hahaha...moron from Caracas :)

[X5rolls]

Not sure if I understood your answer to my question about which country represents the best of socialism. Which one can you suggest has the successes based on socialism as you are describing?

I'm tyring to get a better context to the position you are advocating, it's still a bit abstract and theoretical for me without an example to illustrate the point.

Originally Posted by Eric5273

Just so you realize, I'm not in favor of 100% socialism. But I think capitalism encourages corruption. I'll give you an example.

If you were to privatize the fire department, then the new private fire department would make money when they put out fires. More fires = more money. Do you think they would send inspectors around making sure every building was safe from fires and promoting fire safety? Of course not. That would be against their better interest.

In this example, maybe the government would be the one to send fire inspectors around even if the fire departments themselves were private. So here is where you end up with corruption. Maybe the company that owns 75% of the fire departments in your city gives a big campaign contribution to the mayor, and the members of the city council. As a perk, they cut the fire inspection budget, and thus fewer buildings get inspected. Or maybe they decide to cut the entire department. No more inspections at all. There is a budget defecit, so something has to be cut...

My little example can be applied to almost every industry, from military hardware contractors, who profit from war and contribute to pro-war candidates, to drug companies that contribute to candidates who support fewer FDA regulations. A recent example would be the large banks getting a free handout, or "bailout", by the politicians that they help to put in office.

My opinion is that capitalism is a great thing on a small level. But when you start getting to the level of large corporations, it has outlived its usefulness, and then just serves to corrupt government and cause harm to society.

I think all major industry should be nationalized, but small business should of course be allowed and even encouraged. We actually have anti-trust laws on the books in this country, but it's been many decades since they have been enforced. 80 years ago, companies like Exxon-Mobil, or Citicorp would not have been allowed to grow to nearly their current size. And we would be better off.

Capitalism thrives when there is competition. Once you reach a point where there are just a few large companies in each industry, competition goes bye-bye, and so does any benefits of capitalism.

I also find it ironic that the same person (not you) who regularly posts about how the big oil companies are artificially inflating the oil price is the same one who opposes the nationalization of the oil industry. What then is your solution?

[Wagner]

Originally Posted by Eric5273

Lots of people. "Joe the Plumber" for one. Or did you think Joe has visions of his plumbing company becoming a large publicly traded corporation which services the entire world with plumbing services?

There is plenty of money to be made with a small business. You don't need to have the posiblity of becoming the next Bill Gates in order to be motivated.

coo-coo...coo-coo.....you would single handedly KILL entrepreneurship. Congratz

[Eric5273]

Originally Posted by X5rolls

Not sure if I understood your answer to my question about which country represents the best of socialism. Which one can you suggest has the successes based on socialism as you are describing?

I'm tyring to get a better context to the position you are advocating, it's still a bit abstract and theoretical for me without an example to illustrate the point.

It is indeed very theoretical at this point. Up until now, most socialist countries have isolated themselves from the rest of the world (or were isolated by the rest of the world) which of course is not good for economic growth no matter what kind of economic system you have.

I suppose the system that most closely resembles what I like is that in Vietnam. It's not a great example though because they have only been around for a short time. It would be like judging the progress of the United States in 1825. But Vietnam has been experiencing 8-10% growth per year over the past 10 years. So they are doing quite well.

They are officially a socialist country, but they allow small business and private investment, but only to a certain level. All major industry is state run. Any foreign corporations that want to invest there must do so under a government umbrella corp, meaning that McDonalds can open up restaurants there, but officially those restaurants are state owned and McDonalds is only allowed to operate them under state guidlines.

The advantage of such a system for the average person is that because the government is able to collect large amounts of revenue from corporate profits and government run industry, the average person pays barely any taxes at all. And of course this is the exact same way that Venezuela operates its oil industry. Foreign companies can drill for oil there, but the oil wells are state owned.

[X5rolls]

I don't know much at all about Vietnam from an economic perspective so I went to the Economist to get some insight.

In my opinion however, from a political perspective, Communism is the bigger issue in terms of how well or not well an emerging economy can sustain itself using a combination of capitalism and socialism.

Huge inflation, uncertainty about political intervention, free press and widespread corruption in government including population facing services isn't a success in my definitions.

Do you have an example (country) of socialism working in a democratic political system?

http://www.economist.com/countries/V...ofile-Forecast

Forecast
Jun 16th 2008
From the Economist Intelligence Unit
Source: Country Forecast



Country Forecast
Vietnam


The content on this page is an extract from the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Country Forecast.




Outlook for 2008-09

The Communist Party will continue to reject demands for major political reform and will remain indifferent to calls for political pluralism in 2008-09.
Vietnam's leadership is plagued by endemic corruption and will need to prove that progress is being made in order to maintain its authority.
The government is set to face a number of challenging policy issues in 2008-09, most notably the need to control inflation and to reduce downward pressure on the currency.
The Economist Intelligence Unit has revised downwards its real GDP growth forecast to 6.9% in 2008, from 7.3% previously, owing to lower credit expansion and dampened consumption growth.
We forecast that inflation will average 23.3% this year before dropping back to an average of 12% in 2009.
The dong is set to depreciate slightly in 2008 on an annual average basis to reach D17,440:US$1 at the end of the period. The dong will remain volatile in 2008-09.
Owing to the large deficit on the merchandise trade account in 2008-09, the current account will remain in negative territory, with the deficit standing at the equivalent of 9.2% of GDP in 2008.

Monthly review

Two reporters were arrested in May and charged with“abusing their position and power while discharging public duty”, which has raised doubts about the government’s tolerance for criticism.
The National Assembly (the legislature) has approved a government proposal to expand the capital, Hanoi.
On June 10th the State Bank of Vietnam (the central bank) raised the base interest rate to 14%, from 12% previously.
The government has made reducing inflation its number one priority.
The government recently limited exports of rice, but buoyed by a strong harvest, has now announced a relaxation of the restrictions.
Consumer prices rose by 25.2% year on year in May. The most immediate cause of the increase was a 42.4% rise in the price of food and foodstuffs in the same period, which in turn was driven by a 67.8% jump in food prices.
The tightening of bank credit has punctured the real estate bubble.
The Vietnam Index of stock prices fell on every day of trading in May and as of June 3rd stood at 401, far below the high of 1,170 that it hit in March 2007.

December 19th Economic Data Report

http://www.economist.com/countries/V...conomic%20Data

[Eric5273]

Reading an analysis of a communist country in the Economist would be like reading an analysis of a capitalist country written by Fidel Castro. They are absolutely bais and will give you the impression that every socialist country is a dictatorship with no freedom. That has always been the propoganda argument against socialism. This myth that you cannot have socialism and democracy.

The reality is that the dozen or so times a socialist/communist government has been elected in a democratic country, there has always been intervention by the United States or Britain to overthrow the new government, assassinate their leaders, and install a capitalist government in its place. Since 1950 this has happened in Iran, Guatamala, Chile, Brazil, Congo, and I'm sure a few others I cannot think of at the moment (it's 3am).

The most recent example of a socialist government being elected in a democratic country is Venezuela, the subject of this thread. Hugo Chavez was elected in 1998. And in 2002, there was a US supported coup against him in which he was kidnapped and almost murdered. Since then, there have been numerous assassination attempts against him, and in his fear of being assassinated or overthrown, he has managed to turn his country into a police state.

So no, I cannot name a good example of a communist democracy for you because one has never been allowed exist for more than a couple of years. It's a terrible dilemna for a new government. If you keep the country open and free, you will be overthrown for sure. And if you clamp down and increase security and military to protect the new government, you will be accused of moving towards a police state and a dictatorship. It's a no-win situation.

[X5rolls]

Eric,

Thanks for your opinions - I guess the bottom line for me is that there is no successful case for socialism.

Viva USA!

[Wagner]

Originally Posted by X5rolls

Eric,

Thanks for your opinions - I guess the bottom line for me is that there is no successful case for socialism.

Viva USA!

In deed

[Eric5273]

Originally Posted by X5rolls

Thanks for your opinions - I guess the bottom line for me is that there is no successful case for socialism.

There have been successful cases for socialism, just not the exact model that I would prefer. For example, China has had great success with their model of allowing foreign investment in a communist country. But their system is more communist than I would like. I prefer a bit more capitalism than they allow. Sweden is an example of a much smaller country that has had great success with a mixed socialist and capitalist system. But they do allow private corporations to operate independent of the government, even though there are strict regulations.

The United States would greatly benefit from such a system. Most jobs are created by small business, i.e. "Main Street", which would continue to exist. But all the natural resources in this country would become property of the people rather than property of the few elite. Everyone would benefit from the profits made from the vast natural resources we have, which is probably more than any other country in the world. In such a system, the average person would probably not have to pay a single dime in taxes ever. In fact, we would probably all receive dividend checks from the government as the people of Alaska do. The government would have plenty of revenue from which to operate from all of the nationalized industry.