Zappa.com

The Official Frank Zappa Messageboards
It is currently Sat Oct 25, 2014 10:14 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 197 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jul 10, 2013 8:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 3610
Location: Vancouver, BC
Caputh wrote:
Well, I think Thatcherism changed the parameters of socio-economic debate in the UK, so that the only acceptable solutions to economic questions from all political parties in the UK became a range of free market capitalist ideas, whilst negating the validity of other options, e.g social market, Keynesian. That's not to say that these are always better solutions in all cases, but they are, in my view, worthy of consideration.
Thus, those are my reasons for claiming that the UK economy is currently rooted in free market capitalism.
Why don't you tell me what elements of current and past British economic thought/policy as espoused by UK politicians are specifically not based on the ideas of free market capitalism (with the exception of the NHS)?
Then I could either agree or disagree.


This is just getting silly. You're stretching this out FAR more than you should be. Unless we're talking about the historical examples I've already provided, the UK is NOT rooted in "free market capitalism." The fact that the UK lives in a Mixed Economy (a mixture of socialist and capitalist policies) and the NHS (a socialized healthcare system) are perfect examples - and I don't understand why you're trying to disqualify or label the latter as an exception...?!

_________________
:53 - :57...

"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 12:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 4884
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
Well, if you think it's getting silly, then perhaps we should stop.
All the same, to answer your question, I think that the NHS is a poor example of Thatcherite and post Thatcher "socialist" policies as...
a) it was introduced by the Atlee government in 1948
b) successive governments from Thatcher onwards have been steadily chipping away at it
c) a private option, known as BUPA, exists
d) any government that abolished the NHS would render itself unelectable as it is, as I said above, rather popular
e) the NHS has today reported a funding gap of 30 billion pounds by 2020 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23258962), showing how much the present government (and indeed the other two parties who agreed to cuts of 20 billion pounds in 2010) care for socialized medicine.

Up until yesterday, you could have taken the Royal Mail as an example for a nationalized institution that proves that the British economy is as mixed as you claim it is. However, yesterday it was announced that, as it is making a profit, it is going to be privatized.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23266041

British Rail is probably a better example for you. Privatized in 1997 and after a number of fatal accidents, frequent delays and ticket systems no one could understand, partly re-nationalized in 2005.

Or maybe the education system? The majority of schools being state run (although there are many private ones,too and their numbers increased dramatically during the Thatcher years and thereafter).

However, we did have state run schools in the 19th Century and the Royal Mail was also owned by the state. Therefore how come you describe 19th Century Britain as an entirely free market capitalist economy?

You see, I'm not denying that the UK has a mixed economy - I'm making the point that it is currently far more rooted in free market capitalism to the exclusion of state intervention. This has been the case since the Thatcher years and constitutes a cross-party consensus IMO.

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 10:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 3610
Location: Vancouver, BC
Caputh wrote:
Well, if you think it's getting silly, then perhaps we should stop.
All the same, to answer your question, I think that the NHS is a poor example of Thatcherite and post Thatcher "socialist" policies as...
a) it was introduced by the Atlee government in 1948
b) successive governments from Thatcher onwards have been steadily chipping away at it
c) a private option, known as BUPA, exists
d) any government that abolished the NHS would render itself unelectable as it is, as I said above, rather popular
e) the NHS has today reported a funding gap of 30 billion pounds by 2020 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23258962), showing how much the present government (and indeed the other two parties who agreed to cuts of 20 billion pounds in 2010) care for socialized medicine.

Up until yesterday, you could have taken the Royal Mail as an example for a nationalized institution that proves that the British economy is as mixed as you claim it is. However, yesterday it was announced that, as it is making a profit, it is going to be privatized.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23266041

British Rail is probably a better example for you. Privatized in 1997 and after a number of fatal accidents, frequent delays and ticket systems no one could understand, partly re-nationalized in 2005.

Or maybe the education system? The majority of schools being state run (although there are many private ones,too and their numbers increased dramatically during the Thatcher years and thereafter).

However, we did have state run schools in the 19th Century and the Royal Mail was also owned by the state. Therefore how come you describe 19th Century Britain as an entirely free market capitalist economy?

You see, I'm not denying that the UK has a mixed economy - I'm making the point that it is currently far more rooted in free market capitalism to the exclusion of state intervention. This has been the case since the Thatcher years and constitutes a cross-party consensus IMO.


Image


I NEVER described the UK as, "entirely rooted in free market capitalism." But it sure was damn close during the Industrial Revolution and the early 1900s. And making the assertion that the UK is currently ANYWHERE close to Free Market Capitalism while simultaneously admitting that its a Mixed Economy, is just plain silly. Because for that to be, all or almost all of their economic policies would have to include free market principles. And of course, that's just not the case. Also, did it even occur to you that maybe the reason why the NHS is having funding issues and will apparently continue to in the future is because it's not affordable (which is what I've been partially talking about throughout this thread)?! And adding disqualifiers to cast aside examples that would otherwise not back up your case doesn't help matters. In comparison, I still don't understand why you think Socialism is the future, since it's NEVER worked and has clearly DESTROYED economies and the quality of life for MILLIONS of people throughout history...?!

_________________
:53 - :57...

"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 12, 2013 12:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 4884
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
Disco Boy wrote:
Caputh wrote:
Well, if you think it's getting silly, then perhaps we should stop.
All the same, to answer your question, I think that the NHS is a poor example of Thatcherite and post Thatcher "socialist" policies as...
a) it was introduced by the Atlee government in 1948
b) successive governments from Thatcher onwards have been steadily chipping away at it
c) a private option, known as BUPA, exists
d) any government that abolished the NHS would render itself unelectable as it is, as I said above, rather popular
e) the NHS has today reported a funding gap of 30 billion pounds by 2020 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23258962), showing how much the present government (and indeed the other two parties who agreed to cuts of 20 billion pounds in 2010) care for socialized medicine.

Up until yesterday, you could have taken the Royal Mail as an example for a nationalized institution that proves that the British economy is as mixed as you claim it is. However, yesterday it was announced that, as it is making a profit, it is going to be privatized.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23266041

British Rail is probably a better example for you. Privatized in 1997 and after a number of fatal accidents, frequent delays and ticket systems no one could understand, partly re-nationalized in 2005.

Or maybe the education system? The majority of schools being state run (although there are many private ones,too and their numbers increased dramatically during the Thatcher years and thereafter).

However, we did have state run schools in the 19th Century and the Royal Mail was also owned by the state. Therefore how come you describe 19th Century Britain as an entirely free market capitalist economy?

You see, I'm not denying that the UK has a mixed economy - I'm making the point that it is currently far more rooted in free market capitalism to the exclusion of state intervention. This has been the case since the Thatcher years and constitutes a cross-party consensus IMO.


Image


I NEVER described the UK as, "entirely rooted in free market capitalism." But it sure was damn close during the Industrial Revolution and the early 1900s. And making the assertion that the UK is currently ANYWHERE close to Free Market Capitalism while simultaneously admitting that its a Mixed Economy, is just plain silly. Because for that to be, all or almost all of their economic policies would have to include free market principles. And of course, that's just not the case. Also, did it even occur to you that maybe the reason why the NHS is having funding issues and will apparently continue to in the future is because it's not affordable (which is what I've been partially talking about throughout this thread)?! And adding disqualifiers to cast aside examples that would otherwise not back up your case doesn't help matters. In comparison, I still don't understand why you think Socialism is the future, since it's NEVER worked and has clearly DESTROYED economies and the quality of life for MILLIONS of people throughout history...?!


Gosh - what I wide variety of straws I have to choose from! Up until now, I can only discern two of yours; the claim that the UK is a mixed economy and therefore cannot espouse predominately free market principles (a belief) and the existence of the NHS, which apparently proves that Britain is not rooted in a free market economy (evidence of a kind).
This article, which is actually for 18 year old a-level students is perhaps helpful in this context...

"Basically, there are only three systems. At one extreme we have the free market economy, where there is a very limited role for the government. At the other end we have the command economy, where the government takes virtually total control. As with market structures (with perfect competition and monopoly), these two extremes are highly unrealistic. Just about every economy in the world is a mix of the two, and is, therefore, called a mixed economy. The question is, what is the degree of mix?" [my Italics]
I also NEVER SAID that you "...described the UK as, "entirely rooted in free market capitalism."
You state:
Quote:
...making the assertion that the UK is currently ANYWHERE close to Free Market Capitalism while simultaneously admitting that its a Mixed Economy, is just plain silly. Because for that to be, all or almost all of their economic policies would have to include free market principles.


The latter part of your statement is exactly what I'm stating and I think I've provided a number of examples. The news of NHS cuts yesterday show that the long-term policy of this and any future government is to abolish the NHS. This cannot be done overnight as the public do not agree. Once again, why don't you give me an example from the last 34 years which shows the British government making an economic decision that went against the credo of free market economic policies?

BTW. I do find your repeated references to Socialism a little, er McCarthyesque of late. Surely, by your own criteria, I can't be Socialist as I'm privately insured.

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 13, 2013 3:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 3610
Location: Vancouver, BC
Caputh wrote:
Disco Boy wrote:
Caputh wrote:
Well, if you think it's getting silly, then perhaps we should stop.
All the same, to answer your question, I think that the NHS is a poor example of Thatcherite and post Thatcher "socialist" policies as...
a) it was introduced by the Atlee government in 1948
b) successive governments from Thatcher onwards have been steadily chipping away at it
c) a private option, known as BUPA, exists
d) any government that abolished the NHS would render itself unelectable as it is, as I said above, rather popular
e) the NHS has today reported a funding gap of 30 billion pounds by 2020 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23258962), showing how much the present government (and indeed the other two parties who agreed to cuts of 20 billion pounds in 2010) care for socialized medicine.

Up until yesterday, you could have taken the Royal Mail as an example for a nationalized institution that proves that the British economy is as mixed as you claim it is. However, yesterday it was announced that, as it is making a profit, it is going to be privatized.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23266041

British Rail is probably a better example for you. Privatized in 1997 and after a number of fatal accidents, frequent delays and ticket systems no one could understand, partly re-nationalized in 2005.

Or maybe the education system? The majority of schools being state run (although there are many private ones,too and their numbers increased dramatically during the Thatcher years and thereafter).

However, we did have state run schools in the 19th Century and the Royal Mail was also owned by the state. Therefore how come you describe 19th Century Britain as an entirely free market capitalist economy?

You see, I'm not denying that the UK has a mixed economy - I'm making the point that it is currently far more rooted in free market capitalism to the exclusion of state intervention. This has been the case since the Thatcher years and constitutes a cross-party consensus IMO.


Image


I NEVER described the UK as, "entirely rooted in free market capitalism." But it sure was damn close during the Industrial Revolution and the early 1900s. And making the assertion that the UK is currently ANYWHERE close to Free Market Capitalism while simultaneously admitting that its a Mixed Economy, is just plain silly. Because for that to be, all or almost all of their economic policies would have to include free market principles. And of course, that's just not the case. Also, did it even occur to you that maybe the reason why the NHS is having funding issues and will apparently continue to in the future is because it's not affordable (which is what I've been partially talking about throughout this thread)?! And adding disqualifiers to cast aside examples that would otherwise not back up your case doesn't help matters. In comparison, I still don't understand why you think Socialism is the future, since it's NEVER worked and has clearly DESTROYED economies and the quality of life for MILLIONS of people throughout history...?!


Gosh - what I wide variety of straws I have to choose from! Up until now, I can only discern two of yours; the claim that the UK is a mixed economy and therefore cannot espouse predominately free market principles (a belief) and the existence of the NHS, which apparently proves that Britain is not rooted in a free market economy (evidence of a kind).


It's not a claim. It's a FACT. And the UK IS a Mixed Economy, like most countries.

Caputh wrote:
This article, which is actually for 18 year old a-level students is perhaps helpful in this context...

"Basically, there are only three systems. At one extreme we have the free market economy, where there is a very limited role for the government. At the other end we have the command economy, where the government takes virtually total control. As with market structures (with perfect competition and monopoly), these two extremes are highly unrealistic. Just about every economy in the world is a mix of the two, and is, therefore, called a mixed economy. The question is, what is the degree of mix?" [my Italics]


No, there are NOT basically only three systems. There are MANY different types of economic systems. Here's a list:

American School
Anarchism
Anarcho-capitalism
Anarcho-communism
Autarky
Barter economy
Buddhist economics
Capitalism
Colonialism
Communism
Corporatism
Corporate capitalism
Digital economy
Distributism
Dirigisme
Fascist socialization
Feudalism
Georgism
Green economy
Hydraulic despotism
Inclusive democracy
Information economy
Internet economy
Islamic economics
Japanese System
Knowledge economy
Libertarian communism
Libertarian socialism
Market economy
Market socialism
Marxian economics
Mercantilism
Mixed economy
Mutualism
National Economy
National Socialism
Natural economy
Neo-colonialism
Network economy
Nordic model
Non-property system
Parecon
Participatory economy
Planned economy
PROUTist economy
Self-management
Social Credit
Social market economy
Socialism
Socialist market economy
Syndicalism
Subsistence economy
Traditional economy
Virtual economy

Caputh wrote:
I also NEVER SAID that you "...described the UK as, "entirely rooted in free market capitalism."
You state:

Disco Boy wrote:
...making the assertion that the UK is currently ANYWHERE close to Free Market Capitalism while simultaneously admitting that its a Mixed Economy, is just plain silly. Because for that to be, all or almost all of their economic policies would have to include free market principles.


The above quote of mine was stated AFTER you stated:

However, we did have state run schools in the 19th Century and the Royal Mail was also owned by the state.Therefore how come you describe 19th Century Britain as an entirely free market capitalist economy?

:roll:

Caputh wrote:
The latter part of your statement is exactly what I'm stating and I think I've provided a number of examples. The news of NHS cuts yesterday show that the long-term policy of this and any future government is to abolish the NHS. This cannot be done overnight as the public do not agree. Once again, why don't you give me an example from the last 34 years which shows the British government making an economic decision that went against the credo of free market economic policies?


The only thing you're doing here is contradicting yourself all over the place. But to answer your question AGAIN: the NHS.

Caputh wrote:
BTW. I do find your repeated references to Socialism a little, er McCarthyesque of late. Surely, by your own criteria, I can't be Socialist as I'm privately insured.


YOU were the one that stated a few months back, "Socialism is the future."

_________________
:53 - :57...

"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 4884
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
Ah,
Quote:
the UK IS a Mixed Economy, like most countries.


Ah,
Quote:
there are NOT basically only three systems


Ah, some of the current "basic" global economic systems are e.g.
Quote:
Buddhist economics
Quote:
Hydraulic despotism
Quote:
Japanese System


Ah, the above statements do not contradict each other.

Ah, the 19th Century is
Quote:
currently


Ah, as the NHS was founded in 1948 any free market policies adopted by any government since Thatcher are automatically negated until they abolish the NHS completely.

Ah, the NHS is/is not the same as the US "partly socialized" medical system.

Ah, the above is "compelling evidence".

Ah, although I have no recollection of the fact, I appear to have written the words
Quote:
"Socialism is the future."
a few months ago somewhere on this forum. Unfortunately, those words seem to have disappeared. Still, I'm sure, as you so dislike being "misquoted" that you would never dream of doing it to me, so I am forced to admit that I am paid up Stalinist.

Ah, I thought I saw a chink of light in discussion with you.

Ah, it's disappeared.

Ah, I bet a graphic that I have seen a number of times before will follow this post

Ah, I've just noticed I can't be bothered any more.

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 14, 2013 1:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5775
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
This applies here as well...

Quote:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 14, 2013 8:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 3610
Location: Vancouver, BC
Caputh wrote:
Ah,
Quote:
the UK IS a Mixed Economy, like most countries.


Ah,
Quote:
there are NOT basically only three systems


Ah, some of the current "basic" global economic systems are e.g.
Quote:
Buddhist economics
Quote:
Hydraulic despotism
Quote:
Japanese System


Ah, the above statements do not contradict each other.

Ah, the 19th Century is
Quote:
currently


Ah, as the NHS was founded in 1948 any free market policies adopted by any government since Thatcher are automatically negated until they abolish the NHS completely.

Ah, the NHS is/is not the same as the US "partly socialized" medical system.

Ah, the above is "compelling evidence".

Ah, although I have no recollection of the fact, I appear to have written the words
Quote:
"Socialism is the future."
a few months ago somewhere on this forum. Unfortunately, those words seem to have disappeared. Still, I'm sure, as you so dislike being "misquoted" that you would never dream of doing it to me, so I am forced to admit that I am paid up Stalinist.

Ah, I thought I saw a chink of light in discussion with you.

Ah, it's disappeared.

Ah, I bet a graphic that I have seen a number of times before will follow this post

Ah, I've just noticed I can't be bothered any more.


1. How do they contradict each other? Listing different economic systems and then talking about the fact that most countries utilize a Mixed Economy are TWO entirely different points. There is NO basic economic system. Things like this are complex. And the last time I checked, I was the one who brought up the fact that most countries are Mixed Economies. Actually, I'm betting you didn't even know what one was until we started talking about them several months ago.

2. Yet ANOTHER misquote.

3. Huh?

4. I NEVER said they were same. But they're not that different.

5. Hardly.

6. Is this a joke? You damn well know you said, "Socialism is the future." Don't make me go and find it.

And since I've knocked down every single one of your "points" with OVERWHELMING evidence, if you want to weasel your way out of this one without admitting you're wrong, go for it. Baghdad Bob, is that you?! :roll:

Lastly, please learn to utilize the quote function properly...

tweedle-dumb wrote:


Since it's only an editorial piece, I don't see how so?!

_________________
:53 - :57...

"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 14, 2013 10:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 4884
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
DB's "Overwhelming Evidence" arithmetic (formerly known as "Compelling Evidence" arithmetic) .
Some examples...
1. NHS + British Economy + Mixed Economy = Overwhelming Evidence of (-) Free Market Capitalism
2. Caputh posted "Socialism is the Future" + 0 = Overwhelming Evidence that Caputh posted "Socialism is the Future"
3. (Vaguely insulting picture x 75) + :roll: = Overwhelming Evidence of general validity
4. Very long list of mainly archaic sub-forms of economic systems + complaint about use of quotes function = Overwhelming Evidence of superior knowledge
5. Claim of "Overwhelming Evidence" + Claim of "Overwhelming Evidence" = Overwhelming Evidence.

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 15, 2013 7:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 3610
Location: Vancouver, BC
Caputh wrote:
DB's "Overwhelming Evidence" arithmetic (formerly known as "Compelling Evidence" arithmetic).
Some examples...

1. NHS + British Economy + Mixed Economy = Overwhelming Evidence of (-) Free Market Capitalism


Correct. Because a Free Market Capitalist system involves NO other policies but its own - which is ALL the evidence one would need in this particular case to prove the above claim.

Caputh wrote:
2. Caputh posted "Socialism is the Future" + 0 = Overwhelming Evidence that Caputh posted "Socialism is the Future"


I can't seem to find it. BUT you definitely stated it. And my two below posts show where you AND I both added sarcastic comments about it:

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=19887&p=568566&hilit=socialism+socialism+socialism+is+the+future#p568566

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=9955&p=564901&hilit=socialism#p564901

Caputh wrote:
3. (Vaguely insulting picture x 75) + :roll: = Overwhelming Evidence of general validity


Huh?

Caputh wrote:
4. Very long list of mainly archaic sub-forms of economic systems + complaint about use of quotes function = Overwhelming Evidence of superior knowledge


A very long list of economic systems + the fact that most countries are Mixed Economies = proof that there are clearly NOT three "basic" economic systems.

Caputh wrote:
5. Claim of "Overwhelming Evidence" + Claim of "Overwhelming Evidence" = Overwhelming Evidence.


Your denial of my overwhelming evidence + my providing of actual overwhelming evidence = the existence of actual overwhelming evidence that you refuse to admit exists.

_________________
:53 - :57...

"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 4884
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
They do say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery :wink:

Interesting how you have previously stated:

Disco Boy wrote:
We live in a Mixed Economy (a mix of Socialism/Capitalism).


and...

Disco Boy wrote:
However, the problem is when too many socialist policies are inserted into Capitalism or in other words, a Mixed Economy (which is the economic system that many world countries have established, including the US and Canada)


and you now state:

Disco Boy wrote:
A very long list of economic systems + the fact that most countries are Mixed Economies = proof that there are clearly NOT three "basic" economic systems.


However, it is refreshing to see that you now believe that Mercantalism, which I had believed extinct since 18th Century Absolutist France, is alive and kicking.

Also since, in the 19th Century, Great Britain indulged in:
Disco Boy wrote:
Colonialism


surely it must have been a Mixed Economy, rather than a completely Free Market Capitalist Economy according to your new criteria?


I found the statement:

Disco Boy wrote:
I can't seem to find it. BUT you definitely stated it. And my two below posts show where you AND I both added sarcastic comments about it:


regarding me having posted the legendary words "Socialism is the future" particularly amusing as the two links you gave reveal you saying...

Disco Boy wrote:
I don't think you're seeing things clearly. And that's because I don't have a record.

But then again, socialism is the future!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :shock:


and...

Disco Boy wrote:
Who needs rights?! Socialism rules!


"Are you or have you ever been a Communist, Disco Boy?"

Not even McCarthy accused people of saying things that he had actually said himself.

As regards my posts...
Caputh wrote:
I di[s}agree that Disco Boy's record is broken; it's just very scratched and he needs a new stylus.

Caputh wrote:
I don't know why you think I'm an Obama fan , DB - he's not nearly enough of a socialist for me, in fact according to my criteria he isn't a socialist at all! :wink:
On a more serious note...

In the first I can detect little socialist ideology, sarcastic or otherwise.
To the second post; I assume you've heard of irony, DB. That's right, not goldy, bronzey or coppery....
(Tip: the giveaway are the words "On a more serious note" and :wink:)

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 16, 2013 7:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 3610
Location: Vancouver, BC
Caputh wrote:
They do say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery :wink:

Interesting how you have previously stated:

Disco Boy wrote:
We live in a Mixed Economy (a mix of Socialism/Capitalism).


and...

Disco Boy wrote:
However, the problem is when too many socialist policies are inserted into Capitalism or in other words, a Mixed Economy (which is the economic system that many world countries have established, including the US and Canada)


and you now state:

Disco Boy wrote:
A very long list of economic systems + the fact that most countries are Mixed Economies = proof that there are clearly NOT three "basic" economic systems.


Especially since you're taking my quotes OUT OF CONTEXT, how in the world is that a contradiction?! :roll:

Caputh wrote:
However, it is refreshing to see that you now believe that Mercantalism, which I had believed extinct since 18th Century Absolutist France, is alive and kicking.


Where did I state that?! :roll:

Caputh wrote:
Also since, in the 19th Century, Great Britain indulged in:
Disco Boy wrote:
Colonialism


surely it must have been a Mixed Economy, rather than a completely Free Market Capitalist Economy according to your new criteria?


ONE. MORE. TIME. FOR. THE. WORLD.:

Listing different economic systems and then talking about the fact that most countries utilize a Mixed Economy are TWO entirely different points. There is NO basic economic system. Things like this are complex. And the last time I checked, I was the one who brought up the fact that most countries are Mixed Economies. Actually, I'm betting you didn't even know what one was until we started talking about them several months ago.

Caputh wrote:
I found the statement:

Disco Boy wrote:
I can't seem to find it. BUT you definitely stated it. And my two below posts show where you AND I both added sarcastic comments about it:


regarding me having posted the legendary words "Socialism is the future" particularly amusing as the two links you gave reveal you saying...

Disco Boy wrote:
I don't think you're seeing things clearly. And that's because I don't have a record.

But then again, socialism is the future!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :shock:


and...

Disco Boy wrote:
Who needs rights?! Socialism rules!


"Are you or have you ever been a Communist, Disco Boy?"

Not even McCarthy accused people of saying things that he had actually said himself.


Ok, now I know you're definitely full of shit. I bet my life that you stated it. The sarcastic comments were AFTER you stated it, hence why I reposted our quotes in the two other threads.

Caputh wrote:
As regards my posts...

I don't know why you think I'm an Obama fan , DB - he's not nearly enough of a socialist for me, in fact according to my criteria he isn't a socialist at all! :wink:
On a more serious note...

In the first I can detect little socialist ideology, sarcastic or otherwise.
To the second post; I assume you've heard of irony, DB. That's right, not goldy, bronzey or coppery....
(Tip: the giveaway are the words "On a more serious note" and :wink:)


When you stated, "Socialism is the future", you gave NO indication that you were being sarcastic - it wasn't until after that statement that you started to be...

_________________
:53 - :57...

"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 12:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 4884
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
Dear DB -
It pains me to think that I might have quoted you out of context. But at least I didn't make up quotes.
If I ever said "Socialism Is the future" why don't you post the link and surprise me? Or are you afraid of risking your life?
Up until now, the only evidence is you saying it, presumably sarcastically.
As we are both aware this forum has a "search" function. Apart from our recent discussion of this phrase (i.e. the last week or so), such a search turns up no reference to me saying what you say I said. Also,I don't think you will find any edits to my posts made more than, say, two days after I made the original post.
You see, unlike your sweet self, I have no oracular ability whatsoever, finding myself painfully unable to view future events and therefore generally avoid making predictions like "Socialism is the future". Thus, unless I'm suffering from amnesia, I can, with some measure of assurance, claim that your "quote" of my words is bollocks.

If you want to know my view on state intervention/socialism I posted this while talking about alternatives to the stock market/capitalism on March 03, 2009:
Caputh wrote:
State intervention and control would also seem doubtful, as then you have a group of politicians running the economy with even less practical experience than those now controlling it. Neoliberalism was what lead us into this in the first place. The traditional Marxist alternative of no money, no stock market seems impossibly utopian. The East German concept of "socialism in reality" has proved an utter failure.
I must admit, I have no real solutions either, but then neither do the politicians. For the last 70 years we've been swinging between Keynes and Neoliberalism and now we're back to Keynes. Of the two, I prefer Keynes, as I believe that the concept that the wealthy will somehow spread their wealth around is basically flawed, not because the wealthy are necessarily selfish, but because they are convinced they need the money. However, I am also not completely impressed by the track record of Keynsian economics.
What we need is some suggestions for radical change in the system that don't fall back on tried and failed recipes; even if it is blue sky thinking, it would be interesting if someone (a non Marxist, socialist or whatever) came up for a concept for actually abolishing the stock market and replacing it with something a little less prone to nervousness.

(BTW the "non" in the sentence "a non Marxist, socialist or whatever" is meant to include socialists.)

I'm afraid I don't read the above as saying that "Socialism is the future" and if you do, I can merely say it was not my intended message.
But don't worry, I don't want you to kill yourself.

Also my mind-reading abilities, unlike yours, are minimal, so I am unable to state with any measure of certainty what you knew a number of months ago, when you started referring to "Mixed Economies". For all I know, they were the first words you said. So I think it would be unwise for me to bet that you dug up the term to appear as though you knew something about the subject some months ago.

That economics is a complex field is something of which I am aware, which is why your use of one example (the NHS) and refusal to provide any other examples to define the UK's economy worried me slightly.

Your wonderful list (did you compose it yourself? If so, well done!) is not, strictly speaking, relevant for a discussion of modern global economies, (which is what we were talking about, right?) as some of the economic forms are a little, er, outdated, some have never been applied, some are economic policies and most of the others are sub forms (whilst not being synonymous) of either free market economics or socialism (examples which can be argued for the latter being: Anarcho-communism, Communism (at least today), Market socialism, Marxian economics, Nordic Model, Parecon, (Participatory economy is the same thing), Planned Economy, Proutist economy and Socialism (obviously)).

All the same, this banter, although merry, has little to do with the actual topic of this thread, which you, after all, started. Have you noticed that everyone else has appeared to have lost interest?

Perhaps we could tear strips of each other talking about the role of patients' and families' decisions vs doctors' decisions on treatment in private vs state-run medical systems instead?

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 10:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5775
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
He's tried pulling that shit on me too. The guy can't prove his way out of a paper bag, but he can sure pose.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 7:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 3610
Location: Vancouver, BC
Caputh wrote:
Dear DB -
It pains me to think that I might have quoted you out of context. But at least I didn't make up quotes.
If I ever said "Socialism Is the future" why don't you post the link and surprise me? Or are you afraid of risking your life?
Up until now, the only evidence is you saying it, presumably sarcastically.
As we are both aware this forum has a "search" function. Apart from our recent discussion of this phrase (i.e. the last week or so), such a search turns up no reference to me saying what you say I said. Also,I don't think you will find any edits to my posts made more than, say, two days after I made the original post.
You see, unlike your sweet self, I have no oracular ability whatsoever, finding myself painfully unable to view future events and therefore generally avoid making predictions like "Socialism is the future". Thus, unless I'm suffering from amnesia, I can, with some measure of assurance, claim that your "quote" of my words is bollocks.

If you want to know my view on state intervention/socialism I posted this while talking about alternatives to the stock market/capitalism on March 03, 2009:
Caputh wrote:
State intervention and control would also seem doubtful, as then you have a group of politicians running the economy with even less practical experience than those now controlling it. Neoliberalism was what lead us into this in the first place. The traditional Marxist alternative of no money, no stock market seems impossibly utopian. The East German concept of "socialism in reality" has proved an utter failure.
I must admit, I have no real solutions either, but then neither do the politicians. For the last 70 years we've been swinging between Keynes and Neoliberalism and now we're back to Keynes. Of the two, I prefer Keynes, as I believe that the concept that the wealthy will somehow spread their wealth around is basically flawed, not because the wealthy are necessarily selfish, but because they are convinced they need the money. However, I am also not completely impressed by the track record of Keynsian economics.
What we need is some suggestions for radical change in the system that don't fall back on tried and failed recipes; even if it is blue sky thinking, it would be interesting if someone (a non Marxist, socialist or whatever) came up for a concept for actually abolishing the stock market and replacing it with something a little less prone to nervousness.

(BTW the "non" in the sentence "a non Marxist, socialist or whatever" is meant to include socialists.)

I'm afraid I don't read the above as saying that "Socialism is the future" and if you do, I can merely say it was not my intended message.
But don't worry, I don't want you to kill yourself.


STOP lying and can the hyperbolic BS. I know for a FACT you stated it. Otherwise, I wouldn't have made sarcastic remarks about it in the links I provided in my previous post. Again, the reason why I haven't posted your quote is simply because I can't find it or that you deleted it. :roll:

Caputh wrote:
Also my mind-reading abilities, unlike yours, are minimal, so I am unable to state with any measure of certainty what you knew a number of months ago, when you started referring to "Mixed Economies". For all I know, they were the first words you said. So I think it would be unwise for me to bet that you dug up the term to appear as though you knew something about the subject some months ago.

That economics is a complex field is something of which I am aware, which is why your use of one example (the NHS) and refusal to provide any other examples to define the UK's economy worried me slightly.

Your wonderful list (did you compose it yourself? If so, well done!) is not, strictly speaking, relevant for a discussion of modern global economies, (which is what we were talking about, right?) as some of the economic forms are a little, er, outdated, some have never been applied, some are economic policies and most of the others are sub forms (whilst not being synonymous) of either free market economics or socialism (examples which can be argued for the latter being: Anarcho-communism, Communism (at least today), Market socialism, Marxian economics, Nordic Model, Parecon, (Participatory economy is the same thing), Planned Economy, Proutist economy and Socialism (obviously)).

All the same, this banter, although merry, has little to do with the actual topic of this thread, which you, after all, started. Have you noticed that everyone else has appeared to have lost interest?

Perhaps we could tear strips of each other talking about the role of patients' and families' decisions vs doctors' decisions on treatment in private vs state-run medical systems instead?


SON. OF. ONE. MORE. TIME. FOR. THE. WORLD.:

Listing different economic systems and then talking about the fact that most countries utilize a Mixed Economy are TWO entirely different points. There is NO basic economic system. Things like this are complex. And the last time I checked, I was the one who brought up the fact that most countries are Mixed Economies. Actually, I'm betting you didn't even know what one was until we started talking about them several months ago.

Also and AGAIN, because Free Market Capitalism involves NO other policies but its own, the NHS is ALL the evidence one would need in this particular case to disprove your claim.

tweedle-dumb wrote:
He's tried pulling that shit on me too. The guy can't prove his way out of a paper bag, but he can sure pose.


Image

POT. KETTLE. BLACK.

This coming from someone who hasn't proven a god damn claim in his ENTIRE life.

_________________
:53 - :57...

"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Last edited by Disco Boy on Wed Jul 17, 2013 7:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 7:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5775
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
I proved that Ron Paul didn't get 10 million votes, Ayn Rands book wasn't even on an bestseller of all time book list and pretty much that you are almost always wrong most of the time.

I've also proven that Ron Paul is tied to and accepted donations from White Supremecist leader Don Black, posed for photo ops with him and that NSA spying enabler and top campagn funder Peter Theil.


What have you proven, other than to earn the contempt from the majority of the forum.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 8:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 3610
Location: Vancouver, BC
tweedle-dumb wrote:
I proved that Ron Paul didn't get 10 million votes...


That was NOT a point of contention because I NEVER claimed he received 10 million votes. I stated that he would've received about that many Presidential election votes if he had won the Republican nomination at their convention last year.

tweedle-dumb wrote:
...Ayn Rands book wasn't even on an bestseller of all time book list...


No, that's NOT what you did. Ayn Rand's book (Atlas Shrugged) WAS on a best-seller list (as well as many of her other novels). All you did was point out that it wasn't the biggest seller of all time, like I mistakenly posted. But I corrected that error.

tweedle-dumb wrote:
...and pretty much that you are almost always wrong most of the time.


POT. KETTLE. BLACK.

tweedle-dumb wrote:
I've also proven that Ron Paul is tied to and accepted donations from White Supremecist leader Don Black, posed for photo ops with him and that NSA spying enabler and top campagn funder Peter Theil.


You haven't proven SHIT. ALL of your above points has been thoroughly analyzed and I've given reasonable explanations based on solid evidence contradicting and/or disproving your BS claims. But of course, you refuse to admit it.

tweedle-dumb wrote:
What have you proven, other than to earn the contempt from the majority of the forum.


The majority of the Z forum do NOT hold me in contempt, you delusional idiot. :roll:

_________________
:53 - :57...

"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 8:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5775
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
You claimed that he was going to get 10 million votes. He got 2 million.

Regarding my debunking of your claims that Ayn Rands book was the all time #1 bestseller ever - yes I did.


Regarding Ron Pauls ties to a white supremecy leader and the creator of Palantir, the company behind the NSA's spying program - proven - Google Ron Paul and Don Black, then Google Ron Paul and Peter Theil.

Checkmate you lose. Give it up. You've lost before you even started to play.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 8:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 11:58 pm
Posts: 13142
Location: Home of The Mondavi Center.
How about a good game of checkers? :|

_________________
I'm getting larger as I walk away.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 8:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5775
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
King me :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 8:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 3610
Location: Vancouver, BC
tweedle-dumb wrote:
You claimed that he was going to get 10 million votes. He got 2 million.


That wasn't my exact claim.

tweedle-dumb wrote:
Regarding my debunking of your claims that Ayn Rands book was the all time #1 bestseller ever - yes I did.


I already corrected my error. So that does NOT count.

tweedle-dumb wrote:
Regarding Ron Pauls ties to a white supremecy leader and the creator of Palantir, the company behind the NSA's spying program - proven - Google Ron Paul and Don Black, then Google Ron Paul and Peter Theil.

Checkmate you lose. Give it up. You've lost before you even started to play.


ONE. MORE. TIME. FOR. THE. WORLD.:

You haven't proven SHIT. ALL of your above points has been thoroughly analyzed and I've given reasonable explanations based on solid evidence contradicting and/or disproving your BS claims. But of course, you refuse to admit it.

_________________
:53 - :57...

"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 8:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5775
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
How about a bored game...

I sunk your battleship

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 8:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 11:58 pm
Posts: 13142
Location: Home of The Mondavi Center.
How about thurmo nuclear war?

No more war games.

Imagine.

No more war? :idea:

_________________
I'm getting larger as I walk away.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 8:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5775
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
MOUSETRAP!!!

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 8:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5775
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
Yes Disco Douche, it was your claim that Ron Paul was going to get 10 million votes. He got 2 million. You were wrong, as is almost always the case.


I knocked his block off

Image



wait, this is a health care thread...and Disco Douche was proven wrong here too.

Takes a steady hand and steady nerves... :lol: :wink:

Image



the privatized system version...
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 197 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group