Louis Project writes: >> The real problem is disincentives to invest. What do you do when >> there is no incentive to invest, such as was the case during the >> 1930s? Granted, the post-WWII economy has made such problems appear a >> thing of the past--at least for the USA, Western Europe and Japan >> (and more lately the coast of China, parts of India and in places >> like Thailand--even if fitfully so.) >> >> But what are you supposed to do if you are in Africa? The only >> investments that are possible are those that are dictated by social >> need rather than private profit. But to create a state that >> challenges private profit is to risk coups or invasion, as Burkina >> Faso and Angola demonstrate. >> >> If the rest of the world would be allowed to invest on the basis of >> social need rather than private profit, it would eventually create a >> powerful dynamic against capitalism. If the capitalist class would >> simply accept this in good libertarian fashion as freedom of choice, >> then everything would be fine and dandy. However, they have shown >> over and over again that they do not respect individual choice and >> want to force their philosophy on the rest of the world. That is why >> they have to be flushed down the toilet.
I would like to understand your point, but I am not getting it. Why do you think Africa is different than all of the positive regions you mentioned? At one point you are saying too little capitalism, and at the other point too much capitalism. David Shemano
