R.I.P. Milton Friedman

[Guest]

Milton changed the direction of the world with his ideas of free society and less Government control in our lives and how those interacted with the economy.

"His first policy concern was freeing people from government influence in their lives"

He stated that making drugs illegal would in turn only subsidize the drug cartels.Was he right? No one dared to listen...too bad politicians only pick and choose what they like to hear...

 

[Guest]

he lived a loooong time for someone who knows so much about the horrors of how the economy works............94 years old.......wow

 

[Fat Albert]

RIP, Milton. Your Chicago School shall live on. Give John Maynard Keynes a swift kick in the pants, will ya?

Cheers!
Fat A

 

[naga_sadu]

I have mixed feelings about Milton Friedman...

As stated by Flamengo, he vouched for the legalisation of mmj. He vouched for less governmental control and greater individual freedom over the "socio" aspect of the "socio-economy." Much ++ reps to him for that! However, he did champion for corporatism. This is something I can never support him for.

In his school of thought, governmental controls such as subsidies, infant industry protection should be removed as these are "not economic" inputs and are thus, inefficient. In agriculture, especially, he explicitly favoured corporate farms over small scaler/ subsistence level producers of agriculture. Many of his ideas became the central pillar in US foreign policy, especially in the World Bank/ IMF forum. I've seen what subsidy removal and corporatism does to a developing economy- I'm living in one- and it isin't anything pretty.

He vouched for corporatism but said that economic agents should steer clear of society and politics. The idea is noble, but I have yet to see that concept actually take shape. Friedman's idea would work flawlessly if economic agents steered clear of society and politics, but if these very same economic agents gain so much economic clout, they always end up influencing society and politics to proportions of domination.

In Latin America, many notorious dictators such as Pinochet (the "Chicago boys") were all neoliberal economists, trained by Friedman...we all know how those episodes went...

"His first policy concern was freeing people from government influence in their lives"

Well, "freeing people from government influence" also extended to removing rice rations, price subsidies for fuel, start up industry protection, free housing, free bus passes etc, etc...

And also, the criminilisation of mmj isin't a theocratic or a bureaucratic issue- it's a corporate issue. People like Rupert Hearst had enough $$$ to influence domestic policy and other corporates such as the pharma MNCs joined in and made it into an international issue. The government was only an arm. The brains aren't them- they're the government's corporate masters.

Milton Friendman's school thought looks like a more refined and polished version of Adam Smith's school of thought. Friedman, like Smith, maintained that neoliberalism ensures that the political agents don't infringe on the socio-economy. But what has happened is that the economic agents (mainly the ones enough $$$ to generate clout- the corporate sector) have infringed onto the political and as a result, the social sectors......

People such as Salvador Allende, etc. top my list as far as socio econ. planners go...

 

[Guest]

criticising friedman for what his followers perverted his philosophy into is like criticising jesus for the fact that the catholic church perverted his philosophy into permitting them to burn jews at the stake.

friedman has or had no control over what anybody does with his philosophy any more than adam smith had. you either are against government interference in your life or you are not

 

[Guest]

Well, "freeing people from government influence" also extended to removing rice rations, price subsidies for fuel, start up industry protection, free housing, free bus passes etc, etc...

those are exactly the types of things that friedman was against. freedom means things that can all be enjoyed simultaneously by all people. those things you mentioned can only be enjoyed by some at the expense of others. remember, the government does not make anything. it grabs my tax dollars and uses them. i hope for the common good, but more often, for things like rice rations etc that do me no good at all

LD

 

[naga_sadu]

you either are against government interference in your life or you are not

I am not for removing subsidies such as free electricity, free housing, rations etc. Developing countries need them. Also, infant industries in developing countries need government protection...and I be damned...ALL medical facilities and insurance should be kept away from private hands. And there should be ceilings set on economic agents so they don't have enough $$$ clout to influence politics.

What I'm against are corporate backed policies- usually for maximising their own profits- enforced thru their respective goverment(s) via money clout. Such as the war on drugs, war on Iraq and so on and so forth...

friedman has or had no control over what anybody does with his philosophy and more than adam smith had.

But I'd still not take a philosophy or school of thought into practical account without weighing out its "corruption potential" first. Doing so is quite useless, really.

 

[naga_sadu]

i hope for the common good, but more often, for things like rice rations etc that do me no good at all

But in some cases, it spells certain starvation and all sorts of physical suffering to populations numbering 700-800 million- as in mine. It denies them food. Electricity. Water. A house. Medical care. The necessities of life which are a right and not a privilige.

The freedom to LIVE is of the most important freedom, dontcha think?

And you REALLY expect me to believe that the corporate sector (the contingent of the economy favoured by Friendman) rotates money outside their circle???

 

[Guest]

The necessities of life which are a right and not a privilige.

I am sorry, but they are not "a Right" if they can only be had at the expense of someone else. You have a "right" to be free to go out and earn it for yourself! If you are being denied that right, don't look to Milton Friedman and point the finger of blame, look to your own corrupt government!

milton friedman and his disciple thomas sowell said it best "rights are things which which can be enjoyed by all people simultaneously" You seriously pervert the concept of what is a right and what is not by saying that people (any people) have a "right" to anything material. where will it stop, and who is going to say what the limits on those rights is? do i, for example, have a "right" to demand that the taxpayers of my country provide me with a porsche to drive around in? I say if your concept of rights prevails, that I do have that right.

what you are advocating is that some people have the "right" to live off of others.

i am sorry if there is want and starvation in the world, but those people who are experiencing it should look to their own governments first and throw them out. it is the socialist governments of the world that cause the poverty you decry.

as friedman pointed out, anytime you had a socialist country and a free country side by side with basically the same people, the free country ALWAYS had a higher standard of living.

throw the socialists out of your government, live free and have a free economy. then you will start to reap the rewards that follow

LD

 

[Guest]

when a government steals from one group in order to give (what is considered by some--a "right") to another group, the capacity and desire for productivity of both groups suffers, as follows:

[a] the group that is stolen from does not have the incentive to produce more because it knows that it will just be stolen by the government. In fact, many otherwise productive people will cross over into the other camp--the receivers and cry that they have a "right" to this or that material thing (as my old man always said, "when it's free, there aint never enough of it")

and the group which benefits from the theft does not have incentive to produce because it can get whatever it wants by saying it has the "right" to that thing --whatever it is-- and the government will give it to them so why should they produce.

people are not helpless pawns or automatons. given the right incentives and lack of government controls, they will produce.

the people in the underdeveloped world are in competition with those in the developed world; as the people in america are in competition with the people in taiwan and indonesia and india. if they are not competitive, they will always come up short.

the answer then is not to come crying to the developed world with your hat in your hands, bleating about your "right" to a decent standard of living, enough food or whatever, but TO BE COMPETITIVE!!

this means, first and foremeost, that government should get the hell out of the way. any government, (and I include my own here) which interferes with buying, selling or the free market, ultimately does no one a service, much less it's own people, because sooner or later they are going to have to face the fact that everyone is in competition with everyone else, and when that happens, the one who uses his time and brains most efficiently will win, and rest will, ALWAYS!, have major problems.

LD

 

[Guest]

But I'd still not take a philosophy or school of thought into practical account without weighing out its "corruption potential" first. Doing so is quite useless, really.

I'm sorry, but you really have not thought that one through if you really believe that. I again make the analogy to Jesus. he said there were only only two things you needed to do in order to be a good person... (1) love your neighbor as yourself and (2) love the lord your god with all your heart, mind and soul. Not much "corruption potential" there, or so you would think. Not so...

the catholic church so perverted this doctrine that, frankly, the burning of jews at the stake was the least of their bloody offenses.

if the philosophy of Jesus can be so corrupted, then ANY philosophy can be made to stand for whatever its putative followers say it stands for. i stand by my original statement: milton friedman is not responsible for what others perverted his philosophy into being.

 

[naga_sadu]

I am sorry, but they are not "a Right" if they can only be had at the expense of someone else. You have a "right" to be free to go out and earn it for yourself!

But many neoliberal "reforms" are implemented at a great cost of a vast majority too. Esp. in developing economies. Removing economic control more than anything else only gives the corporate class, elitists and oligarchs more room to maneuver, and thus tailor policies that best suit them even at a great cost to the rest of the population. All governments are prey and prone to corruption- including US- if suddenly all economic activity becomes unchecked. In the US, corruption and policies beneficial to the elite are done thru lobbies, in other countries they're done directly.

How did mmj become illegal in the US? Who started it? How did they get it pushed? How do they continue to push their agendas worldwide??

In reality, neoliberal economics states that resources should be given to those who can generate it most. Who are- the corporate class. In developing economies, the implication is that micro loans with lotsa consumers (the public) be shelved in favour of macro sized loans with a few consumers (the corporate class). Thus, you are already limiting the ability of the non-corporate class to move, and you say they're "free to earn it themselfs." ANd I'm sure the corporate class trickles wealth down to the rest of society rather than rotate and multiply it amongst themselfs. In the US itself, the amount of resources that went into the war on Iraq (war for black gold) and the amount of resources that went into rescuing the Hurrican Katrina victims should show you the face of neoliberal economics quite well. But in other countries which have been forced to accept this theory, the situation is far more dire.

And in most cases, the majority of the population is located in the semi urban/ rural parts. Going by the dictates of neoliberal economics, financial resources and infrastructure should thus be allocated towards the urban centers and metropolitan zones. So, you have cases where 90% of the country's resources go into the few cities and the remaining country gets a measerly 10%- even if 90% of the population live in semi urban/ rural areas.

This induces a massive influx of people into the cities and supply for labour thus increases WAY above demand. The ones who get absorbed by the corporate sector is benefitted largely too- but that is no more than 15% of the country's population. The rest are just allowed to eat shit. Since the corporate sector benefit immensely, they accumulate physical resources such as land. They do this in the urban areas at first. Real estate price skyrockets and in developing economies, price rise WAY faster and higher than wages.

In summary, you have a small physical zone (cities) getting a disproportional amount of resources and most of the countries infra as well as financial network is tailoured to suit the corporate class- since according to the neoliberal concepts of "free market" $$$ should be given to the ones who can multiply it and generate it the most.

So, people, stripped of all forms of social mobility are of course, "free to move about society and climb up." The corporate class can NO WAY absorb the population of a country. NO WAY....

A socialist economy distributes resources more evenly and makes services and goods more accessible to the common mass. Ok. So, forcing the size of the corporate sector is a crime, but robbing the people of the country's economy isin't?

I can use India as a case study. Here, states are free to choose their own economic path. I live in KErela state, and it has a literacy rate of 95%+ and one of the lowest rates of poverty in Asia. The only territory in Asia where there are no slums and shantytowns. The quality of life indicator here is one of the highest in Asia. But this is one of the few states in the country which didn't choose neoliberalism. The rest of the country's state of affiars is pretty damn clear. Go figure...

Socialism and corporatism are economic concepts. Democracy and dictatorships are political ones. U can still have a democracy and have socialism as the economic model- like Holland......

 

[Guest]

Socialism and corporatism are economic concepts. Democracy and dictatorships are political ones. U can still have a democracy and have socialism as the economic model- like Holland......

yes you can, but for how long. holland was already literate and prosporus when it started out, but what about now that it is in competition with the rest of the world? i think in a few years holland, like the rest of the western socialist sates (and I include america here) is going to run hard into the wall of reality that they cannot go on providing everything to everyone.

again, i make my point, you do not have a "right" to anything material, you have a "right" to go out and earn it for yourself.

Again I point out what friedman said about socialist/non socialist countries side by side. the non socialist always had the higher standard of living.

Look at china vs taiwan as a prime example. Both started out with roughly the same populations in '49 and now taiwan has a much higher standard of living!

 

[Guest]

All governments are prey and prone to corruption- including US- if suddenly all economic activity becomes unchecked. .

I maintain that socialist governments are much more prone to corruption that non socialist. where you have an elite saying who can and cannot do whatever they desire with their own money, that is a formula for massive corruption.

all governments are prone to corruption anyway (although not as much as socialist governments) that is why government--as an institution-- must be reined in and controlled. Only government claims the right to enforce it's will through violence. The last I checked, no corporations were locking people up.

you may claim that they DO lock people up, but I say, only through governmental action. if you control the government, you basically control corruption

LD

 

[naga_sadu]

you may claim that they DO lock people up, but I say, only through governmental action. if you control the government, you basically control corruption

Well...?? Name me ONE neoliberal economy whose government could be controlled? Not the US, that's for sure, though. The prob is, neoliberal economies encourage and lay forth the ground conditions for corruption to thrive...

The last I checked, no corporations were locking people up.

How's about the number of people who are arrested in the United States and elsewhere for mmj "crimes" ?? ?? ? ? ? ?

WHO MADE MMJ ILLEGAL AND WHO PUSHES FOR THEIR ILLEGALISATION AND CRIMINALISATION WORLDWIDE?! The corporations, mainly the pharmaceutical devils, the tobacco, paper and chem corpos. Why? Because mmj is a substitute for every single pharma which has an economic interest in keeping it illegal. They maintain this by using their clouts to get their dictates passed as law.

No government is stupid enough to presist w/ a "war on drugs." But it makes certain shotcallers really rich. And it just sucks ass when the corporate interests of a country are transformed into the national interests of that country...

The war on drugs, just like the war on terror, is a byproduct of "neoliberal" economics taking shape. I know that Milton Friedman said that for his idea to work, people- esp. the "haves"- must have a strong sense of morality and ethics. But can you really apply this assumption practically?

And on a world level, if it's fair to say that the industrialised powers of the world control the world body, esp. its economic arm, then who controls the world body in practically if the corporate class runs the local government?

And another byproduct of rampant corporatism was the slavery issue in the US. The confederate souths kept the slaves not because whites are designed to suppress blacks by DNA but because their labour intensive industries (large scale farming) "needed" an almost 0 cost source of labour. How about after the civil war was won by the Union? What happened? The blacks just lived happily every after? No. They were only to become a similar source of low inputs as industrial workers in the capital (machinery) intensive north.

you may claim that they DO lock people up, but I say, only through governmental action. if you control the government, you basically control corruption

It's not an issue of physically locking people up, it's an issue of socio-economically locking people up.

Look at china vs taiwan as a prime example. Both started out with roughly the same populations in '49 and now taiwan has a much higher standard of living!

Taiwan, Singapore, the UAE, Macau, Hong Kong are trade hubs. In small countries, you can skip your primary and secondary stages of development (i.e. agriculture, industry) and right away enter the terciary (services and trade) if your geography is strategic, globally (ex: between east and west Asia etc). You can't do this in countries w/ big geographies, which need to undergo all the 3 stages of development. I'm sure you know this.

In a more realistic example, how's about South Vietnam Vs. North Vietnam... What system did the people of Vietnam want? How's about in Cuba? But too bad the Vietnamese had to lose 14% of their total population to get their wishes granted.

again, i make my point, you do not have a "right" to anything material, you have a "right" to go out and earn it for yourself.

...provided the facilities that were available to me as a common man shouldn't get restructured and reallocated to finance the extravagance of a few aka. corporate sector.

where you have an elite saying who can and cannot do whatever they desire with their own money, that is a formula for massive corruption.

You're talking about autocracy and not socialism...socialist democracies are run thru national labour unions. They set everything starting from planning production to electing the head of state. Every citisen of the economy is automatically a member of the labour union.

I maintain that socialist governments are much more prone to corruption that non socialist.

Socialist ECONOMIES that are RULED BY dictators are prone to corruption. Why? Because the economies are run by dictators and their inner circle themselfs. Corporate economies are marketed as democracies but have no further meaning beyond all the surface coat. In essence, a socialist economy run by a dictator and a corporate capitalist economy arent that much different practically.

Now, let's take the US. How reliable is the official media as a source of unbiased info there? So much for freedom of information. The majority of the US people don't believe in wars and bombing other countries so that the arms industry as well as the oil corporations (ex: Iraq) could earn super normal profits. They'd much rather say- help out the hurricane katrina victims. The US system sure gave a "freedom of speech" option. But really, how much substance did the peoples' wishes carry?

Corporate capitalism applied even in a democracy rapes it and morphs it into a corporate dictatorship. The only semblance of "freedom" enjoyed in corporate economies are nothing beyond marketed, symbolic gestures of freedom.

You have a situation where a few top economic shotcallers end up getting all the country's and system's infra as well as resources (as per neoliberal dictates). So, the people in control of the national infrastructure as well as the financial network are...the corporate class. And corporations are moved by...profit maximisation and input (cost) minimisation. So, are we so naive to think that the corporate class wouldn't use that sorta clout to extend a full grip over the political class, to get its dictates fulfilled???

In the classic case of mmj illegalisation, the plant was becoming a very viable source of an alternative to the paper industry. As an ayurvedic substance, mmj was also gaining prominance as a viable source of medicine. MMJ also proved to be an excellent source of dieing chems. This threatened the giants at the time like DuPont and paper tycoons like Hearst. Later, the tobacco, alcohol and pharmaceutical corporations joined the bandwagon. In the end- mmj became illegalised and criminilised. How many people locked up just because a few fuckhead shit eaters wanted LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS of billions rather than settling for LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS of billions?

How's about the war in Iraq? When the disbursement of national income isin't checked, then for SURE becomes prone to corruption. Socialist governments that aren't autocratic are free from this types of bullshit.

all governments are prone to corruption anyway (although not as much as socialist governments) that is why government--as an institution-- must be reined in and controlled.

I live in a Socialist state and it is FAR more prosperous than any state in the country, as far as I can see. Why? Because income is properly disbursed. Ok. I'm a trader, believe it or not. I pay 67% taxes. So, at the end of the day, the school teacher's lifestyle and mine aren't all that different, although I'm a "businessman." Well, big fucking shit. So fucking what??? I have to work a bit more so that people who aren't income generators (like businessmen) can also have a proportionately high standard of living. So, what's so bad about that?????? I have a talent for income generation, so what? That doesn't mean I have to lower myself to being a money whore and start off on a "ALL MINE, ALL MINE" fiasco. That's fucking ridiculous. Boo hoo hoo, I don't get to drive a Benz, and can only drive a locally made Contessa so that 5 guys can drive motorbikes. Oh I'm going to start crying now...my life is so ruined!!! Come on man!

Take medicine today. Doctors don't enter the field for the passion of the field itself, but do so for the love of gold. What kind of services are such contingents going to render? What is the quality of a public school teacher in an average school in the US or in modern, urban India? What quality of education comes out of both those systems I mentioned? Does the modern system of education, in many corporate run economies focus on nurturing individual talent? Or do they just draw an average line and reward pupils who fall closest to that line they draw??????

CORPO KAPPIS (the section of the economy neoliberal economics favours the most) SUCK

 

[Guest]

In the first place, I don't even know what "neoliberalism" is. I think that is just socialist malarky, because you know socialism has been tried and failed BIG TIME (look at Russia and all the socialist countries- even china is only successful where it has renounced socialism in certain sectors of it's ecnomy). I think you are trying to win your argument by re writing the dictionary. Stokley Carmichal, the great 60's radical once said something to the effect of (and I loosly quote here)-- i'll let you write the rule book if you let me write the dictionary, and i'll win!

Pretty smart, and definitely apropos here, I think.

Wake up and smell the coffee. Socialism is a philosophy of the PAST. it has been tried and it failed.

Freedom is what will pull your country out of the mire that it's in.

I think you know that because of your insistence on calling free countries NEOLIBERAL, whatever that means. You know that if you call things as they really are, no one will listen to you, so you try and disguise the reality by calling free countries neoliberal, because you know that people equate liberal with bad, so you think to win your argument that way.

you have not addressed my major points (except tangentially). I don't want to spend 67% of my money in income tax. Such confiscatory taxes are TERRIBLE for the economy. You may not believe this, but I have never heard of your state. what does it make that other people would choose to buy, voluntarily? Is it's dometic and gross national product growing or shrinking? I bet it's shrinking big time, but I also bet the government lies and you could produce statistics that tell everybody what a paradise you live in!

And yet, anybody with any sense knows that when tax RATES go down, the amount of tax money received by the government goes up. It's a law of nature. Such tax rates as you describe will doom your state to perpetual serfdom. The people at the bottom will remain there.


I for one, do not ever want to live in a time when such wealth is concentrated in the hands of government, even assuming it is much less than the wealth generated in a free society. Whatever wealth there is is all in Big Brother's hands, and I'm sure big brother is watching you.

By the way, in this socialist paradise, who watches the watchers. I bet corruption is rampant, but nobody knows because you cannot get accurate figures.

Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell and others are right... Where you have free societies next to socialist ones, the free societies are more proporus. Please don't try and say that Taiwan, because of it's size is a special case. Taiwan, believe it or not, has greater population DENSITY than mainland china and far fewer resources. (and certainly far greater if you subtract the mountainous regions where few prople can live!) What it has, however, is FREEDOM. Freedom from confiscatory taxes such as you describe and freedom to succeed or fail on your own without big brother telling you what to do, or that it knows best.


The real problem for you, as I see it, is not that what I say is wrong. It is that what I say does not comport with your sense of "FAIRNESS" why should some have so much and others have so little. Well, that's the price we pay for living in a free and prosporus society. A rising tide lifts all boats, and if the price for such general prosperity is that some are allowed to get rich, I am willing to pay that price.

As far as Marijuana laws go, I thought it was the government that made Pot illegal, not the corporations. And since pot is illegal the world over, both in socialist states and in free states i don't really think there is any analogy to be drawn here.

Wake up and live free, and you will see what real prosperity is. Not the pseudo-prosperity of your little socialist state

I am now going to sign off this thread and let you have the last word. I am, frankly, bored, because i know that I will never convince you, and you certainly are not going to convince me that what's wrong is actually right. Understand, though, that because I am bored, and letting you have the last word, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT I AGREE WITH YOU IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.

IF YOUR STATE WAS FREE INSTEAD OF SOCIALIST, IT COULD BE MUCH MORE PROSPEROUS THAN IT IS NOW. ANYWAY, ADIOS, AND I HOPE TO SEE YOU IN A GROWERS FORUM NEXT.


LD

 

[diggle]

As far as Marijuana laws go, I thought it was the government that made Pot illegal, not the corporations. And since pot is illegal the world over, both in socialist states and in free states i don't really think there is any analogy to be drawn here.

Wake up and live free, and you will see what real prosperity is. Not the pseudo-prosperity of your little socialist state

I am now going to sign off this thread and let you have the last word. I am, frankly, bored, because i know that I will never convince you, and you certainly are not going to convince me that what's wrong is actually right. Understand, though, that because I am bored, and letting you have the last word, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT I AGREE WITH YOU IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.

IF YOUR STATE WAS FREE INSTEAD OF SOCIALIST, IT COULD BE MUCH MORE PROSPEROUS THAN IT IS NOW. ANYWAY, ADIOS, AND I HOPE TO SEE YOU IN A GROWERS FORUM NEXT.


LD

Way to be the bigger man there....how nice of you to let him have the last word as you cover your ears and run away, chanting "LA LA LA LA LA". You're totally in the dark about marijuana illegalization, BTW.....it's a perfect example of corporate power being improperly wielded....but you're not going to read this anyways, right?

 

[Guest]

well, i could not resist reading your post, since you were the only one besides us two to post on this subject in a while.

i am gratified that you agree with about 95%+ of what I have said, and your only source of disagreement was with the one unanswerable, incontrovertable fact: governments, not corporations make pot illegal.

duuuuhhhh

have fun with your love-in

LD

 

[naga_sadu]

In the first place, I don't even know what "neoliberalism" is.

Eh...neoliberalism is the school of thought Friedman preached...you're arguing about Milton Friedman without even knowing the name of his economic model ??? ?? ?

I think that is just socialist malarky, because you know socialism has been tried and failed BIG TIME (look at Russia and all the socialist countries- even china is only successful where it has renounced socialism in certain sectors of it's ecnomy).

Socialism in Russia didn't fail because it was unsustainable, it failed because oligarchs like Berezovsky, Lukashenko etc bought it down from within. It's a well documented fact, if you look beyond CNN as your official guide.

During the early 80s, Brezhnev reintroduced Stalinist measures of abolishing unions (i.e. collective management) and reintroducing the system of autocratic management in the Soviet economy. This is what caused it to crumble, not the fact that it wasn't sustainable...

Brezhnev reinstalled autocracy and oligarchs to manage the system better (for himself). Some of these oligarchs became multi billionares by selling off state resources to Western investors whereas others became heads of states in their own separate Republics. And what do the modern day Russians today think of the Soviet Union? Do they want to presist w/ the current mode of operation or do they want to revert back to the USSR? Travel to Russia, talk to a few peeps and find out...

Before this whole "Perestroika" and "Glabonist" gulag, EVERY department store in the Soviet Union was fully stocked. Maybe not the ones selling luxury goods but the ones selling the essentials- FOR SURE. It was after Perestroika and Glabonist, that we saw empty food stores etc. I've been to the USSR numerous times. You are more than free to ask a Soviet as well.

Wake up and smell the coffee. Socialism is a philosophy of the PAST. it has been tried and it failed.

Ok. Where has neoliberalism and corporatism succeded? Not in the US, if you assume that America is for American PEOPLE and not their corporate class. And not anywhere in Africa or Asia, that's for bloody sure. Sure, the corporate class is a PART OF the economy, but not the economy itself....

Freedom is what will pull your country out of the mire that it's in.

Eh...we're democratic the last time I checked. And no - you can't get arrested for smoking mmj here. And no - companies don't have a right to fire employees at will to "downsize" and "streamline." One of the reasons I left LA- eventhough the people were really awesome- was because there wasn't enough freedom there.

I think you know that because of your insistence on calling free countries NEOLIBERAL, whatever that means.

Again and again, neoliberalism and socialism are economic concepts whereas dictatorships, tyrannies, monarchies, democracies and freedom are political and social concepts. You're using BUsh logic on me...

And again, neoliberalism is what Milton Friedman called his school of thought...

You know that if you call things as they really are, no one will listen to you, so you try and disguise the reality by calling free countries neoliberal, because you know that people equate liberal with bad, so you think to win your argument that way.

Why would people equate liberal with bad? What the hell are you talking about??? If nearly 9000 farmers didn't commit suicide out of economic plight, after neoliberal "reforms" were implemented, and if wages rose faster than prices, and poverty rates came down because of these neoliberal reforms, I would support neoliberalism.

You may not believe this, but I have never heard of your state.

Oh no!

So I guess it must be really desolate hellhole Or could it mean that you haven't travelled much at all? So...get yourself outta that seat and...TRAVEL! BTW- Kerela state is pretty damned famous for its weed scene

Is it's dometic and gross national product growing or shrinking? I bet it's shrinking big time, but I also bet the government lies and you could produce statistics that tell everybody what a paradise you live in!

GDP measures cash transactions within an economy. So, if there were collective farms, where the produce went directly to the public and where goods and services were transferred directly to the people, these types of transactions aren't recorded in the GDP. If the people were billed and done thru cash transactions, then that transaction gets recorded in the GDP indicator.

There are two types of growth. One where you increase revenues and other where you cut costs (of living). Socialism follows the latter, because facilitation of goods and services to the public becomes alot easier and much more linear. And with direct transfers of goods and services to the people, rather than thru cash transactions, the ratio of wages and prices are proportionately maintained. This is beneficial to the common person, I believe and also prevents economic agents from hogging up the nation's economy.

Just because transactions don't get measured by cash doesn't mean the economy is fairing badly. That's a misleading assumption.

I bet it's shrinking big time, but I also bet the government lies and you could produce statistics that tell everybody what a paradise you live in!

I don't need Government stats to tell me things, I have a pair of biological contraptions in my face called eyes.

Such tax rates as you describe will doom your state to perpetual serfdom. The people at the bottom will remain there.

Surprisingly enough, there are no shantytowns in Kerela state. No persons dying out of hunger. No homeless peoples. And the literacy rate is about 90%+...which is prolly why neoliberalism hasn't succeded here. Sure, there is inequality here also. But still- the people "in the bottom" don't die out of economic plight and are fed, housed and clothed adequately.

Look, I don't mind if I have to pay for that DVD player, airline ticket or laptop. But food, water, shelter and all a part of the natural economy, and nobody has a right to attach a price tag on them. Ok, so what's next...a price tag on breathable air?

Whatever wealth there is is all in Big Brother's hands, and I'm sure big brother is watching you.

The only time Big Bro watched and swooped down on me was in Los Angeles, the city of Angels...and the other was when I was in Singapore. The latter was quite ugly, but that's another story...

By the way, in this socialist paradise, who watches the watchers.

Labour/ trade unions and an educated population....

All aspects of the industrial sector are managed by the labour unions. And all aspects of the service sector are managed by the trade unions. Who elects the labour union heads? The laborers. And the trade union heads? The traders. How do you become a part of the labour union? By working. And trade unions? By running a biz.

Any law which "big bro" passes can be repealed overnight if there is opposition from either the labour or trade unions.

A rising tide lifts all boats, and if the price for such general prosperity is that some are allowed to get rich, I am willing to pay that price.

Me too.

But I'm not cool w/ the notion of robbing the socioeconomy from the general public to bloster the country's corporate class. Sure, the corporates are a PART OF an economy, but not the economy. In all reality, your so called "rising tide" lifts 1-2 boat and sinks 400,000 others. Fuck that.

As far as Marijuana laws go, I thought it was the government that made Pot illegal, not the corporations.

Read your marijuana history. The criminilisation drive was spearhead by Rupert Hearst and was later supplemented by the chemical, pharmaceutical, alcohol, tobacco corpos. Of course, the government was the one which signed the bill, but who was the main force behind the illegalisation drive right from initiation to completion? And on a parallel but similar issue (conceptually), the civil war was fought to free all those poor, enslaved blacks, right???? And the war on Iraq was fought to safeguard the American people from Saddam's WMD and to liberate the Iraqis from this terrible dictator, right?

And since pot is illegal the world over, both in socialist states and in free states i don't really think there is any analogy to be drawn here.

Wrong again. Marijuana was legal in India until 1989- the same year we "opened up" our economy. It was done to facilitate entry of Western pharmaceutical fucknuts into the economy. And weed remained legal in Cambodia till 1996- the same year they opened up their economies to neoliberalism. Do you need more examples?????? AND IN THE SOVIET UNION, OUTSIDE RUSSIA ESP. IN PLACES LIKE KAZASTAN, UZBEKISTAN THERE WAS NO WRITTEN LEGISLATION ON MARIJUANA.

When an economy of a developing country opens up to neoliberalism, the corporate class of a developed economy sees a potential market in that recently "opened" economy. Since the paper, pharma, tobacco, alcohol MNCs (amongst others) have a vested interest in keeping mmj illegal, due to their own profit motives (read your mmj history), they push for local criminilisation of mmj (in the developing economy) indirectly- through their own respective governments. And who runs the economies in "free", developed societies like the US? The people? Yeah right! Go figure...

Understand, though, that because I am bored, and letting you have the last word, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT I AGREE WITH YOU IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.

Oh NO! Big brother threatened to kill me unless I corrupt and convert at least 3 people on ICMag!!!!!!!!! What am I gonna do?!?!?!?

Actually, if you're bored, here is a text you must check out:

The confessions of an economic hitman by John Perkins. I'm sure you must know who John Perkins is...!!!

IF YOUR STATE WAS FREE INSTEAD OF SOCIALIST, IT COULD BE MUCH MORE PROSPEROUS THAN IT IS NOW.

Yeah right, slums and people committing suicide out of economic plight while having a few multiplex skyrises isin't a sign of prosperity, senor. It's a sign of paracitism. ANY state where a person says "I'm hungry" is a failed state. And we flushed neoliberalism down the toilet simply because...we don't need big bro watching us and controlling our lives The economy belongs to the public and not some old wrinkled fucknuts sitting in plush offices...

Better yet, just do some fucking travel instead of relying on CNN as your guide...!

Now, I have NOTHING against Milton Friedman. The guy did make the point that his theory will only work if the current top shotcallers in the economy have a strong sense of moral ethics. DO they? No. Will they? No....

 

[diggle]

Governments and corporations are both made up of people....you speak as if they are different animals altogether floating around in space, each only capable of producing certain things, governments with their laws and corporations with their doo-dads, each independant of one another, as if sealed in a vacuum. Come on man....do some light reading on this...maybe watch History channel?

Your blindess to this particular issue is disappointing....friendly discussion becomes impossible when one party simply says "This is a fact, I am right". As in the debate between Naga and yourself, the answer lies not with either but with both.