What's wrong with less concentrated wealth? Do you believe in "special
people" or something?
On 06/09/2015 06:32 AM, [email protected] [FairfieldLife] wrote:
There are basicaly two types of socialist policies.
'Pro-investment socialist policies', and 'Pro-consumption
socialist policies'.
'Pro-investment socialist policies' create a return greater
than the money put in it. For example, improved
infrastructure benefits everyone down to the lowest
blue-coller worker. For instance, Gen. Colin Powel in an
interview said he didn't spend a cent on his college
education. It's an one time investment by the government and
the returns that benefit the country are greater in the long
term.
'Pro-consumption socialist policies' are dangerous. They
drain the treasury and bankrupt the country. You saw that in
argentina where they simply distributed things to people, in
the form of freebies and populist policies. The country
became bankrupt and the military took over.
You know the routine. Socialism is the good cop, capitalism
is the bad cop. You need both to run the show.
Both, Marx and Market got it wrong.
This is what economic commentator Gurumurthy has to say on
this, Quote
"Both Socialists and capitalists were wrong in thinking that
big was fitter to survive and small had no chance. It proved
that actually it was the other way round.Whether it is the
free market US or the Socialist market China, it is small
businesses that produce most jobs and sustain the economy.
Now, see how Socialist theories destroyed family farms and
tiny businesses.
Chayanov Right, not Lenin
In Russia and and China, which nearly fully Socialised their
economies, those at the base of the pyramid were robbed of
their economic activities. To illustrate, farm families lost
their lands and self-employed, their jobs. Both were given
government jobs. In Russia! , Alexander Chayanov, a sensible
Socialist, who argued family farming was more efficient and
economic and protested against Socialising it, was first
incarcerated by Lenin and finally shot dead by Stalin.
Chayanov regarded family economics as distinct and different
from both capitalist and Socialist. Several decades after
Chayanov's death many economic thinkers of the world now see
how right he was and how wrong both Socialist and capitalist
economists were.
While Socialist Russia had collectivised 80 per cent of its
agrarian economy, in de-socialised Russia now, Dacha
(household) gardens account for just 3 per cent of arable
land, but grow an astounding 50 per cent by value of the
food eaten by Russians. Government statistics (2000)say 35
million plus families (71 per cent of Russia's population)
engage in Dacha gardening which provide 92 per cent of
Russia's potato, 77 per cent of vegetables, 87 per cent of
berries and fruits, 59 per cent of meat and 49 per cent of
milk. This is neither Socialist nor capitalist. Just family
economics." unquote
--- <noozguru@...> wrote :
Billionaire Cartier Owner Sees Wealth Gap Fueling Social Unrest
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-08/billionaire-cartier-owner-sees-wealth-gap-fueling-social-unrest
I suppose there will be some here who see this as "Marxist Claptrap". :-D
