PeakOil is You
Inequality (US Vs. Europe)
Re: Inequality (US Vs. Europe)
by Nickel » Sun 21 Dec 2008, 19:09:31
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('graham', 'I')ts interesting to note that in Argentina reform of land registry laws has not resulted in the desired increase in credit supply to new land owners, primarily as the deeds are owned by slum dwellers not deemed credit worthy. Having a stable income seems to be more important- for example, the development of micro finance is having more of an impact than reforming land registry laws.
So you're saying that you're surprised that establishment of a land registry hasn't turned depressed property no bank wants into a credit boon? Seriously?
-
Nickel - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1927
- Joined: Tue 26 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
- Location: The Canada of America
Re: Inequality (US Vs. Europe)
by Nickel » Sun 21 Dec 2008, 19:38:58
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Javaman', 'Y')ou haven't explained why capitalist countries do better than comunist countries
Do they? Are you sure? The United States spent forty years after WWII living off the fact that its principal competitors in Europe and Japan were under reconstruction and economically beholden to it, and the twenty subsequent years living off their credit like some unemployed uncle flopped on your couch, and the result is a financial crisis that just might rival the Great Depression. If the Soviet Union had lived a trillion dollars a year beyond its means, hey...
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Javaman', 'I')f West Germany and South Korea really were doing well because they had "help" from the US, why weren't Eastern Europe and North Korea not doing better with the "help" they had from large communist nations? And again, why the Iron Curtain and Berlin Wall?
Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but... how many millions of people did the United States lose in World War II? How many Stalingrads were fought on its soil? How many of its cities endured three-year sieges like Leningrad? How many hundreds of miles did its armies have to retreat, leaving behind infrastructure that was used against it, and finally destroyed on the retreat of the foe? All things considered, the marvel isn't that the Soviet Union and its bloc did so poorly after the war, but that in fact they did so well. They managed to go toe-to-toe with us for forty-five years. They became a nuclear superpower, built the first ICBM, they put the first satellite in orbit, the human being in space, sent the first object to the Moon, built the first space station, all while rebuilding from a conflict the likes and scope of which the United States has never seen on its own soil. In truth, it's astounding they managed all that. Unquestionably the paranoia of their political system was objectionable but that's not automatically part-and-parcel of a centralized economy or socialist ideas about managing the wealth of a society. Confronted with the resources available to the US and its Western allies, they faced a considerable bleed-off of labour in Berlin, and made regrettable decisions in dealing with it. The United States makes such policies, attempting to erect a similar, if legislative, wall around Cuba, for example.
Now I have repeatedly responded to your questions. I would like you to address mine. And those were:
- why some communist countries were better off than others
- why they were better off than free-market economies in the Third World
- why the Soviet Union gave us a run for our money for 50 years as the other superpower, surpassing the might of all free market economies but one, and looks on the verge of doing so again
- why China, a planned economy, is in a position to lend money to Western economies (the United States in particular), and a creditor to free market economy debtor nations
We'd all like to know why capitalism was not the automatic road to affluence, why planned economies can end up effectively owning the great free market ones, and how there can be actual disparities within systems you're so sure are absolutes in black and white. Please enlighten us.
Last edited by Nickel on Sun 21 Dec 2008, 20:07:09, edited 1 time in total.
-
Nickel - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1927
- Joined: Tue 26 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
- Location: The Canada of America
Re: Inequality (US Vs. Europe)
by Nickel » Sun 21 Dec 2008, 19:48:45
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Javaman', 'I')f I take some of my savings (money I didn't spend) and risk it by using it to start a small business, are you saying that I shouldn't hire any one who is flat broke and who can't bring anything into the deal except some time and labor?
This is a method of wealth and resource redistribution; it works regardless of whether it's being done by a private concern (you, for instance) or the state. You've been seeing things in black and white; I'm saying it's the same process. The only question is to whom the benefits accrue, and to what degree. It would be hard to object in principle to what you're suggesting, the way you've spun it; but the very same interaction could be phrased to imply that you were exploiting someone to engage in activities he would not ordinarily pursue because of desperation -- it could be just as easily construed as self-interested exploitation of others. The United Fruit Company, the East India Company, and Tony Soprano, for example, would be all-to-pleased to characterize their "small businesses" in the manner you have. Again, it's not about absolutes. That exploitation of an inequality of advantage is being engaged in is, in truth, unavoidable; the only question remains, is it being done to an objectionable extent... the "99 get 1 each; one gets 200" example used in this thread previously, for instance... as opposed to "everyone gets 2; one gets 20".
-
Nickel - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1927
- Joined: Tue 26 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
- Location: The Canada of America
