NationStates Jolt Archive

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=&e=9&u=/ap/20050206/ap_on_bi_ge/greenspan

Yay for the good guys!

He was a great figure in modern capitalism. And while I think he's too modest to admit it, so is Greenspan. He seemed to have great insight into the working of the economy. He managed to keep interest rates fairly low while creating a more liberal (with a lowercase "l") financial policy. Nine out of ten Americans know who he is, better than most other Washington powerbrokers. And of course, he is damn sexy!

Good guys? Capitalism has killed over 100 million people in India alone. How is that good?

Good guys? Capitalism has killed over 100 million people in India alone. How is that good?

Please don't start the "look how many more people your idealogy has killed" debate. It's older than you are.

smith and other capitalists are the good guys if marx and other communist offshoots are the fucking jedi

smith and other capitalists are the good guys if marx and other communist offshoots are the fucking jedi

How do you know of the true origins of the Jedi?

Adam Smith's writing stood the test of time. Much of his philosophy is the economic basis for today's society.

Good guys? Capitalism has killed over 100 million people in India alone. How is that good?

Capitalism doesn't kill anybody. A society based on capitalist principles outlaws murder, manslaughter and so on.

Without capitalism, the computer you're sitting at now probably wouldn't be there, and you'd probably not be wearing the clothes you're wearing, be sitting in the house you're in, and so on.

Unless of course you built your computer yourself.

smith and other capitalists are the good guys if marx and other communist offshoots are the fucking jedi

Good or evil, his ideas about division of labour have been applied across the industrialised world. That includes the USSR, and all the other countries you probably look up to.

Unless of course you built your computer yourself.
And built the components himself?

And built the components himself?

Exactly. In order to not be facilitating division of labour and thus doing as Adam Smith described, he would not only have had to assemble the computer without any help, but create every single chip, bolt, screw, and whatever else it contained. He would actually have had to mine the materials himself. If he did this, then he could by all means hurl abuse at capitalism and Adam Smith.

Good or evil, his ideas about division of labour have been applied across the industrialised world. That includes the USSR, and all the other countries you probably look up to.

Actually, the USSR was a poor example of socialism, at least after Stalin took power. By the time it fell, it had pretty much lost anything genuinely socialist.

Capitalism doesn't kill anybody. A society based on capitalist principles outlaws murder, manslaughter and so on.

Sure, just like how the workers in the Homestead incident merely fained death when Frick sent the Pinkertons to coerse them into giving up.

Without capitalism, the computer you're sitting at now probably wouldn't be there, and you'd probably not be wearing the clothes you're wearing, be sitting in the house you're in, and so on.

Without socialists, you'd be working 12 hours right now. It was socialist workers who went on strike and won the 8 hour workday, with great sacrifice, too.

Yay capitalism

*puts on a top hat and monocle, waves a small flag and shouts 'yay!'*

I should point out to anybody wanting to debate Letila, its pointless. I think he might be an AIMbot.

Ironic, we celebrate Adam Smith the same day the Super Bowl is on...Fitting, isn't it? Celebrate the father of modern day capitalism with the ultimate celebration of capitalism. I like it!

Actually, the USSR was a poor example of socialism, at least after Stalin took power. By the time it fell, it had pretty much lost anything genuinely socialist.


Name any socialist country of modern times which you look up to then, and I bet they divided their labour to ensure efficiency.


Without socialists, you'd be working 12 hours right now. It was socialist workers who went on strike and won the 8 hour workday, with great sacrifice, too.

In a modern capitalist society, employer and employee can negotiate whatever terms they want with eachother. Not everybody works for 8 hours, just like not everybody used to work for 12.

Good article honoring a great man (Smith).

And please, don't feed the idealist hijackers.

Good guys? Capitalism has killed over 100 million people in India alone. How is that good?
Gee, can you prove that number? Didn't think so.

Gee, can you prove that number? Didn't think so.
dunno, how many deaths does penochet count as

dunno, how many deaths does penochet count as
Do you have any inkling...any clue, as to where Pinochet is from? Nevermind the fact that Pinochet's connection to free-market capitalism is tenuous, at best.

Do yourself a favor, and do a little research before posting questions like that.

dunno, how many deaths does penochet count as
I'm sure less than the USSR, North Korea, China, and Cuba can account for thanks to glorious Socialism! :p

I'm sure less than the USSR, North Korea, China, and Cuba can account for thanks to glorious Socialism! :p
100 Million plus for those boys!

And the 100 million in India is a tenous connection at best. As that number is comprised of people dying of natural causes. Things like TB, malaria, old age, etc. So, it is true to say that 100 million people have died in India, but one can be pretty sure that the influence of capitalism is very little.

Basically it's like saying my grandfather died because of my high school graduation, as they both occured at relatively the same time.

There was no eulogy for central planning. It just ceased to be mentioned, leaving the principles of Adam Smith and his followers ... as the seemingly sole remaining effective paradigm for economic organization. A large majority of developing nations quietly shifted to more market-oriented economies.
Quote of the day :D

I'm sure less than the USSR, North Korea, China, and Cuba can account for thanks to glorious Socialism! :p
penochet is just for starters.

It's awfully pleasant not to be able to see Reaper...

Do you have any inkling...any clue, as to where Pinochet is from? Nevermind the fact that Pinochet's connection to free-market capitalism is tenuous, at best.

Do yourself a favor, and do a little research before posting questions like that.
if he was put in office because of a pro-trade decision, im pretty sure his connection to capitalism is a given

Modern Socialism actually works quite well. Take a look at places like Finland and Sweden. You see the pseudo-Communists killing people? Nope. You see healthcare? Yes. You see nationalization? Yes, even though not for all things.

It's awfully pleasant not to be able to see Reaper...
Ahhhh. I'm tempted to do the same since he's been progressively becoming more and more shrill and sensationalist.

Fruitcake.

*polishes his monocle*
I personaly enjoy seeing Reaper. His unfocused aggression and randomized trolling of the most innoffensive topics brings joy to my heart, as well as giving me something to look forward to, IE: The day the mods ban him.

Maybe I should start an 'un-ignore Reaper' campaign, to show others the true joy of a troll.

*polishes his monocle*
I personaly enjoy seeing Reaper. His unfocused aggression and randomized trolling of the most innoffensive topics brings joy to my heart, as well as giving me something to look forward to, IE: The day the mods ban him.
Well put. You can polish that monocle, Sir, without fear of pretense just for writing a detraction with such class.
*tips hat, bids good day*

So, no one else holds Alan Greenspan in as high of regard as I do?

Well put. You can polish that monocle, Sir, without fear of pretense just for writing a detraction with such class.
*tips hat, bids good day*
Indeed sir.
*Tips hat as well*

Actually, the USSR was a poor example of socialism, at least after Stalin took power. By the time it fell, it had pretty much lost anything genuinely socialist..
Right, and the Spanish Inquisition wasn't REAL Christianity. So?


Sure, just like how the workers in the Homestead incident merely fained death when Frick sent the Pinkertons to coerse them into giving up.
.
Your point? Labor disputes with unfortunate results are hardly to be blamed on market forces as defined by Adam Smith. Maybe overzealous politicians...


Without socialists, you'd be working 12 hours right now. It was socialist workers who went on strike and won the 8 hour workday, with great sacrifice, too.
Actually it was Andrew Carnegie who first attemted the 40 hour workweek with his employees. (unsolicited!) It was Henry Ford who first experemented with reasonable wages (where is factory workers were abe to afford the cars they were building). Both were hallmark capitalists.

Modern Socialism actually works quite well. Take a look at places like Finland and Sweden. You see the pseudo-Communists killing people? Nope. You see healthcare? Yes. You see nationalization? Yes, even though not for all things.
Actually, if you were at all familiar with their system, you'd know that it is not some utopian program but actually doomed for bankruptcy in much the same way as the US social security - only sooner and harder. Part of the problem is the flight of high earners away from their userous tax rates, the other part is the exponential growth of the costs. Similar to Canada's healthcare, quality has suffered.

Then there is France... nuff said.

penochet is just for starters.
Pinchoet is about five thousand. Idiot.

Modern Socialism actually works quite well. Take a look at places like Finland and Sweden. You see the pseudo-Communists killing people? Nope. You see healthcare? Yes. You see nationalization? Yes, even though not for all things.
And those countries are fundamentally based not in central planning, but market capitalism.

Incidentally, both routinely have unemployment in the double digits, the tax burden pushes huge proportions of the population under the poverty line, and the Swedish government forcibly sterilized people until the 1970s.

So, no one else holds Alan Greenspan in as high of regard as I do?
Me! Me!

And those countries are fundamentally based not in central planning, but market capitalism.

Incidentally, both routinely have unemployment in the double digits, the tax burden pushes huge proportions of the population under the poverty line, and the Swedish government forcibly sterilized people until the 1970s.
Hmm even though I think forced sterilization of live human beings is misguided and cruel, I believe some basic principles of eugenics are correct; mothers should be advised to abort Downs syndrom fetuses and fetuses with birth defects in order to spare the family and society from the pain of dealing with these highly vulnerable misborn people. Hitler has given a bad name to eugenics because of his obsession with the white race but even today many respectable leaders and scientists including James Watson the discoverer of DNA recognize the feasability of improving society through some form of eugenics.

I like capitalism, but I think that Greenspan's policies are too liberal. They encourage immoral corporate practices, such as exploitation and mistreatment of workers in poor countries.

Hmm even though I think forced sterilization of live human beings is misguided and cruel, I believe some basic principles of eugenics are correct; mothers should be advised to abort Downs syndrom fetuses and fetuses with birth defects in order to spare the family and society from the pain of dealing with these highly vulnerable misborn people. Hitler has given a bad name to eugenics because of his obsession with the white race but even today many respectable leaders and scientists including James Watson the discoverer of DNA recognize the feasability of improving society through some form of eugenics.
You should be taken outside and shot.

You should be taken outside and shot.

Because he reckons that it'd be good to cure diseases with genetic modification and the like?

Because he reckons that it'd be good to cure diseases with genetic modification and the like?
He wants to 'cure' these diseases with selective breeding and the murder of innocent, defenseless unborn.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

A bit more on-topic.
Surprisingly, capitalism is not the prerequisite for economic growth, as so many people are want to believe, but, rather, innovation in technology, practice, workers rights, and investment.

China used to be the foil of the world...and China was never a capitalist society. The aristocrats were always held in high regard, as were the peasents...and merchants were reviled. Yet, because the Chinese bureaucracy was very effective early on in Chinese history(prior to, say the 1650s) China advandced very rapidly and was the dominant economic and technological power in the world. WITHOUT major capitalism, but rather a state run system.
When the Confucians finally asserted their permamenent control over the system(at least until the communists come), innovation stifled. Confucians are not big fans of change. The result was technological stagnation and corresponding economic stagnation.

The West, on the other hand, was an economic loser for quite some time. Why? Well, for one thing, slavery; so many people thought it was such a wonderful idea for their capitalist society to enslave people...but this slavery led people to refuse to advance economically. Roman engineers and inventors developed primitive JET ENGINES in 63 AD. But, they refused to advance...and Rome fell.

Then comes the Byzantine Empire and the Medievil Western states.
Both phased out slavery, because it was unChristian to enslave people.
The West, however, had a tough feudal system, whereas the Byzantine had one of the most regulated economies of all time.
The Byzantine Empire, DESPITE THE REGULATIONS, grew economically.
The West did not. Why? Feudal systems discourage economic growth.

FINALLY, after the Black Plague comes, feudal West MUST develop new technologies to survive...and it does that astoundingly well. Eventually, they pick up industry, and become the dominant force of the world...
Even then, most industrialized societies relied upon governments to maintain colonies(which fostered economic growth by providing resoruces for manufacturers and soaking up excess products when factories produced too much)


But it all comes down to innovation and investment and worker rights. History has done a good job of proving that capitalism is generally the best method to ensure an equitable division of labor while encouraging investment.

He wants to 'cure' these diseases with selective breeding and the murder of innocent, defenseless unborn.
Once genetic engineering has achieved its full potential everyone will have healthy genes and no one would suffer from disease. Right now though, a free and prosperous capitalist society does not need your irrational religious dogma which is obsessed with bundles of unthinking cells at the expense of living, breathing human beings. I say we should recommend abortions for fetuses with Downs syndrome, other chromosome-related retardation, and other debilitating birth defects.Soon, however, abortion would become obsolete since couples would be able to ensure, through genetic engineering technology, that all their offspring would be free of disease. Advancement in this field makes sense both ethically and economically. Progress in genetic engineering would also eliminate all pretenses of race and racism, because any individual could acquire genetic enhancements. Whereas Hitler wanted to "purify" the white race through pseudoscientific quackery, the rapidly developing areas of genetic engineering provide a scientifically sound form of eugenics that would benefit all of mankind.

I like capitalism, but I think that Greenspan's policies are too liberal. They encourage immoral corporate practices, such as exploitation and mistreatment of workers in poor countries.
Spoken like someone who has absolutely no clue what occurs at the federal reserve...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=&e=9&u=/ap/20050206/ap_on_bi_ge/greenspan

Yay for the good guys!

Good guys? :p

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

A bit more on-topic.
Surprisingly, capitalism is not the prerequisite for economic growth, as so many people are want to believe, but, rather, innovation in technology, practice, workers rights, and investment.

China used to be the foil of the world...and China was never a capitalist society. The aristocrats were always held in high regard, as were the peasents...and merchants were reviled. Yet, because the Chinese bureaucracy was very effective early on in Chinese history(prior to, say the 1650s) China advandced very rapidly and was the dominant economic and technological power in the world. WITHOUT major capitalism, but rather a state run system.
When the Confucians finally asserted their permamenent control over the system(at least until the communists come), innovation stifled. Confucians are not big fans of change. The result was technological stagnation and corresponding economic stagnation.

The West, on the other hand, was an economic loser for quite some time. Why? Well, for one thing, slavery; so many people thought it was such a wonderful idea for their capitalist society to enslave people...but this slavery led people to refuse to advance economically. Roman engineers and inventors developed primitive JET ENGINES in 63 AD. But, they refused to advance...and Rome fell.

Then comes the Byzantine Empire and the Medievil Western states.
Both phased out slavery, because it was unChristian to enslave people.
The West, however, had a tough feudal system, whereas the Byzantine had one of the most regulated economies of all time.
The Byzantine Empire, DESPITE THE REGULATIONS, grew economically.
The West did not. Why? Feudal systems discourage economic growth.

FINALLY, after the Black Plague comes, feudal West MUST develop new technologies to survive...and it does that astoundingly well. Eventually, they pick up industry, and become the dominant force of the world...
Even then, most industrialized societies relied upon governments to maintain colonies(which fostered economic growth by providing resoruces for manufacturers and soaking up excess products when factories produced too much)


But it all comes down to innovation and investment and worker rights. History has done a good job of proving that capitalism is generally the best method to ensure an equitable division of labor while encouraging investment.
History is so much more interesting when you get to write your own version. In mine aliens replaced the pledge of allegiance with lyrics from a future rap album. "With bitches and hoes for all" Sorry if it is more credible than yours.