On Aug 20, 7:18 am, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote:
> It's not my take on it, BB. The economist Adam Smith coined the phrase and
> it was an essential principle of Thatcherite free market Conservatism here
> in the 80s. It's about as capitalist as an ideology can get.
OK
> > The general idea is that a free market
> > performs better as it adjusts to real-life, real-time changes in
> > setting value.. I admit that this concept might be complicated by
> > several factors in the modern trading environment, and manipulated by
> > people who have market moving abilities.
>
> In other words: the more state control you remove, the more inequitable the
> economy. So we agree.
We are not on the same page yet, but I appreciate you trying. I guess
I am saying it is not a perfect system.
I think regulation is necessary, (myself) and just to let you know,
I hate the word "inequitable" in the way you are using it. We will
get into that later.
> That's so simplistic, I don't even know where to start or if you're just
> yanking my chain.
We are very dar apart on our positions Ian, this is bound to happen.
And yes, it is simplistic. I like simplistic. It suits my harware,
sorry. No, I am not yanking your chain, I am trying to break through
your entrenched thinking about these things.
>The first point, I suppose, is that pure capitalism as we
> understand it has never existed anywhere. Much like there's never been true
> communist state that held true to Leninist ideology, there's never been a
> truly Smithsonian capitalist state. It just doesn't work like that; it's
> shades of grey, not black and white.
Point taken. I get carried away.
> Just like the United States hasn't embraced socialism under Obama, China has
> not embraced capitalism under Wen Jiabao.
True, but compared to traditional communism in the past in china,
There are many more capitalist "ventures" in the country. It makes
more money Ian. Money is good. It is a tool. It can be misused,
often is, but intrinsically it is not bad. Money is our friend. The
more you have, the more you can give to your disadvantaged. (provided
the nasty government leaders does that)
> Yes, of course it's about making money; specifically it's about making money
> and society -- specifically those less fortunate -- be damned.
See, I don't get that. They get assistance. They can make money too.
>It's greed
> pursued as a primitive self-serving goal without thought or consideration
> for the wider effect on social and economic conditions, and then,
> ultimately, yourself through the inequities you have perpetuated.
It is not without "any" consideration for the social effects, perhaps
not enough for your philosophy, but there are great benefits you keep
ignoring in favor of this perceived inequality. Everyone is not
equal. Never will be. Those who make more money? So? If they pay
taxes, they help.
> If you do not create a fair platform for the disavantaged to contribute,
> then what hope for society becoming better and fairer?
I don't know what you mean. Your definition of "fair" is wildly
different from mine. Platform? Everyone has an opportunity. Yes,
some have advantages, such is life. I wonder if you despise
advantages?
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
