Random Thoughts, strictly Text

moonkat235

Well-known member
You can ignore the example. It was just to show that the end result of a project may have both good and bad consequences (good education but financial corruption).

However when you can ignore the bad consequences (because you are not the one paying), then things will seem only good, when they are not.



Because achieving what I suggest is actually very simple. If you remove goverment regulations and free the economy, and allow people to develop their own posibiolties, economies do boom.

Chile is a good example, in the 80's it applied capitalistic ideas into its economy and today it has the highest GDP per capita in south america (despite having very few natural resources). The republic of Ireland is another example.

The only thing foreign aid (not including military aid) does, is go to the bank accounts of dictators. It really does nothing for poor people. This is why some countries have recieved foreign aid for almost 50 years... and are still poor, while countries that decided to free their economy and reduce taxation have seen their standards of living improved.

It really is that simple.

lol clearly not, since pure free market capitalism hasn't been achieved...

How did countries decide to free their economy and can you cite specifics, like a similar article to what I cited with S. Korea, only for Chile? What were the specific actions taken to achieve higher standards of living? Where did they reduce taxation? I need details to determine whether I agree with 'it really is that simple'. I'm unconvinced.

Don't you think if all government regulations were lifted and economies 'freed' that there'd be absolute chaos? Please use historical case examples of countries who have followed your 'simple solution' with details, because I doubt one day they were just like 'no regulations'. What areas did they start lifting regulations in? At what percentage did they reduce taxation and was it like income tax, sales tax?

Since your solution is simple, give me the simple details of how it is applied to success in different countries with different cultural backgrounds with historical context.
 

moonkat235

Well-known member
Give me one example of pure capitalism (low taxation, free trade and small goverment involvement) failing.

Let me guess stock market crash of the 30's?

When I said "unchecked capitalism is impractical and thus fails", I was thinking of how I have no case studies or examples of countries with perfect unchecked capitalism. People are disagreeable, like you and me for instance, and we're not going to agree or convert each other.

Negotiations are difficult and diverse, because people are difficult and diverse. Therefore, getting everyone to agree that unchecked capitalism is the vision to strive for is really impractical and a moot point. I'm trying to figure out a way to navigate the world as it currently stands, making efforts to facilitate action rather than idleness. I don't know how to do that, probs never will, but I think I'd like to try.

I was trying to say unchecked capitalism can't be achieved because not everyone agrees or wants it to happen, so where do we go from this realization?
 

moonkat235

Well-known member
Also, we will have to continue this discussion later. I have a lot of inner work to do on myself and it's my only day off this week. I'm practicing EFT and sh*t to change deeply held beliefs on my self-concept that absolutely suck. lol ttfn

Just giving a heads up so you aren't waiting around. I hate waiting around for people.
 

Cap

Well-known member
Give me one example of pure capitalism (low taxation, free trade and small goverment involvement) failing.


lol clearly not, since pure free market capitalism hasn't been achieved...

Actually, there is a pure free market operating in Somalia and Haiti that would satisfy all requirements (low taxation, free trade, and virtually 0 government involvement).

According to reports, there is no limitation on what can be traded including rocket launchers, child prostitutes and slaves.
 

petosiris

Banned
Taxes do not entail socialism as is the case of the welfare state in western capitalist countries. These taxes, which can become very high in Nordic countries, do not set out to make the poor richer and the richer poorer as in communism, but to shift income across different stages of life, as for example to prepare for sickness, to provide education to the young who can then provide pensions for the old when they become adults, courts and roads that everyone needs and so on.

The ''there is no true capitalist country'' is as true as ''there is no communist country''. Both are fantasies.
 

Dirius

Well-known member
lol clearly not, since pure free market capitalism hasn't been achieved...

How did countries decide to free their economy and can you cite specifics, like a similar article to what I cited with S. Korea, only for Chile? What were the specific actions taken to achieve higher standards of living? Where did they reduce taxation? I need details to determine whether I agree with 'it really is that simple'. I'm unconvinced.

Don't you think if all government regulations were lifted and economies 'freed' that there'd be absolute chaos? Please use historical case examples of countries who have followed your 'simple solution' with details, because I doubt one day they were just like 'no regulations'. What areas did they start lifting regulations in? At what percentage did they reduce taxation and was it like income tax, sales tax?

Since your solution is simple, give me the simple details of how it is applied to success in different countries with different cultural backgrounds with historical context.

Its hard to establish a comparison because every country has different taxes. Some countries have ridiculous taxes, others don't. Then there are excise taxes which are optional to some degree (by not purchasing certain products), and then there are flat tax rates against progressive taxes.

But what you see most common in Sweden, Ireland, Chile, South Korea, the U.S.A (in the Trump era), and so on, was that a reduction in corporate tax rates, an some minor taxes has pushed economic boom and development. I also can't really cite many lifting in regulations, because these are usually very specific to particular areas and I would require 100 million links in multiple languages.

Sweden is a particular interesting example. After an economic collapse in 1991 they reformed their taxed code, reducing corporate and income tax, and having an economic recovery. In the case of sweden they reduced corporate tax from 60% to 20% and personal income tax from 70% to around 50%

The average person with a low to mid income ends up spending about 35%-40% of their total income in taxes. Don't you think that if a person only spent like 5% in taxes, he would have much more money to spend in a more comfortable living?
 

Dirius

Well-known member
I was trying to say unchecked capitalism can't be achieved because not everyone agrees or wants it to happen, so where do we go from this realization?

If a person wants to live under another type of system, they can. Capitalism is so great that you can choose to not live in it. If a group of people decide they want to create their own little socialist commune, they can (like the hippies did in the 60's). They can live how they please, not using money and producing their own food.

If people don't want to consume from the free market they don't have to. They can hunt for their food, and can craft their own goods, can trade with other people, and so on. That is the beauty of capitalism, in which you are free to do what you please.
 

Dirius

Well-known member
Taxes do not entail socialism as is the case of the welfare state in western capitalist countries. These taxes, which can become very high in Nordic countries, do not set out to make the poor richer and the richer poorer as in communism, but to shift income across different stages of life, as for example to prepare for sickness, to provide education to the young who can then provide pensions for the old when they become adults, courts and roads that everyone needs and so on.

The ''there is no true capitalist country'' is as true as ''there is no communist country''. Both are fantasies.

Why don't people prepare for the future themselves?. The implication in that logic would be that somehow people are not well suited for saving up themselves, and handling their own money. I don't believe that. I'm pretty certain I can manage my own money better than the goverment.

In essence you pay money when you are young, to get it back as an old person. That is the truth when you look at it from a simple perspective. It really shifts nothing, except for the first generation to have recieved it decades ago. What is worse, if you die before you can retire, most of that money you put into the system during your youth, is lost. If you save it yourself, its money you can leave to your family. The welfare state is truthfully, a useless scam.

Roads, police, etc, those are things everyone benefits from. I'm not against taxes in general, just high taxation, because most of the money from taxation is spent in useless bureaucracy, corruption, and pointless programs.

And I also disagree with your last statement. The soviet union was pretty much a 100% marxist state. It was tried but failed.

By the way peto, are you from Europe?
 
Last edited:

Dirius

Well-known member
Actually, there is a pure free market operating in Somalia and Haiti that would satisfy all requirements (low taxation, free trade, and virtually 0 government involvement).

According to reports, there is no limitation on what can be traded including rocket launchers, child prostitutes and slaves.

Most goods in that market have been stolen, infringin on the rights of property of other people. Slavery infringes on the rights of freedom of other people. Capitalism is about freedom and respect for the rights of others.

Also its wrong to say they have small goverment. The somalian political establishment recieves bribes and money from criminal organisations to stay out of their business.
 

david starling

Well-known member
If a person wants to live under another type of system, they can. Capitalism is so great that you can choose to not live in it. If a group of people decide they want to create their own little socialist commune, they can (like the hippies did in the 60's). They can live how they please, not using money and producing their own food.

If people don't want to consume from the free market they don't have to. They can hunt for their food, and can craft their own goods, can trade with other people, and so on. That is the beauty of capitalism, in which you are free to do what you please.

The technological leap will be deuterium fusion energy. Oil-based energy is causing war and insurmountable health problems. The plentiful deuterium in the oceans is inexpensive to process, so after the initial investment in the fusion plants themselves, the cost of electricity will become lower. No radioactive waste or meltdowns, which is the case with fission plants.
I'm concerned about the ability of nations that rely too heavily on oil to support their economies, though. Venezuela is a perfect example.
 

Dirius

Well-known member
The technological leap will be deuterium fusion energy. Oil-based energy is causing war and insurmountable health problems. The plentiful deuterium in the oceans is inexpensive to process, so after the initial investment in the fusion plants themselves, the cost of electricity will become lower. No radioactive waste or meltdowns, which is the case with fission plants.
I'm concerned about the ability of nations that rely too heavily on oil to support their economies, though. Venezuela is a perfect example.

You may also noticed oil is one of the areas of the economy in which goverments involve themselves the most, much more than in other areas.
 

petosiris

Banned
Why don't people prepare for the future themselves?. The implication in that logic would be that somehow people are not well suited for saving up themselves, and handling their own money. I don't believe that. I'm pretty certain I can manage my own money better than the goverment.

Humans are dumb so most wouldn't. So why not just enforce ''retard control'' by law? Maybe you are an exception, but if you agree that ''saving money for dark days'' (a saying in my country) is a positive and good thing why would you be against this particular kind of welfare? Even the prophet Jacob advised the Pharaoh such after interpreting his dream with the help of God.

34. Let Pharaoh do this, and let him appoint officers over the land, and take up the fifth part of the land of Egypt in the seven plenteous years.
35. And let them gather all the food of those good years that come, and lay up corn under the hand of Pharaoh, and let them keep food in the cities.
36. And that food shall be for store to the land against the seven years of famine, which shall be in the land of Egypt; that the land perish not through the famine.
37. And the thing was good in the eyes of Pharaoh, and in the eyes of all his servants.
38. And Pharaoh said unto his servants, Can we find such a one as this is, a man in whom the Spirit of God is? - Genesis 41 KJV

In essence you pay money when you are young, to get it back as an old person. That is the truth when you look at it from a simple perspective. It really shifts nothing, except for the first generation to have recieved it decades ago. What is worse, if you die before you can retire, most of that money you put into the system during your youth, is lost. If you save it yourself, its money you can leave to your family. The welfare state is truthfully, a useless scam.

While it is true that you can die before you can retire, that money in the welfare state can then go to your orphaned children's education or to feeding your child with severe disabilities (if you haven't done screening and abortion), it is not like that money just disappears into thin air.

Roads, police, etc, those are things everyone enefits from. I'm not against taxes in general, just high taxation, because most of the money from taxation is spent in useless bureaucracy, corruption, and pointless programs.

I am not fond of useless bureaucracy, corruption and pointless programs either.

And I also disagree with your last statement. The soviet union was pretty much a 100% marxist state. It was tried but failed.

It wasn't 100% Marxist, just like any Western country today isn't 100% Laissez-faire capitalism. But even 90-99% is enough to see the attempt and direction of where something is going, following which logic I would agree that capitalism works better than communism.
 
Last edited:

david starling

Well-known member
Just noticed I'm definitely feeling the Sun changing over, no doubt about it. Last 3 degrees of Gemini, and :cancer: is clearly in the mix. Still Gemini, Domicile of Mercury, but not purely Gemini.
 

Dirius

Well-known member
Humans are dumb so most wouldn't. So why not just enforce ''retard control'' by law? Maybe you are an exception, but if you agree that ''saving money for dark days'' (a saying in my country) is a positive and good thing why would you be against this particular kind of welfare? Even the prophet Jacob advised the Pharaoh such after interpreting his dream with the help of God.

34. Let Pharaoh do this, and let him appoint officers over the land, and take up the fifth part of the land of Egypt in the seven plenteous years.
35. And let them gather all the food of those good years that come, and lay up corn under the hand of Pharaoh, and let them keep food in the cities.
36. And that food shall be for store to the land against the seven years of famine, which shall be in the land of Egypt; that the land perish not through the famine.
37. And the thing was good in the eyes of Pharaoh, and in the eyes of all his servants.
38. And Pharaoh said unto his servants, Can we find such a one as this is, a man in whom the Spirit of God is? - Genesis 41 KJV

Well my opinion is that people know nothing about personal finances because they are not taught a good financial eduction in primary and secondary schools. Another example of our tax money being used by the goverment to give us the worst possible results.

I suppose the goverment believes its more important for us to learn art and music, instead of economics.

While it is true that you can die before you can retire, that money in the welfare state can then go to your orphaned children's education or to feeding your child with severe disabilities (if you haven't done screening and abortion), it is not like that money just disappears into thin air.

I am not fond of useless bureaucracy, corruption and pointless programs either.

Technically speaking, specific taxes go to pay for specific things (in the UK I believe is the social security contributions tax). In the case of social security, it works as a ponzi scheme in which you need the next generation to be more numerous in order to pay for the older generation (which is the reason Europe stupidly promotes immigration). So most of the money allocated for that purpose, goes to social security. The taxes that take care of your childs education may be from other taxes.
 
Last edited:

Cap

Well-known member
Most goods in that market have been stolen, infringin on the rights of property of other people. Slavery infringes on the rights of freedom of other people. Capitalism is about freedom and respect for the rights of others.

Also its wrong to say they have small goverment. The somalian political establishment recieves bribes and money from criminal organisations to stay out of their business.

According to the information that can be read from the natives themselves, Somalia's "official" government has a sphere of influence about 3 blocks in the capital city. There is no police, there is no state army, just private armies, and militant groups.

Similarly, Haiti has a failed government and the country is full of neo-feudal warlords with private armies. No laws, no regulations, no taxation, "libertarian heaven" not unlike the one in Honduras.

Yes, the situation is bad in these countries and it shows that capitalism cannot function without a state government.
 
Last edited:

Dirius

Well-known member
Yes, the situation is bad in these countries and it shows that capitalism cannot function without a state government.

I never said you don't need a goverment. I'm not an anarchist.

I said we don't need a big goverment meddling in the economy.

The purpose of goverment is to secure our civil, natural and constitutional rights which is usually done through security forces, and provide a foundation for us to pass laws we agree, on how to handle ourselves.

Goverment exists for a specific purpose. The idea of goverment as a provider that solves all our problems, the "daddy state" is a childlike excuse to live off someone else.
 
Last edited:
Top