax breaks would have meant five times as much money leaving. If that's the case, trickle-down economics are a massive success, because only twenty trillion dollars have moved offshore.
People forget that in democratic countries, there's not really a "stick" option. Just a carrot. You either make it attractive to do business, or big businesses won't play your game. The ultimate example is Venezuala...that's what happens when you take a stick approach in a carrot game. You briefly impress left wing economists by nationalizing industries and giving "the people" a share. NDP and Labour Party types go all gushy for you and make a bunch of public statements about people before profits.
Then private enterprise pulls out because the climate is hostile, and your country falls apart, and the people are holding a nice fat share of nothing. Left wing economics destroy countries. Right wing economics have huge problems and generate inequality and don't take the environment into account very well. But they work on a fundamental level because they run on self-interest to make people organize efficiently.
The famous example is the pencil. No government program to connect logging operations with mills with carbon pressing operations with tin mining with rubber extraction and refinement with manufacturing with shipping and distribution is ever going to work efficiently: attempts to make government coordinate that kind of thing are universally a disaster.
But you take people involved in all the above industries...they may hate each other. They may come from countries that hate each other. They may be exclusively interested in nothing beyond their own pocketbook. But not only do they work together every day, whether they realize it or not, but they've been doing so for generations, with incredible efficiency, because pencils are available for a nickel, everywhere you look.
Well, everywhere except places like Venezuela.
I've said this LOTS - and I'll say it again - a consensus-based governance system.
There are hundreds of examples - some instituted towards a more "Western"-style British Parliamentary system (e.g. Nunavut) - others completely different.
I'll also say it again - Capitalism is **NOT** a form of governance. It seems to me that those whom have drunk from the bottle of Freidmanian-style economics kool-aid seem incapable of re-adjusting their sets to understand this very simple fact.
seascene
Crew Member
Hi Aqua.... trickle down spending i by that a bit of word play... less consumption is inferred as perhaps saving the big resource (earth) that carries all.
I think cracked ribs nailed it.
I'm going to let him do the talking. If anything more actually needs to be said.
Capitalism gets people who wouldn't normally interact in a friendly way to work together for a common goal.
The left is generally using entitlements and envy to achieve political goals, not a cohesive society.
I'm going to let him do the talking. If anything more actually needs to be said.
Capitalism gets people who wouldn't normally interact in a friendly way to work together for a common goal.
The left is generally using entitlements and envy to achieve political goals, not a cohesive society.
GLG
Well-Known Member
To be given the choice between trickle down economics and socialism (Venezuela) is using two extremes to prove a point. They are both wrong and they are both failed experiments. Economic thought evolves as we get better data on the consequences on our policy choices. We use the evidence from the past to inform our policy options. We should use policy for the benefit of society not just the richest among us in a hope that they will, from the kindness of their hearts, help the less disadvantaged.
seascene
Crew Member
The Guardian: “In a report published to coincide with the start of the week-long World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Oxfam said it was “beyond grotesque” that a handful of rich men headed by the Microsoft founder Bill Gates are worth $426bn (£350bn), equivalent to the wealth of 3.6 billion people.”
https://www.theguardian.com/global-...richest-people-have-same-wealth-as-poorest-50
Trickle down was abandoned long ago in Scandinavian countries (Social democracy not to be confused with Venezuela Marist Socialism)
https://www.thenation.com/article/after-i-lived-in-norway-america-felt-backward-heres-why/
Quoting from the article
" ..... produced a system that makes capitalism more or less cooperative, and then redistributes equitably the wealth it helps to produce."
and "Scandinavians alone managed to combine the best ideas of both camps while chucking out the worst.” (including and specifically trickle down fakery)
(Below) Albertans would have loved to have this kind of trickle down. Nobody went to jail for it. Nobody went to jail in the Wall Street slaughter of its own citizens either.
GLOBE AND MAIL: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...orways-sovereign-wealth-fund/article25973060/
https://www.theguardian.com/global-...richest-people-have-same-wealth-as-poorest-50
Trickle down was abandoned long ago in Scandinavian countries (Social democracy not to be confused with Venezuela Marist Socialism)
https://www.thenation.com/article/after-i-lived-in-norway-america-felt-backward-heres-why/
Quoting from the article
" ..... produced a system that makes capitalism more or less cooperative, and then redistributes equitably the wealth it helps to produce."
and "Scandinavians alone managed to combine the best ideas of both camps while chucking out the worst.” (including and specifically trickle down fakery)
(Below) Albertans would have loved to have this kind of trickle down. Nobody went to jail for it. Nobody went to jail in the Wall Street slaughter of its own citizens either.
GLOBE AND MAIL: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...orways-sovereign-wealth-fund/article25973060/
GLG
Well-Known Member
Perhaps you should watch all 35 episodes then come back with a reasoned argument as to why you either agree or disagree.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=crash+course+economics
Roger! Got it! Figured that was your intent
I don't think there is anything wrong with a bit of humour, OT. What about doing what GLG suggested? Thanks for those links, GLG!
Last edited:
Define what you perceive as "successful", OT? Clean water? Good governance? Happiness?
So - to be clear - you believe "consuming" is "success"?? and you equate that to "governance"??
You gotta ditch your hate for certain words and look at the meaning. Sounds a little like an ill informed college kid.
Humans consume things. Have done since our time began. It keeps us alive and runs from essentials to non essentials. You are a consumer. I am a consumer.
- Status
Similar threads
