Right, the large eastern european depopulation which occurred after those wonderful free market policies were imposed in the 1990s are a testament to how great your system is. As is the massive diasporas of people from developing countries who have been governed by neoliberalism for decades.

That was a response to Private Entrance.

"First this is false. China grew rapidly in the first years after the revolution, particularly in the industrial sector. It also grew rapidly under the management of Liu Shaoqi."

This is what Wikipedia has to say about your championed communist leader: "Liu antagonized Mao in the early 1960s before the Cultural Revolution and was criticized, then purged, by Mao starting in 1966. Liu disappeared from public life in 1968 and was labelled the "commander of China's bourgeoisie headquarters", China's foremost 'capitalist-roader', and a traitor to the revolution."
Yeah, he was purged for capitalist reform. He wasn't the socialist leader you make him out to be,

"The reason why growth rates have been high since 'market reforms' is because the western capitalist world decided to massively relocate its factories to exploit its large pool of labor."

Exactly. Without privatization, the West couldn't have exploited this cheap labor pool, and China would have remained poor and undeveloped.

"The growth was only possible because of the land reforms and other restructuring that had taken place prior to the Deng reforms, namely the breaking up of large estates."

China was one of the most developed economies in the 18th century. In fact, this brings up that industrialization and innovation across the globe occurred under capitalism systems.

"China's rapid rise from the ashes of civil war to an industrialized country is a testament to the speed of command economy development."

China experience famine and suffering under command economy. It only industrialized on a large scale after the opening up policy of Deng.

"I notice you don't bother to compare developing countries with comparable conditions. How exactly has Pakistan done under neoliberal economic policies since 1947? Contrast Pakistan with India, who largely had socialist policies for its first decades of development."

India ranks 130 on the HDI, barely better than Pakistan at 147 (http://hdr.undp.org/en/composite/HDI)

"How about the conditions of Cuba and the surrounding island countries? There's no comparison, Cuba is far and away better on all HDI indicators."

You must also notice that Cuba has a dictatorial government so oppressive that its citizens regularly risk their lives to escape.

"The IMF has imposed neoliberal policies on much of the developing world, what have been the results? By and large they've been disastrous. But you want to compared industrialized western countries to poor ones and claim that this shows the 'speed' of development under capitalism. "

Developing nations need time to develop, and their conditions are improving, but I'm sure you believe they would instantly prosper in your socialist lalaland. You yourself have said that poor nations don't do well under socialism.

"No the problem you neglect to mention is uneven development."

Uneven development is better than no development. Better that some rise from the ashes than everyone wallow in despair. To quote Deng Xiaoping, "To get rich is glorious."

"Cuba's environmental record is a hell of a lot better than the rest of Latin America, I might add. Environmental consciousness is a fairly recent phenomena worldwide. "

Environmental consciousness has nothing to do with economic policy. The Nazis created nature preserves, contemplated sustainable forestry, curbed air pollution, and designed the autobahn highway network as a way of bringing Germans closer to nature.

The depopulation of Eastern Europe was a response to loosening of travel restrictions after the collapse of the USSR.

What happens when a command economy gets its priorities wrong? Humans do not possess crystal balls and not are they infallible.

You hear the argument all too often that America could never be like Denmark. (Happy)
What a sad commentary on the skinflint mentality. We should not strive to or look fir ways to emulate happy countries; rather lets make 54 hour work weeks and failing interpersonal relationships more relevant than giving people better education and better quality of life. It keeps coming back to angry old white men who hate seeing anyone else happy regardless of ethnicity. They dont care about young white people either. its all just economic growth and no reinvestment.

The US has the highest corporate tax: higher than Norway, higher than Sweden, and higher than Denmark. That is why corporations are being driven away and Americans are left jobless.

@"Developing nations need time to develop, and their conditions are improving, but I'm sure you believe they would instantly prosper in your socialist lalaland. You yourself have said that poor nations don't do well under socialism."

Just at the specifics of IMF and development. There is tonnes of evidence that development aid doesn't actualy work.

We have no theory for how it should work, but we jave decades pf failed attempts. Someone comes up with a theory, spends the money, finds out it failed, someone else comes up with a sligthly modified theory, gets a sligthly different result, still we don't see developed economies.

In my mind this whole thing is simplified by looking at the marshal plan. The US spent hard cash rebuilding western europe (the soviets prevented eastern europe from accepting the cash) and european countries - having a culture, institutional memory, and knowing how to play the game - took the money and used it effectively, they recreated a lot of what they had before the war (and to buy American products, which helped the US economy)

You *can* do this. You can't necessarily create nee cultural norms, or expectations with hard cash. Institutions don't magically appear. People who don't believe in a system (be it economic or political) don't appear overnight...

The same is true of the experiment in Iraq, the US utterly failed to create a stable democracy there. And one of the main reasons is people have to believe in a system for it to work. In America, there was a revolution to create democracy, and the people who had the power believed in it themselves. It worked because it was internal - anyone who didn't believe in democracy was proven wrong by the powerful people who now had their own army - having just won the revolutionary war.

Obviously belief is important for democracy; but it is also important for an economy. And if you tell people they are useless and can't develop their own economy or do anything on their own, that is not going to help their belief.

Nowlook at Vietnam's development. It has become wealth without development aid. It was largely socialist; peopled believed in themselves - largely because they kicked the french out, then beat the invading americans, and then overthrew the neighbouring Khmer Rouge (and repulsed an invading Chinese army) - of course they fucking believed in themselves!

They also went to the international bond markets and borrowed money - and made those lenders believe in them too (in order to reduce interest rates).

@leon1122 "
The US has the highest corporate tax: higher than Norway, higher than Sweden, and higher than Denmark. That is why corporations are being driven away and Americans are left jobless."

Also a high cost of living - but very few american jobs are going to denmark, sweden, or Norway. (Though their socialist policies actually reduce a lot of the cost of living - or transfer that cost to the state, at least)

I agree with you about the IMF, orthaic. We should just let the developing African nations run their own course. Eventually, the will develop. As for your comment on Vietnam, the Chinese people also believed in themselves when the overthrew the nationalists and became communist, but look where that got them.

Yes, Americans have a high cost of living because there are simply too many taxes. True, the jobs aren't going to the Scandinavian countries because their corporate taxes are also too high. The jobs are going to countries with low corporate tax, i.e. developing countries. The US needs to lower its corporate tax to have any chance to compete.

@leon
"You must also notice that Cuba has a dictatorial government so oppressive that its citizens regularly risk their lives to escape."

I won't say that there are no cubans that attempt to arrive a Miami, but ask a question instead:
how many miles is Cuba apart from US and how many miles is Syria from Greece or Central America from US?

I won't say that Cuba is a paradise either, cos it's not, but what you've just said is just Miami propaganda. If you spoke spanish I might give you a pair of links, but you can start reading this:

http://www.iammyownreporter.com/misconceptions.htm

and I'd like to note that conditions have grossly improved from 2007

Maybe you could be tempted to say that what I just posted is Castro brainwashing propaganda, but I'd like to say that I've personally met cubans, that my mother and two of my brothers have been and Cuba, and that I, as mexican, can validate the claims that website makes about 'other latin american countries'

In fact, there are like 200 yards from the house of my mother, in Celaya, to the central mexican railway, so I, with my own eyes have seen many of the centroamericans that really want to reach US, here's not enough space to tell you the things I've heard about those true migrants

Here the relevant point anyway (try to think by yourself whout prejudice):

11. Cubans are constantly fleeing in boats to freedom in Miami. Wrong! In fact, every time a few Cubans paddle a boat to Florida you read about it in the paper, so, as in the case of great white shark attacks, you get the impression of more action than there is. Furthermore, the trickle of boaters aren't necessarily "fleeing." Children, like Elian Gonzalez, are just taken. Some adults, like Elian's mother, are foolishly following their crazy partners. Most are playing a cruel and dangerous game Washington deliberately entices them to play. By refusing to grant many visas but letting it be known that any Cuban who illegally sets foot on a U.S. beach will be welcome, Washington creates the false impression you get. It's called propaganda, it's brutally cynical, and both you and the Cubans are the victims. But, in fact, Cuba is not a police state, Cubans are not oppressed and, compared to other Latin Americans, very few of them want to leave Cuba.

The US actively encouraged illegal immigration from Cuba for years. Gave them automatic asylum and automatic public assistance. In Operation Peter Pan, as principians alludes to, Americans just flat out kidnapped kids. How's Haiti doing by the way? Why, if so many Cubans supposedly want to leave Cuba, has the Cuban government lobbied for America to get rid of travel restrictions for so many years?

Because if there is legal immigration the US can't use boat people for propaganda purposes. It's sick.

"The depopulation of Eastern Europe was a response to loosening of travel restrictions after the collapse of the USSR."

Why would they want to leave if capitalist restoration is so wonderful? Why hasn't eastern europe experienced this rapid rise in living conditions that was promised? Why did living standards plummet? Few countries implemented more harsh neoliberal policies than eastern europe in the 1990s. It's been a total disaster.

"Yeah, he was purged for capitalist reform. He wasn't the socialist leader you make him out to be,"

He was President of China for eight years. He quite literally wrote the book on "How to be a Good communist". He along with Mao implemented the Three Red Banners in the late 1950s, with Liu being the one proposed the General Line on Constructing Socialism. He along with Mao criticized Peng Dehui for criticizing the Three Red Banners policies. During the 8th Party Congress after Mao issued to call to investigate the policies of the Three Red Banners, Liu came to view them as incorrect. He was purged in an atmosphere of ideological zealotry. He was not a capitalist roader. They disagreed about the pace of socialist construction. But glad to know your knowledge of Chinese history is reduced to wikipedia blurbs.

"the Chinese people also believed in themselves when the overthrew the nationalists and became communist, but look where that got them."

China is the second largest economy in the world, so... I honestly don't know what you are getting at.

@"Yes, Americans have a high cost of living because there are simply too many taxes. True, the jobs aren't going to the Scandinavian countries because their corporate taxes are also too high. The jobs are going to countries with low corporate tax, i.e. developing countries. The US needs to lower its corporate tax to have any chance to compete."

See this seems like pure propaganda. Cost of living in developing countries is much lower, this you can pay workers less.

There are also environment standards (regulations) which tend to be lower (as people have things to worry about before the environment) and working standards (for the same reason) - the thing the US has which low wage, low regulation, low tax economies don't have is educated workers. And it is only by providing people with high standards of living - including shorter working hours and better environmental conditions - that you can incentivise more highly educated people to come to america to keep this advantage.

Of course you have poverty in the US and it is very hard for low wage worker to compete when corporations can move capital freely to even lower wage economies. But allowing these corporations erode the things that make the US a developed nation, giving them the power to control your nation (through propaganda and lobbying) doesn't seem like it lives up to the ideals of freedom and equality that Americans think their nation stands for.

orathaic: allowing the corporations is a necessary evil. Necesary because they employ millions of people and help even more people. There isn't much that the government could do to regulate it without hurting the people that they were trying to protect. (the low-class people would be the main ones affected by it.) If you have a better solution please explain.

Hey tvrocks so can I basically sum up your pro-corporation argument as "just bend over and take it, there is nothing better to hope for?"
absurd. you are enslaved to these machines that we've created, and worship them like some all knowing deity.

Allowing the corporations exploit people is a ne essary evil, eh? I guess you think we should reduce minimum wage, allow companies force people to work 60 hour weeks, and cancel national holidays...

Eventually it will be a small step towards allowing people sell themselves into indentured servitude; on a contractual basis to be owned by corporations (for a limited period) because then, at least, the corporation is guarenteed to feed and house their property.

The longer term, the more the corp will invest, so we can argue for life-long investments.

My alternative is Universal Basic Income. That and automation of jobs - with redistribution of wealth. Robots can do about 40-50% of the work currently done by humans. Or will be able to within the next 10 years (in modern developed economies) and a fair system for redistributing the product of their labour is a requirement for a stable economy.

"he Chinese people also believed in themselves when the overthrew the nationalists and became communist, but look where that got them."
"

Yes, indeed, look where that got them. A rising global power. Rising so much that Washington is terrified. Terrible indeed. I'm sure the Chinese regret it.

"China was one of the most developed economies in the 18th century."

Presumably this should have continued in the 19th century, but somehow this market oriented China, a leading economic power, suffered through a century of foreign exploitation and internal rebellions. China couldn't defend itself against minor European powers.

"Without privatization, the West couldn't have exploited this cheap labor pool, and China would have remained poor and undeveloped."

Privatization had nothing to do with it. As soon as China opened up its doors to foreign investment the corporations relocated came pouring in. SOEs continued to exist. Yes if the global capitalist world designates one country (thanks to its ability to maintain order and provide infrastructure) as its workshop they are going to experience economic growth. That's hardly indicative of global trends. Capitalism is in deep crisis. Even China cannot withstand it any longer.

"India ranks 130 on the HDI, barely better than Pakistan at 147 "

Pakistan's HDI is worse than impoverished, landlocked Nepal's. It's worse than Bangladesh's, the country that Pakistan tried its best to annihilate in 1971 and which has always had a much more leftwing orientation. Look at HDI trends. Pakistan and India were virtually even decades ago. There has been a steady and persistent gap.

"You must also notice that Cuba has a dictatorial government so oppressive that its citizens regularly risk their lives to escape."

Cuba is one of the most democratic governments in the world. You haven't a clue about the Cuban political system, you're just a propagandist who reads wikipedia. I notice you completely sidestep the issue of HDI as it pertains to Cuba, because you have no argument.

"Developing nations need time to develop, and their conditions are improving"

The whole point of the argument was that socialist development proceeds faster than capitalist development, that's what we were arguing about. So this excuse that development takes time under your favored economic system proves my point. Capitalism is inefficient.

"You yourself have said that poor nations don't do well under socialism."

I said that richer already developed countries like the USA are better equipped to run a command economy because they are not limited in the amount of investment the state can make in the economy. That was in response to the claim that the USA would be worse off under a command economy. Most poor countries struggle in any system, but under socialism they have fared far better especially in terms of basic needs. The educated workforces the former socialist bloc left behind are a legacy to be proud of. They wouldn't have gotten that had they never been socialist, and they still put ours to shame.

"Uneven development is better than no development. Better that some rise from the ashes than everyone wallow in despair"

That wasn't the point I was making. You're not even participating in the conversation anymore.

"Environmental consciousness has nothing to do with economic policy."

Again you're not even participating in the conversation. This was in response to a comment by spyman about the socialist record on the environment.

@"Environmental consciousness has nothing to do with economic policy."

Also bullshit. You can have a free market, and externalise costs ( destroying the environment, whether from mining, oil extraction, dumping pollutants, air pollution... Etc)

Or you can have a regulated economy, where the state choose whether or not to protect these natural resources for the people.

Or you can have a strict command economy, where the state chooses whether or not to...

Basically, a pure free market society is the only one where being environmentally conscious is irrelevant. If you are conscious of our environment, then you are forced to choose a certain sub-set of economic policies.

@ishirkmywork: I in no way worship them no more than i worship the police force, public schooling, a transportaion infrastructure, or even food. I was simply saying that they are a necessary part of our lives. Instead of advocating for things such as allowing outsourcing and allowing corporations to gain a monopoly on something, i was saying that policies that discourage them from staying in america are counterproductive. (or at least for a lot of them.)

@orthraic: did you even read my policy before posting the belligerent question? I agree with you that the minimum salary shoudl be reaised in some situations. There will be almost no chances of some corporations like walmart and mcdonalds outsourcing and, in situations like that, it would probably be a good idea to raise the minimum wage higher to an extent. I also agree with the idea that there is a need for policies that will help out the poor as the alternative is horrifying. However, the government needs to be careful in how they approach companies. Some companies cannot support $15 per hour wages, and requiring that would lead to economic ruin. In fact, raising the minimum wage really high would be more likely to HELP the large corporations to gain a monopoly of what they are selling as others can't support it. If you wnt an example of a company that couldn't pay wages so had to shut down, just look at hostess. (although I think they reopened soon after.)

See, the way i see it, corporations are currently holding countries hostage. When infact, countries should be allowing corporations to access their markets in exchange for tax contributions.

The power balance has shifted, and corporations are the new sovereign.

Congress recently outlawed the importation of urgently needed goods made by slave labor. Third world countries will see their economies collapse since they can no longer sell to US.

I just read through this whole thread and came to a single conclusion: neither system can survive by itself. You have to have some government, and you have to have some free market. If government ran everything it would fall apart, and if everything is privatized you would come close to anarchy.

I always appreciate seeing people on the far opposite sides debate with absolute certainty that their point is the perfect one, but there needs to be a moderate reality check that the world won't work unless you have checks and balances of government and the free market.

^ entirely.

Often the disagreement is between which inevitable bad thing we're closer to, and two sides pull in opposite directions. Neither wanting to win...

The government doesn't check the market, because the market owns the government. Inevitably capital can always extort concessions from government. The truth is not always in the middle.