Country Rankings 2004-2005

it's also worth noting that finland's education system rocks.

link:

quote:

---

In Finland, 99.7 % of the age group complete compulsory schooling, which means that Finland has one of the lowest dropout rates in the world.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
And common to all five Nordic countries is a high rate of unionized work force.

---

1. unions = communism = threat to his ability to exercise unfettered control and discipline over workers

2. higher wages = more middle class = more people to buy his cars = more compliant workers who complain less about alienating work because at least they're paid well = more successful capitalism = easier to keep those 'communistic' unions at bay

The Nordic nations listed above have very high rates of unionized work force compared with un-solidarnosc Britain, Canada and the United States, the three most politically conservative nations where child poverty and infant mortality are also highest[...among developed nations].

From the French revolution, political conservatism, fascism, liberalism, communism and several diverse theories of socialism were born. Which of them are you saying that Singapore doesn't subscribe to ?.

[ 14 October 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]

Although now that you mention it, Singapore does suspiciously lack two things present in many of the other countries you cited: free trade unions and competitive electoral politics. I don't know whether you consider either of those important or not.

Methinks if Henry Ford were alive today, he and his political philosophy would be a better fit for Singapore than Sweden.

That being said, all of the places still capitalist countries, which was actually my point. The "social democracies" you cite just happen to subscribe to a less mean and ruinous variant thereof. Singapore though with some troublesome illiberal tendencies.

[ 14 October 2004: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

Methinks if Henry Ford were alive today, he and his political philosophy would be a better fit for Singapore than Sweden.

---

Perhaps rather than referring to social democracy it might be better to talk about having a large degree of state intervention in the economy.

From what I understand Singapore has invested massively in public education and infrastructure...telecommunications, public transit etc.

In the USA, its state investment in massive military projects that keeps the economy humming along. Of course many would argue (like most babblers) that the USA would do much better if the money spent on the military were spent on peaceful civilian projects.

quote:

---

Originally posted by robbie_dee:

Methinks if Henry Ford were alive today, he and his political philosophy would be a better fit for Singapore than Sweden.

That being said, all of the places still capitalist countries, which was actually my point. The "social democracies" you cite just happen to subscribe to a less mean and ruinous variant thereof. Singapore though with some troublesome illiberal tendencies.

[ 14 October 2004: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

---

That's too funny because the hawks in the States have expressed a little embarassing concern over socialism's successes in the Nordic countries recently. This at a time when trickle-down deficit spending by conservatives is proving to be just as ruinous now as it was during the 1980's and early 90's.

But if you need to compare experiments in capitalism and socialism, then compare the ambitious projects for fully deregulated economies and full scale capitalism in 1970's and 80's Chile and Argentina. In Chile, every aspect of socialism in the economy was privatised from social welfare to unemployment insurance benefits to banking. Had those experiments in full scale 'capitalism' worked to any degree, robbe_dee, you and I would be living it right now. But it didn't and we aren't. Ppl like Milton Friedman and Ronald Reagan pointed to Chile's experiment in capitalism and described it as an economic miracle, but nothing could be further from the truth as per capita GDP was actually several hundred dollars less per person under Chicago School of Economic reforms than it was during the two brief years of socialism under Salvador Allende. Poor Salvador. The CIA said he committed suicide with 20 some odd bullet holes in his back. Henry Kissinger said that Chilean's were like children and couldn't be trusted with free elections.

Observe the big government building and spending by political conservatives in the U.S. today. None of them really believe in unbridled capitalism anymore either. ha ha

Yes, socialism in the Scandinavian countries and Euro-social democracies is the caramilk secret with just the right amounts of public and private sector economy. Mixed economy is trademark of democratic socialism, whereas fully deregulated capitalist economies have never really worked anywhere in the world. The American's and the rest of the world actually gave up on the purist form of laissez faire capitalism after the 1929 stock market crash and ensuing global economic crises. We've all been experimenting with various forms and degrees of socialism ever since. And the Reagan-Thatcher-Mulroney years were a disasterous lesson in trickle-down deficit spending.

Henry Ford was a fascist at heart. He didn't even build the first car. Carl Benz did.

Singapore's socialist miracle

[ 15 October 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Five of the top ten most competitive economies are legitimate social democracies with the more conservative nations like Australia, NZ slipping somewhat. Hmmmm.
Country Rankings 2004-2005

1. Finland
2. USA
3. Sweden
4. Taiwan
5. Denmark

---

Fidel, the basic fact is that the Old Old Left (Marxisme) can no longer explain anything. It is like theories of the Flat Earth. Vaclev Havel said accurately, "The only Marxists now teach in western universities."

quote:

---

Originally posted by August1991:
Hunh? The USA and Taiwan and then three Scandinavian countries.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
The best I have to offer you is James Galbraith's(related to JK Galbraith, the New Deal economist) piece describing the real American economic model post-1930's and which has played a large part in creating a great deal of the wealth in America.

---

Thanks for sharing this - it's an excellent piece. I love the part where he talks about "... with unemployment low and jobs plentiful as recently as two years ago, American real wages were rising, crime had declined, and most working Americans were reasonably contented. This is a major part of the reason why, in spite of a widely criticized campaign, Vice President Al Gore was elected President of the United States in the year 2000 ... The fact that the election was later stolen from Gore by the Florida political establishment and the Supreme Court cannot gainsay this achievement."

quote:

---

Originally posted by August1991:
Hunh? The USA and Taiwan and then three Scandinavian countries. I'd say that's an argument in favour of Quebec independance. More likely, I'd look at the method of calculation. It reminds me of an employer who claimed I was well 'remunerated' - "Our sales associates are in the top four. Look!"

---

Yes, socialist Norway, a net creditor nation, is also in the top 10. Singaporean's earn fifth highest incomes in the world and socialist since the mid 1960's. Singapore has risen further, faster than Hong Kong.

quote:

---

Fidel, the basic fact is that the Old Old Left (Marxisme) can no longer explain anything. It is like theories of the Flat Earth. Vaclev Havel said accurately, "The only Marxists now teach in western universities."

We deserve a New New Left - an understanding of Wall Street but a defense of ordinary people. Leftists must understand markets.

---

Well the same could be said of the old right. I mean, we gave up on laissez faire capitalism world-wide after the 1929 stock market crash. Market based economies have been around for a long time, and socialists understand Keynesian economies as well as anyone. Keynes debated Swedish socialists and Soviet communists before being credited with saving capitalism from itself. Karl Polanyi taught at Columbia U for several years after fleeing fascism in Germany. His wife was barred from entering the States bc of past affiliations with communist organizations in Europe. And politics at high spots like Yale do range from pink to ultra-violet nowadays.

[ 19 October 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]

And yes, Singapore has socialized medicine as does every other first world nation, except the USA where flu vaccine is scarce and tens of millions have no health insurance.

[ 19 October 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]

I think it was John Roth who threatened to move sNortel to Carolina in favour of lower corporate taxes. At the same time around 1998, Terry Mathews said that Newbridge Networks had no problems paying taxes in Canada.

There are lots of critics of socialist states these days. And no third world nations have been as heavily interventionist in their economies as Singapore has since 1965. It's a miracle when comparing the failed experiments in fully deregulated economies thruout Latin America and Chile in particular. They purged the economy of every aspect of socialism there. And what a disaster that turned into.

[ 19 October 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Fidel, the basic fact is that the Old Old Left (Marxisme) can no longer explain anything. It is like theories of the Flat Earth. Vaclev Havel said accurately, "The only Marxists now teach in western universities."

---

Havel had the benfit of inheritting the strongest economy among the Soviet group (including Russia) and then lopped off Slovakia the poorest sector of Czechoslovakia to make it even stronger. Most of the post soviet capitalist interventions are recognized as complete disasters. Havel was a poet with a quick wit but it is said he learned his economics playing monoploy.

I am all in favour of mixed economies, ones the encourage enterprise and local intiative but completely opposed to gigantic international monoplies. No one has yet been able to prove to me that these 'market' authorized monoplies are any more efficient or humane than government regulated and organized state monoplies.

There were major problems with the command economy, doubtless, but to use this as evidence to attack the Marx's critique of capital is flawed, simply because Marx didn't invent the command economy of the Soviet Union, nor did he contribute any serious theory to its development.

He had some vert specific things to say about societal development and capitalism, but very fuzzy notions about what was to come after capitalism.

I think also, that the general attack on the Chinese and the Soviet economies being put forward here ignores the huge achievements of those economies, given where they were coming from. China in 1949 was suffering from the effects of 40 years of internal civil war and imperialist invasion. Russia a completely backward peasant economy that had more in common with England under Henry the 8th than Great Britain under King George. The fact that China is able to move forward to a mixed economy is a direct result of the revolution, and the nationalizing process, which if nothing else protected the Chinese economy from penetration and rampant exploitation by Europeans who had absolutely no concern for the welfare of the Chinese people.

Take one look at the difference between Calcutta, still recovering from its time under the British East India company, and Shanghai today.

Even the Dalai Lama has eshewed full Tibetan independence from China: Dalai Lama says Tibet is better off within China Why is that?

quote:

---

Tibet would be better off to remain within China rather than regain its independence, the Dalai Lama has told an interviewer. "Tibet is backward," the exiled spiritual leader said. "It's a big land, rich in natural resources, but we lack the technology or expertise [to exploit them]. So, if we remain in China, we might get a greater benefit, provided it respects our culture and environment and gives us some kind of guarantee."

---

[ 19 October 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Take one look at the difference between Calcutta, still recovering from its time under the British East India company, and Shanghai today.

---

But come now, fidel has offered some present day examples. And we can hardly qualify our recognition of the achievements of the US economy today by noting that it was one of the last western nations to give up slavery, or that it allowed systemic racial inequalities to continue into the 1960's, can we?

[ 19 October 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
Excuse me, BleedingHeart, but Henry Ford was rabidly anti-union. He hired some guys built like bathtubs and carrying equipment to break up picketers striking for a living wage in his day. Of course, you knew that already.

---

As you say, Singapores success is the result of the stripping of the US and Canadian indutrial economy, through the loosening of international trade restirictions so that large scale manufaturing for computer parts, etc. can be done there on the cheap.

What we learn is that by marginally increasing the standard of living of workers in Singapore, to just above subsistance levels, we can destroy the lives of people here, so that they to are living just above subsistance levels, and (this is the important part) save money for IBM. Then of course the sudden increased burden of people initiated to the welfare rolls can be blamed on the lazy welfare scum themsleves, and we can cut them off all together. This newly disenfranchised mass can then be utilized in workfare programs (at the tax payers expense) for cleaning the golf course of the rich,(did I hear you bemoan slave labour?) or they can re-enter the workforce at substantially reduced rate of pay, beat up their wives and shoot their kids -- all their fault of course.

Now that is progress!

[ 19 October 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
What we learn is that by marginally increasing the standard of living of workers in Singapore, to just above subsistance levels, we can destroy the lives of people here, so that they to are living just above subsistance levels, and (this is the important part) save money for IBM.
[ 19 October 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]

---

Chart.

The only country showing significant movement upward in the region is Vietnam.

[ 19 October 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
And where do you think China's often not very scrupulous fat cat CP party brass have been laundering their money?

---

For instance I believe corruption indemic to all societies, government and corporations. Corruption and greed are pretty normal, in all societies and does not have an ideological attachment. It has no real baring on the efficency of economy.

It may be the case that the average corrupt party official in China is marginally less corrupt than say Conrad Black or Martha Stewart but that is only because they know that if they get out of line or step on someones toes or get too greedy, their families will only be able to benefit from what remains of the amassed wealth, after they have paid for the costs of the bullet.

quote:

---

Amazing what a little slave labour will do.

---

In the face of increasing global competition, Singapore continues to build on its core advantages--a good geographical location, developed infrastructure, a good communications system, political stability and a disciplined workforce--

All of the listed items are government supplied items (especially the 'disciplined' workforce).

Something the right wing will never acknowledge is they need big bad nanny government to get a captitalist economy off the ground.

Without using taxpayer money to finance infrastructure there wouldn't be one.

quote:

---

It may be the case that the average corrupt party official in China is marginally less corrupt than say Conrad Black or Martha Stewart but that is only because they know that if they get out of line or step on someones toes or get too greedy, their families will only be able to benefit from what remains of the amassed wealth, after they have paid for the costs of the bullet.

---

The people involved in Hollinger International, including shareholders, all chose voluntarily to do so. Martha Stewart allegedly made money off a stock tip. People who buy and sell shares do so voluntarily.

On the other hand, government employees use money that must be given. Taxes cannot be paid voluntarily.

For this reason alone, the government must be held to a higher standard. It is a sacred trust.

quote:

---

In the face of increasing global competition, Singapore continues to build on its core advantages--a good geographical location, developed infrastructure, a good communications system, political stability and a disciplined workforce--

All of the listed items are government supplied items (especially the 'disciplined' workforce).

Something the right wing will never acknowledge is they need big bad nanny government to get a captitalist economy off the ground.

Without using taxpayer money to finance infrastructure there wouldn't be one.

---

quote:

---

Far beit from me to defend Martha Stewart or Conrad Black, but I see a much greater difference between government corruption and corporate malfeasance.
The people involved in Hollinger International, including shareholders, all chose voluntarily to do so. Martha Stewart allegedly made money off a stock tip. People who buy and sell shares do so voluntarily.

---

Yes there is a difference in how corruption is managed in the differing economic systems. The question is, in the big picture of how such corruption impacts the overall economic efficiency of an economy, is there a difference in terms of how this impacts the average citizen.

Corruption in a capitalist economy indirectly increases the end point cost to consumers for products, corruption in a state run economy increases the overall tax costs to citizens.

Does it really matter if you are paying more taxes or paying more for goods and services?

quote:

---

On the other hand, government employees use money that must be given. Taxes cannot be paid voluntarily.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Average is an interesting mathematical concept.

---

Cueball, that's a decent troll immitation you do. Singapore has a per capita GDP comparable to leading nations of western Europe and fifth highest incomes on average. Compare that to the third world nations being milk fed on Washington consensus and structural adjustment programs promoting poverty instead of prosperity.

Mickey and his "the market will fix everything" magic wand!

[ 20 October 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]

cheers!

[ 20 October 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]

Funny the article didn't mention property rights.

What exactly are 'property rights'?

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Oatmeal Savage:

But,, but,....I thought China was run by a bunch of wonderful communists who were doing a terrific job of making sure everything is just peachy through their central planning expertise.

---

And here I thought you were a free marketeer. The mask comes off! The Oatmeal Savage has been a Maoist all along! He's just been yanking our chains, trying with trollery to get us to commit to more extreme positions, hoping to lure us into the arms of Maoist central planning.

quote:

---

Corruption in a capitalist economy indirectly increases the end point cost to consumers for products, corruption in a state run economy increases the overall tax costs to citizens.

---

A corrupt State organization, on the other hand, raises taxes which I cannot avoid. My only protection is a democratic election and new politicians who clean house.

quote:

---

And here I thought you were a free marketeer. The mask comes off! The Oatmeal Savage has been a Maoist all along! He's just been yanking our chains, trying with trollery to get us to commit to more extreme positions, hoping to lure us into the arms of Maoist central planning.

Shameful.

---

*Snerk* I intended (Blows air onto fingernails and rubs cleans them against shirt in a self satisfied manner) to manouver OMS into defending the Communist Party of China.

With hobbies like that though, it makes me wonder if I should not "get a life," as they say.

[ 20 October 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Corruption in one corporation increases the end point costs to consumers for the products of that onecorporation. To avoid this corruption, I can buy from an honest (and cheaper) competitor. In fact, this gives corporations an incentive to be honest.

---

That assumes that companies compete more than they collude.

Monopolies or consortiums (such as the car manufacturing indutry where I view practices such built-in-obsolesence to be little more than legalized corruption) where large companies, and even the ones which are 'supposed' to be in competition, actually colude together and engage in price fixing, which are also forms of corruption.

How much impact coruption has on the overall performance of an economy is hard to tell, since by its nature it is a hidden activity. However, it is safe to say that consolidating a large amount of economic power in the a few hands people is always leaving a door open to coruption.

The point I am trying to make is that 'corruption' has less to do with ideological slant, and more to do with the rule of law, and how crime is investigated and if it goes unpunished or not.

Fidel has presented evidence that socialized economies perform quite well, despite whatever corruption there is, and even if I am not sanguine about saying they are far and away superior in all aspects I don't see them as being markedly inferior, as the free marketeers suggest. As I said earlier I am in favour of mixed economies.

[ 20 October 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by August1991:
Corruption in one corporation increases the end point costs to consumers for the products of that onecorporation. To avoid this corruption, I can buy from an honest (and cheaper) competitor. In fact, this gives corporations an incentive to be honest.

---

But this is the exception as of late. With American-style capitalism, there is competition and bargains for consumers in the beginning. A few small companies eventually become corporations and devour the most benign competition. Adam Smith wrote that when capitalists get together the conversation more often than not turns toward collusion against the public and price fixing. There are many examples of this today, from big sugar in the States to big pharmaceuticals world-wide to a handful of billionaires in Canada who decide what you and I pay for groceries to the shingles on our roof to how much rent the shop owner pays in a local mall to electricity rates. Of all Canadian billionaire families, only one did not make their first million with selling illegal booze. The Irving's made their first millions as log thieves on the St. John River. They are Canada's royal families.

At least two power distribution companies in Canada and the States have been charged with round trip sales of power in creating false shortages and driving up prices artificially. ENRON was in the process of deal making that would have made them a global cartel for water distribution. England privatised under Maggie. Water and power prices skyrocketed but not before water mains burst and wide-spread power outages became usual. And trains stopped running on time.
btw, are we all ready to start paying market prices for electricity and natural gas ?. We've never been cut a deal for our own gasoline, so why should we be treated any differently than American's who need and are 'willing' to pay for Canada's natural resources ?.

Observe the global experiment in free market water. Major cities from Paris to Moncton to Vancouver to Atlanta and Buenos Aires are giving the thumbs down to privatisation of water distribution and price gouging. African's are rejecting having to feed water meters with more money each day than they actually earn. Bolivian's ask, Who can own the rain ?. Certainly not Bechtel Corporation. Argentinian children are made ill by water borne bacteria and hospitalized an average of a dozen times a year. A global water company, Suez Water, has been accused of using mafia tactics to gain access to municipal water deals accross France. A French judge who dealt with the case said that "mafia" was an accurate description of that global company's business ethics.

The Washington consensus says to deregulate and privatise! privatise! . And privatise some more. Ownership of water and everything under the sun is encouraged. And yet the American's subsidize water prices in their own country. The Yanks dish it out like desert but wouldn't dare pull this same joke on their own. Because American's said. no, to laissez faire capitalism in 1933. They've never looked back until the dark days of Ronald Reagan. The Great American society has become mired in Keynesian-militarism and corporate welfare statism and propped up by two political parties funded by big banks and corporate donors. It's the same in Canada with our two old line parties. Our federal Liberals were even accused of being autocrats as early as the 1950's.

It seems that private companies want to profit from the scarcity of water but refuse to re-invest profits into exploration of fresh water sources. That and a reluctance to handle sewage. Taxpayers can have that end of the business bc it's as unprofitable as providing air service to remote communities in Northern Ontario. An unwritten rule of capitalism says that public money should never be used to compete w private enterprise. Because they've proven that middle men in any enterprising deal must make a profit. TRust and obey, it's the only way.

Big pharmaceuticals haven't produced anything as life saving as Banting's(Canadian) insulin or Salk-Sabin's polio vaccines developed decades ago. In fact, big pharma relies heavily on taxpayer funded research for initial drug discovery. Taxol, AZT, Hepatitis vaccines and more were simply handed over to Bristol Meyer-Squibb and a handful of other large corporations for production and marketing world-wide. Between the years 1955 and 1992, more than 90% of the cancer drugs coming out of the States were discovered by researchers and academics on the public payroll.

In fact, the signing of the Bayh-Dole bill around 1980 has made it easier for corporations to access taxpayer funded research in the States. Instead of making the best selling cancer drug in history available for generic drug makers to manufacture as they promised to do so, BM-Squibb launched a vicious law suit to maintain patents on Taxol and prevent competition for what was essentially a publically funded cancer drug extracted from the bark of Yew trees. Bristol Meyer even uses the same contractor that delivered the raw compounds to government researchers - Hauser(a subsid of Weyerhauser).

And then taxpayers must also cough-up for marketing, tax deferals or just plain propping up corporate-statism in the form of taxpayer handouts to what already amount to super-wealthy people as the wealth gap between a minority of super-rich and growing number of poor American's becomes a chasm.

Computer technology(silicon chip tech, GUI's, datacom protocols, parallel computing, RAID technology etc), lasers, satellites, metallurgical advances, drugs, fibre optics and more were developed by about a hundred or so taxpayer funded scientists in the States as part of a group known as DARPA, which was changed to ARPA in 1980 and dropping reference to government funded initiative. This technology was simply handed off to a few hundred wealthy families and corporations now referred to as 'the market' or private enterprise. American's have received the worst deal because they've paid twice for consumer goods and gadgets as a result of the corporate welfare state that is the other half of the real economy in that country.

quote:

---

A corrupt State organization, on the other hand, raises taxes which I cannot avoid. My only protection is a democratic election and new politicians who clean house.

The difference here lies in the voluntary nature of a customer's relation with a corporation. To be more precise, "voluntary" refers to the ease with which I can find an alternative.

---

There are many examples of benevolent capitalism where it has led to everything from better food production to distribution. Automated manufacturing is another. But where is William Hershey now?. Sears and Roebuck offered affordable housing to millions of people during a Post-WWI housing shortage. One thing I do like about capitalism in America today is the availability of long term mortgages. Canadian banks continue to enjoy their monopoly on money and loans here though.

On the other hand, American taxpayers will have forked out $32 billion dollars a year for 30 some years before failed savings and loans are bailed out. It seems that capitalists need insulating from harsh market realities but poor American's can goto hell when it comes to affordable housing or basic health care, and never mind preventative medicine.

Without strict regulation in an economy, we end up with the ENRONg's, Global Crossup's, Arthur Andersen's, Adelphia's, Tyko, World CON's and presumably more. The FDA was probably to blame for leaking sensitive info about IMClone's new cancer drug trials for Erbatux, but Martha Stewart apparently lied to the SEC investigators. For that she will get a slap on the wrist and five months confined to her mansion. In fact, about 85% of the value of all theft in N. America is down to white collar crime where hard time just isn't being served. Sometimes I think we'd get more time for knocking over a liquor store.

Sir Tony Behn has said that with state run enterprises, we could at least control them and make tow the line. Large multi-nationals with annual revenues greater than the GDP's of small countries are uncontrollable and loyal to no one but shareholders, and sometimes loyal to a handful at the top who are re-defining self-interest and appalling greed.

But the one thing that capitalism might be expected to provide, basic economic security for the masses, isn't happening with the new globalism. Pockets of prosperity and concentration of wealth can be observed in cities around the world, but the majority of people around them face lower and lower wages along with a rising cost of living. The number living below the poverty line in Russia is 30 times what it was in the period before glasnost. Millions of African's are facing death from malnutrition and AIDS, and this while following a Washington consensus for economic reform. Latin America is a failed experiment in Chicago School of Economics reforms for a fully deregulated economy. Los Chicago boys of Pinochet's government were fired off the job for gross incompetence by the dictator himself as unemployment raged and deficits soared in S. American econ experiment referred to as Chile con Friedman from 1973 to 1985.

It seems that the countries making the most progress are the one's adhering the least to the IMF/WB's structural adjustment programs. Thailand followed the plan for liberal democracy the closest and yet has fared the worst. Natural resource-rich Russia also has a wealth of highly educated talent. Ross Perot once said that Russia was poised to become a world beater. And yet it's jam packed China with few natural resources that is creating an astounding 400 000 jobs a month and economy has expanded at growth rates of 6% to 8 and 9% for 21 years in a row. That's unprecendented in history except for perhaps Egyptian or Roman empires built on slavery.

[ 20 October 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

That assumes that companies compete more than they collude.
Monopolies or consortiums (such as the car manufacturing indutry where I view practices such built-in-obsolesence to be little more than legalized corruption) where large companies, and even the ones which are 'supposed' to be in competition, actually colude together and engage in price fixing, which are also forms of corruption.

---

But the critical issue here is whether you or I have an alternative. If corporations formed a cartel (a monopoly/consortium), then we would not have an alternative.

A cartel however requires honest co-operation between people (Conrad Black, Martha Stewart, Bernard Ebbers and so on) who do not show signs of being good co-operators. They tend to cheat, even on each other.

Moreover, to use your car example, it would require a cartel including manufacturers as diverse as Hyundai, General Motors, DaimlerChrysler, Volkswagen and so on. In this case, I would be more inclined to look for strategic behaviour.

In addition, people have many alternatives to cars: public transit, trains, bicycles, airplanes and so on.

But, nevertheless, to follow your thought, to the extent there would be a functioning cartel, then your planned-obsolesence in cars would make sense. But I frankly think there would be other ways for the cartel to benefit. For example, they need simply to restrict production, raise prices and make larger profits. They could practice price discrimination by selling the same item to different customers at different prices. (Intel does this as do pharmaceutical companies holding patents.)

Which raises another question: if the cartel or collusion were successful, leading to above normal profits, then share prices would rise as shareholders sought the higher returns. Any gains would be dissipated.

More likely, senior managers would keep any additional "profits" as part of their benefits package. The question here is why other managers would not (or could not) compete for this largesse.

Once again, this is all dependent on the ability to collude by forming a cartel. Take the example of Boeing and Airbus (and Bombardier and Embraer). I am certain this is not collusion but rather a strategic dance.

To get back to the original point: as opposed to corporations, my only alternative to government is to move, or to hope for a new gang in the next election. I think a federal system (with strong municipalities) has this advantage: There are alternative governments.

I note all this because Corporations and Governments are different beasts - corporations must induce me to give them my money; they cannot take it at will. Governments can take my money without my approval.

quote:

---

How much impact coruption has on the overall performance of an economy is hard to tell, since by its nature it is a hidden activity. However, it is safe to say that consolidating a large amount of economic power in the a few hands people is always leaving a door open to coruption.

---

quote:

---

The point I am trying to make is that 'corruption' has less to do with ideological slant, and more to do with the rule of law, and how crime is investigated and if it goes unpunished or not.

---

quote:

---

With American-style capitalism, there is competition and bargains for consumers in the beginning. A few small companies eventually become corporations and devour the most benign competition.

---

quote:

---

Adam Smith wrote that when capitalists get together, the conversation will often move toward collusion against the public and price fixing.

---

Fidel, in your post, you offer two examples where the State would do better than Corporations: water and power. I tend to agree with you, at least for questions of distribution.

Your pharmaceutical example (and DARPA, never heard of that before, thanks) is problematic to me. If we know there is gold buried under a mountain, what's the best, most likely (least costly, in the full sense of that term) way to find it? Send three small teams working independently or send three small teams working together? I don't know.

quote:

---

And then taxpayers must also cough-up for marketing, tax deferals or just plain propping up corporate-statism in the form of taxpayer handouts to what already amount to super-wealthy people as the wealth gap between a minority of super-rich and growing number of poor American's becomes a chasm.

---

It reminds me of another Adam Smith quote:

quote:

---

The Member of Parliament who supports every proposal for strengthening (a domestic) monopoly is sure to acquire not only the reputation of understanding trade, but great popularity and influence with an order of men whose numbers and wealth render them of great importance. If he opposes them, on the contrary, and still more if he has authority enough to be able to thwart them, neither the most acknowledged probity, nor the highest rank, nor the greatest public services can protect him from the most infamous abuse and detraction, from personal insults, nor sometimes from real danger, arising from the insolent outrage of furious and disappointed monopolists.

---

I'm no Smith fanatic - I prefer math. But I admire a complex mathematical idea expressed simply in words.

quote:

---

Sir Tony Behn has said that with state run enterprises, we could at least control them and make tow the line. Large multi-nationals with annual revenues greater than the GDP's of small countries are uncontrollable and loyal to no one but shareholders, and sometimes loyal to a handful at the top who are re-defining self-interest and appalling greed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by August1991: Smith referred to "people of the same trade". I have always viewed that comment as evidence of Smith's basic understanding of the benefits of co-operation - in this case, the benefits for co-operating cartel members.

---

A few have said that some of Smith's writings looked a lot like Quesnay's. I believe Smith was actually concerned about monopolies and collusion.
Capitalists are said to ignore Smith's work on business ethics which he considered to be just as important as, The Wealth of Nations.

quote:

---

Your pharmaceutical example (and DARPA, never heard of that before, thanks) is problematic to me. If we know there is gold buried under a mountain, what's the best, most likely (least costly, in the full sense of that term) way to find it? Send three small teams working independently or send three small teams working together? I don't know.

---

Defense Advanced Research Project Agency. I believe that this American gov agency essentially developed the first computer networks. Later, the military and SchoolNET(a networked system of long distance telephone circuits connecting universities and colleges across N. America) was the first expansion of 'the internet.' DARPA developed protocols and packet switching technologies to be used over T1 telephone and fibre optic circuits so that military computers could communicate with one another. Ironic that a French-Canadian switch maker now supplies much of the U.S. military and bank networks with network switching equipment. And it was handed off to companies like CISCO. Apple can thank DARPA for its graphical user interface technology. And massive taxpayer spending on DoD and cold war economy made IBM what it is today. NASA played a part in advanced technology behing handed down to consumerism as well. We actually had a company near Ottawa working on a personal computer around the same time IBM was developing XT's and 8088 PC's. PC's are cheap, but there were better, faster and more reliable technologies around for many years. Public spending on "Keynesian"-militarism has been a big part of their economy for many years. Imagine a public entity like NASA to drive a high tech economy. Think of the new drug development programs and possibilities for expediting stem cell and other important research and of thousands of scientists cooperating with academia and federal research initiatives. The Russian's putting up Sputnik was met with public spending on R&D over here. So why not declare cancer or 75 year life spans a threat to freedom ?.

And I dunno about gold. It's where you find it. Electrical survey methods can find it if it isnt buried too deep. I worked in mineral exploration for a few years. Staked mining claims in the beginning. Some geophysicists never find a mineral deposit during their careers. My dad found gold, and he only had a grade eight education. He was a dedicated prospector though. He loved the bush.

Oil companies used to leave a heck of a lot of oil in the ground. Capitalists have always used that rule of thumb: put in the least to extract the most. My mother worked for Rolls Royce and a Dutch company in their British forges during the war. They stamped out aircraft parts. Mum remembers the mills were falling apart even before the war. A carpenters nail is what held the handle together on the ten ton drop stamp she operated, shift after shift after shift.

When the Yanks finally got into WWII, it was determined that the best approach in manufacturing an air force to tackle the Nazis would be a joint corporate effort. Engineering talent was actually shared between Boeing, Douglas and several other aircraft companies. They revamped the Corsair fighter plane for more manouverability and speed. Secret assembly plants were constructed in California and camouflaged from the sky. American women worked around the clock as did me ol' mum in N. England, bolting Tomcat's to Mitchell's, Spitfires and Lancaster's together. I think the Yank's refer to their war effort heroes as one woman, Rosie the Riveter. An international effort and most impressive. Air support to the allies from the Yanks was significant in the last months of WWII.

But more importantly, there was no competition between aircraft companies at that time because there was a common goal, the defeat of fascism.

[ 21 October 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

I note all this because Corporations and Governments are different beasts - corporations must induce me to give them my money; they cannot take it at will. Governments can take my money without my approval.

---

They can make it mighty inconvenient for you if you don't. Cars are for all practicable purposes a neccesity in the the US. You are also dependent on corporations for your food supply.

[It is also worthy of note that one of the big problems of the Russian government today is teaching people about taxes, and enforcing their payment, when previously in the USSR people paid no tax. Why should they when all profits of state enterprise were returned to the state aparatus?]

Very rarely can a government (even a non-deomcratic one) exist, which is not accountable to its people. Entirely corrupt government that do not act in a somewhat responsible manner to their constituents do not survive long. Anarchy breaks out both from wihtin the ranks of the enfranchised classes and the disenfranchised. Corruption will increase within the first group, exacibating the woes of the second group whom will begin to rebel. The economy takes a nose-dive and all hell breaks loose.

"The rule of law," is simply the establishment of codes of conduct that are enforced as laws. In the best case these laws are applied equally to all.

For instance much of Kruschov's critique of Stalin was that the regieme did not conduct itself within the confines of "socialist leaglity" as derived from the constitution as penned by Nikolai Bhukharin who was shot in 1937.* The criticism stems from the fact that Stalin pretty much made things up as he went along, and the rest of the party followed his lead.

The problem with this amorphous system of personality powered dictatorship, is that it is a very difficult evironment for people to act constructively in, simply because it is impossible for them to determine what they can and can not do without getting into trouble. It also makes it difficult for people to engage in long term productive planning, because todays priorty no. 1 may be relegated to the back burner because of a sudden change in political will, or because the person you were ordering supplies from "disappeared" one day. In the end this undermines all aspects of the society including the economy, and increases corruption.

The same kinds of things happen in capitalist economies, where the courts and the police are either corrupt themselves or unable to enforce civil custom as law, because, say, the government intervenes when the cops are about to bust an important cabinet minister for corruption or break up an unlawful cartel, or witnesses start falling out of helicopters (Bre-X.)

People need order, stability, and a routine set of social customs so that they can act constructively and co-operatively together toward their mutual goals, because they know what will result from their actions, and the limits set upon allowable actions. The best way to provide that is to institute codes of conduct that are enforced as law.

One look at Iraq today shows exactly how impossible it is to achieve anything in the absence of the "rule of law." War is the absence of law, always, never the enforcement of it.

* The fact that Stalin had the author of the Soviet consitution shot has always seemed to be very telling. It is actually a remarkably advanced document filled with all kinds of guaranteed rights -- Stalin simply ignored those parts, and many people have said that Bhukarin was foolish enough to believe that he would be protected by the rights provided within it. Writing it was one of his last official acts before his trial.

[ 21 October 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]

European royalty were somewhat frightened by the uprisings and executions of their cousins in Russia. British royals refused to acknowledge a Romanov cousin visiting London because they were deathly afraid of revolution in the wind at home. Stalin was a product of western intervention in what was an inevitable part of history. It didn't stop with the American's losing 3000 troops in the heart of Russia or fascists from Spain never being heard from again.

The Nazi war of annihilation against Russia was the ultimate in anti-communism. Wealthy bankers(Fritz Thyssen, Prescott Bush etcetera ad nauseum) and industrialists saw Germany as a flash point for the spread of communism into Europe and farther at a time when capitalism was on the wane around the world.

[ 22 October 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

I believe Stalin was an unavoidable part of history because of the 14 nation effort to put down the revolution in Russia and other factors. The militaristic meddling just after WWI by the American's, British, Czech's, Spaniard's and more in the Russian revolution produced more militant elements like Stalin rise to the top during that chaotic period.

---

I don't believe in unavoidable parts of history. To think so is to imagine a world where the ability of people to realize their political convictions is futile. I agree, however, that it should be understood in the terms of the historical reality. Fault lies everywhere.

Stalin eliminated many of the best and most committed members of the party, simply because their effectiveness led to them being a potential threat to Stalin's personal poltical power, not because they were part of any real plot to undermine the Soviet Union. Bhukharin, Tukhachevsky (who promoted the use of mass armour -- in the style of Guderian and Manstein -- within the army as opposed to Cavalry techniques) and Kirov (if assassinated, as seems likely) are primary examples.

[ 22 October 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]

The same situation and history persisted after Stalin's demise in 1953, yet it was apparently quite possible for the Soviet Union to exist, despite the horrendous destruction caused by WW2 and imminent threat of nuclear anhiliation by the US, wihtout carting off every half decent person in the party of to Siberia, or having them shot. It was even possible, as shown by Krusheov's peaceful removal by Bhreznev and the Politburo for changes in leadership without a violent purge.

The problem of course with shooting Stalin, would have been that you would be adopting his methods, and therein lies the conundrum of the Leninist system of party organization.

I like a lot of the things you have to say, and I agree that you must take into account all of those factors you have described above when analyzing the Stalanist period. At the same time I have concluded that Stalin manipulated those reallities as a means of holding onto personal power, making decisions that came very close to undermining the Soviet Union's exisitance.

A good example of this was the purge of officers in 1937. While Vorishilov was calling for a large cavalry army, Tukashevsky had analyzed the usefulness of modern armour formations and was proposing their development. Voroshilov, (Stalin's civil war chum) won the debate and Tukachevsky got the bullet. As a result the red army was completely destroyed in 1941, and it was only when Zhukov was brought in from the far east, and people like Meretskov were rehabilitated, the the Red Army was able to stand against the onslaught.

History might have been verry different had Stalin not put his internal politcal agenda ahead of the needs of the country he ruled, thinking that it was he who embodied that country. Nothing could have been further from the truth. It was only really because of the heroic efforts of the people of the Soviet Union that the USSR survived as long as it did, in spite of Stalin, not because of him.

[ 23 October 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
.

History might have been very different had Stalin not put his internal politcal agenda ahead of the needs of the country he ruled, thinking that it was he who embodied that country. Nothing could have been further from the truth. It was only really because of the heroic efforts of the people of the Soviet Union that the USSR survived as long as it did, in spite of Stalin, not because of him.

[ 23 October 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]

---

And Soviet communism survived several decades, longer than American capitalism in its original, purest form.

Too, Stalin was no military strategist by what I've read. When he intervened, it usually cost the lives of many Russians. Hitler was a screw up as well.

I agree, the Russian people were the real heroes of WWII. The battle for Stalingrad is legendary. Zhukov was brilliant at Kursk, the largest tank battle in history.

I've had the opportunity of speaking with two people who lived during that time and in that general region of the world. One was Ukrainian and the other Russian. One had nothing but praise for Stalin while the other, bitter memories. The two were unknown to each other but had one thing in common; both of them were Jewish. Nina was angry and livid at my mention of Stalin, but both women had the exact same response to questions about the Nazis; their eyes gazed toward the floor and brimming with tears. Lots of tears.

[ 23 October 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]

A Soviet collective farm is required to produce six calfs for their yearly output. Of this they are to keep four and send two up the line to be disposed of by the State Agriculture Committee.

Unfortunately, at the end of the year they only produce two calfs. The local collective farm leadership committee meets, and decides to lie in order to avoid trouble. They tell the State Agriculture Committee that they have met their quota of six calfs. They will simply send the two up the line, and suffer themselves.

The State Argriculture Committee gets the report that six calfs have been produced and the head of state agricultural committee decides that he would like to make a name for himself, and falsifies the report to the supreme Soviet Agricultural Committee. He demands that the collective farm send him two of the four calfs they were supposed to keep in order to make up for shorfalls by other farms. Meanwhile, he tells his superiors that they have produced eight calfs, and that he can supply them with four.

The Supreme Soviet Agriculture Committee is duly impressed. They send a letter down the line: "Congratulations comrades. A bonus year! you have met and exceeded our expectations. The State Agricultural Committee will keep two calfs for local consuption, and the two bonus calfs will be sent to our oversees aid program for the developing countries."

The two calfs are sent to Angola.

[ 24 October 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Enron Capitalism

You have two cows. You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt-equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows. The milk rights of the six cows are transferred through an intermediary to a Cayman Island company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company. The Enron annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more.

Real-World Capitalism:

No sense hiding behind flowery phrases.

Just step right up there boy, and state your case.

I'd stay and wait for your reply but I'm off to my whining lessons.

Today's lesson, "What's A Good Dinner Whine?"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
I think he's kind of cute. Do you think Audra and Michelle will let us keep it?

---

quote:

---

As far as this crap about how wonderful the standard of living is in Sweden and other Scandinavian countries is, it sure doesn’t take much when you haven’t had the expenditures of running a military of any consequence or taken any real part in UN or other peacekeeping missions helping those less fortunate around the world for the last 50 years.

---

actually, as detailed in ron suskind's recent ny times magazine article on bush and faith and bush not being able to ask complex questions,

sweden has an army of 25,000, in a nation of 9 million,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darren A:
You are a disgrace to this country and the thousands of men and women who have died defending our right to freedom.

---

And by "served in the military" I mean "played way too much Tour of Duty on his Playstation".

[ 28 October 2004: Message edited by: Erstwhile ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darren A:
What the hell is that supposed to be?!
Some kind of pinko Chink commie call sign!

---

quote:

---

pinko Chink commie

---

[ 28 October 2004: Message edited by: Darren A ]

quote:

---

You goddamn panty wetting, lily sniffing same sex marrying homo!
I'll hammer you into the ground!

---

[ 28 October 2004: Message edited by: Darren A ]

quote:

---

Ill meet anyone anywhere anytime goof

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darren A:
You vacuous, malodorous, coffee nosed pukes don't deserve to be on the same posting page as me let alone the same planet.

---

Coffee nosed? Coffee nosed??!! I think he must be referring to skdadl. Or perhaps to her keyboard.

[ 28 October 2004: Message edited by: Contrarian ]

jeers, kid!

[ 28 October 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]

[ 28 October 2004: Message edited by: HeywoodFloyd ]

quote:

---

I'd lose the goatee. Also, I think the 'roids are giving you 'roid rage.

---

It's not a Goatee. It's a Van Dyke. The goatee, is just the beard, the mustache, with goatee is properly known as a Van Dyke.

I think he(?) wants a date;

quote:

---

Blow MacGoo Scout!
Ill meet anyone anywhere anytime goof!
Ya I bet you're fuckin ugly.

---