Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr House
There's no reason that would be ironic.
In any case, the regulatory climate is tighter and more inefficient in China than in the US. it's not laissez-faire and the problems with it (and with 19th-century America) have to do with the stage of development it's in rather than the amount of control the government has in the economy.
|
It doesn't matter what the reasons are for the current situation. I talked about the result. The result is ultracapitalism in large parts. (At least in those regions that matter economically)
The European countries never claimed to be communist in any way in the 19th century, thats where the irony arises from. A communist country today (and may it be by name only) hosts some of the worst sorts of ultracapitalism.
Quote:
|
If you wanna see an example of the ultra-capitalism seen in America and Europe in the 19th century, look a little south to the city-states of Hong Kong, Macau and Singapore (And notice how successful those places are).
|
Where did I say that China can not be successful therefore? Even though I do not know what Singapore has to do with China, it's right that those acquired parts like Hong Kong and Macau are different. I don't know the situation in Macau, but Hong Kong has a high grade of autonomic law and as important law enforcement.
But when we are making those historic parallels, I am already eager to see if in China this ultracapitalism will climax in the formation of truly independent unions as well, that will take up a real fight against it, one that really changes the country.
That would be even more ironic in fact. A workers revolution against the ugly face of capitalism in a "communist" country. I am really sorry if you can't see the potential irony in such a scenario.