smallpox

No, trade is lacking at best when the state runs it.
Shopping for groceries in a free market

Government cheese when some genius thinks it'd make economic sense to put the state in control of supplying food

The Lying Dutchman

nice photo, but it doesnt prove a point. just because some states fuck up industries doesnt make nationalization on itself a bad thing. sure i could google for snapshots of suffering that comes from private industries, but that wouldnt prove all privatization wrong either right?

gs001

I believe the most possible invader will not be USA but China.
we Chinese will never forget what you have done to Chinese descendants
in 1998, unfortunately, at that time, we were too weak to take any action.
but from now on, if such things happen again,
we will let you know who you are.
°Ù¶ÈͼƬËÑË÷_98Ó¡ÄáÅÅ»ª

chaochao

in unusual period gov can use unusual ways, great US president Franklin Roosevelt ever used some socialism economic methods to recover US economy and released social conflict when WWII! He was criticized badly by the media and his rivals at that moment, but the history proved he was right, he is really a great stateman! His implement of some socialism didn't change US's constitution bad, today, CCP implements some capitalism also can't change our constitution bad but more practical and suitable for China's actual situation.

My mom and dad both went through the terrible culture revolution (an entire mistake by Chairman Mao) from 1966 to 1976, the deepest impression left them was hunger and poverty and fight! They don't know too much about the exact political theory, the only thing they often remind me is that today's peaceful and abounding life desn't come easily, we must value it! When I told them about the western democracy, they just said "we don't care that, we just see they like to send troops to other countries and killing, they ever did that in China!" I think that is the most common opinion towards western countries among chinese from 40-60 years old, regarding the young people, i think westerners have known very well from the recent torch relay!

All your views are from your understanding of democracy and china, but most people here consider questions from our perspective. No right or wrong, just the different of culture and history!

__________________
借我三千虎贲，复我浩荡中华! 汉旗指处，望尘逃遁！敢犯我中华天威者，虽远必诛!

smallpox

No, it's always like this, because as you see, in a free market, what is demanded is supplied. The market makes its own equilibrium between the two. A state on the other hand has no way to keep up with market changes, equilibriums except of course in the case of natural monopolies with high fixed costs and low marginal costs.
It's not just one state that couldn't replace the free market with centralization, but every single state that attempted to do so failed. Again, you're either capitalist or you're North Korea.

smallpox

FDR was not a socialist, he adopted a Keynesian school of economics, which is seen by everyone now has a form of liberal subsidy to jump start employments. FDR had no intention of keeping the policy of his New Deal for more than was needed until employment came back; so not socialism.

That is a pretty generalized and uneducated opinion of everybody from the giant contingency that is "western". I never went abroad to kill anyone

Growth doesn't care about your history or your different cultures. It only cares about the liberalism in place, which makes it a social axiom since it is the only way to growth and almost everyone except post-modernists want to grow. Look at SE Asia in 1997.

The Lying Dutchman

the situation is not as black as white as you paint it. there is no reason to believe that a state cannot take charge of an industry, failure exist in government mismanagement aswell as private mismanagement. OPEC countries like Venezuela have always had the benefits of controlling the very market and have done so for political reasons in the past. we are so hard for oil that it matters shit wether they are in private hands or state hands in terms of sheer trade. if you have a controllable elite on the other hand you yourself can influence the oil market better.
in the end it is wishfull thinking to believe the global economy is build up by private industries and that governments stay out of these matters. world trade is still very state centred.

smallpox

OPEC? That's your example of a working state ran resource?!
The Iraq-Iran war? The major losses of profits during the 1973 energy crises? The instability all across the Middle East due to its resource curse? It's not because the resource is inelastic in the short run that it is invincible to mis-management. It matters a great deal whether a firm is competitive or an artificial monopoly -- especially to the consumer. Let's take steel. In a competitive market, steal would be traded amongst various form, each getting 0 economic profits, making steel more affordable to more people. More affordable steel encourages construction and development amongst other things. This firm now runs with the market, it employs people and makes a profit to investors, further encouraging development. Now, a house crash means that the demand for steel decreases. As the demand decreases, so does the price and automatically the firm decides to produce less (unwillingly answering to the shift in demand almost instantaneously).
Now let's make steel a government monopoly. The government has two choices for its market -- derive a profit or become a benevolent social leader. To make a profit, the government would cut production of steel to to sell it at its marginal demand. This would make steel expensive and housing development would not be encouraged. The benevolent leader would like to reach a market equilibrium, but considering the constant shifts in world prices would not be able to keep up. In all his benevolence for the little guy, he would probably make steal cheaper. That would encourage development, but the supply of steal would not be able to fulfill that demand. And so you have under development.
Conclusion, the state is not a good means to reach market equilibrium and its actions of supposed benevolence often hurt those who are supposed to benefit from it. In this case, the poor can't house themselves due to a shortage of steel.
It's not wishful thinking that global economy runs on the free market. It is the case. Private markets make up the vast majority of economic behaviours world wide. State ran economics is mercantilism, which has never reached a fraction of the current world market.

Demosthenese

I completely agree. The probability of Indonesia going against a major world power, during a time when they are completely fine without defying rules set in place to protect them and nearby countries, is pretty damn close to zero. Am I saying it wont happen? No. However, Indonesia is not run by people who would commit political suicide, so we have no need to wonder if defiance is in the near future by this country.

The Lying Dutchman

you forget that while for us free trade has always benefitted, in latin-america it has not created wealth. these countries are not resource-poor, but due to the fact that an entire industry lies in the hands of an elite that dont distribute the winnings where they should belong. logical consequence: deprivatization, and it is happenning everywhere in latin-america due to these reasons. it is their own valid choice to do so and we have no business in it.

as for global economics, most states support transnational companies financially so they can pay taxes in these countries. there is a great benefit of having companies abroad which why states will always be involved in this.