Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You have no actual evidence of any socialist nation failing for reasons of bad economics alone, without the significant added element of aggressive and organized persecution by vastly more powerful and wealthy capitalist states...
I'm for a mixed economy that leans towards capitalism and moderate regulations. I say this because most developed countries are mixed economies even the U.S. I have no problem with some degree of socialism being present in an economy if it has been determined that gov't can better handle certain things better than the private sector. The problem is when you make socialism the dominate part of an economy.
Here's an example of a pure socialist society having to embrace a good degree of capitalism because they've found that a pure socialist society doesn't work well. These Kibbutz of Israel aren't actual countries but many of their problems have been seen in countries that went with socialist dominate economies in general.
I'm for a mixed economy that leans towards capitalism and moderate regulations. I say this because most developed countries are mixed economies even the U.S. I have no problem with some degree of socialism being present in an economy if it has been determined that gov't can better handle certain things better than the private sector. The problem is when you make socialism the dominate part of an economy.
Is there any difference in your mind as to whether socialism would be a more useful application today in, say, Switzerland's economy, or Malawi's? Does it matter how well the economy is already doing, as to whether socialized institutions are considered? Or is every country the same, and since the USA works well without socialism, that is proof that Burkino Faso must also work without socialism.
The problem is not when you make socialism the dominate part of an economy, it is when you make anti-socialist dogma the dominate part of your one-size-fits-all worldview, and refuse to consider any of the circumstances on the ground. Of the 20 poorest countries in the world, at least 19 (and maybe 20) of them have been consistently anti-socialist from their inception, and relied heavily on entrepreneurial capitalism and free market economic models. What does that tell you?
This is the Africa forum, you cannot compare an African republic with the USA or China or Sweden in terms of the kinds of approach that might be useful at this point in time in their economy, just by blasting ahead with both barrels full of anti-Castro rhetoric.
Motion, everybody's for a mixed economy leaning toward a well-regulated capitalism. But if you're Benin, how do you get from here to there? By opening the doors to straw huts to every scumbag (oops, entrepreneur) with hereditary wealth and a get richer quick scheme? Pitching Marlboros and hand-held device batteries and baby formula to be mixed with polluted water? They've already tried that, and look where they are.
Does it matter how well the economy is already doing, as to whether socialized institutions are considered? Or is every country the same, and since the USA works well without socialism, that is proof that Burkino Faso must also work without socialism.
America does have socialism. The U.S economy is a mixed economy but one that leans towards capitalism. U.S socialism is found with publics schools,police and fire departments,U.S Postal,medicare and medicaid.
Quote:
Of the 20 poorest countries in the world, 19 of them have been consistently anti-socialist from their inception, and relied heavily on entrepreneurial capitalism and free market economic models. What does that tell you?
Just saying you're anti-socialist isn't enough. A country must also have the gov't transparency,developed legal system and infrastructure to support a more capitalistic economy. Do those countries you're referring to have these things?
Quote:
This is the Africa forum, you cannot compare an African republic with the USA or China or Sweden in terms of the kinds of approach that might be useful at this point in time in their economy, just by blasting ahead with both barrels full of anti-Castro rhetoric.
Let me put it this way. How about the gov'ts of African countries get more input from the businessmen and women of their countries and ask them what types of policies do they feel will help them to better expand their businesses?
I'm sure this South African columnist would have much to say on what types of policies are needed.
America does have socialism. The U.S economy is a mixed economy but one that leans towards capitalism. U.S socialism is found with publics schools,police and fire departments,U.S Postal,medicare and medicaid.
Those are governmental institutions in every developed country in the world, so to you, that puts the entire free world under a blanket of socialism. Many of the countries in Africa that you fear will be excessively socialized don't even have those. Often, there are no public schools, only those donated by NGOs. They have no paid police, only deputies who live on bribes and shakedowns and protection. Postal service is so rudimentary, people who need it use private couriers. Health care does not exist at all, except again from volunteer clinics. And you want to wait for entrepreneurs from the privileged hereditary land-owner families to step forward and be motivated by government policy to provide them on a for-profit basis? Denying Africans even the socialized benefits that the USA provides for its citizenry, while at the same time bemoaning that they are excessively socialist to the brink of self-destruction.
Those are governmental institutions in every developed country in the world, so to you, that puts the entire free world under a blanket of socialism...
Those things I mentioned were just examples of elements of socialism on a small scale and in response to you saying that the U.S had no socialism. I have no problems with some degree of socialism in an economy. So I have no problem with a Burkina Faso having some degree of socialism but allowing for a good amount of capitalism along with a legal system that supports it(clear property rights etc). My problem is socialism on a larger scale where the gov't controlls the economy. Anyway those days are over. You won't see any countries nowadays implementing the type of system that Nkrumah tried. The only country that has tried that recently was Hugo Chavez and Venezuela has been having issues with food and toilet tissue shortages because of those over-regulating socialist policies.
Those things I mentioned were just examples of elements of socialism on a small scale and in response to you saying that the U.S had no socialism. I have no problems with some degree of socialism in an economy. So I have no problem with a Burkina Faso having some degree of socialism but allowing for a good amount of capitalism along with a legal system that supports it(clear property rights etc). My problem is socialism on a larger scale where the gov't controlls the economy. Anyway those days are over. You won't see any countries nowadays implementing the type of system that Nkrumah tried. The only country that has tried that recently was Hugo Chavez and Venezuela has been having issues with food and toilet tissue shortages because of those over-regulating socialist policies.
I didn't say that. What i said, however I worded it, was tantamount to saying that yes, of course, every country has some elements of socialism but the USA has only the tiniest amount of it, probably the least of any developed country in the world. The countries in the world where the government controls any preponderance at all of the means of production and distribution can be counted on one hand, and if you were to visit them, you'd probably find an awful lot more small entrepreneurs than you expect. Even North Korea, and specially Venezuela.
What Nkrumah did pretty obviously did Ghana no permanent harm, I was there ten years later and it might have already become the most economically developed country in Africa. What it was like in Nkrumah's decade, I have no personal knowledge of, nor can I say what effect it might have had on preparing Ghana to emerge as a very successful state within a decade, by African standards. But I would certainly not judge it by the abundance of toilet tissue on retail shelves.
Nkrumah, according to Wikipedia, "believed capitalism had malignant effects that were going to stay with Africa for a long time." Sixty years later, you cannot doubt that he was certainly prescient about that, after a quick glance at the GDP numbers for even the countries in Africa that wholeheartedly embraced capitalism right from day one..
Nkrumah, according to Wikipedia, "believed capitalism had malignant effects that were going to stay with Africa for a long time." Sixty years later, you cannot doubt that he was certainly prescient about that, after a quick glance at the GDP numbers for even the countries in Africa that wholeheartedly embraced capitalism right from day one..
Which African countries are you referring to that embraced capitalism(and a supporting legal system) after gaining independence?
Quote:
Kenya and by extension Africa is poor precisely because we have failed to embrace capitalism. Unless governments on this continent deliberately seek to promote the positive spirit of “self interest” that serves a larger majority (business), capitalists from Western countries will continue to exploit our resources, while our politicians (law makers) benefit their own families.
To develop Kenya and Africa, let us promote an environment that will enable local capitalists to start business to supply water, offer transportation, medical services, education, and food, among other services to ensure our people attain higher standards of life.
Which African countries are you referring to that embraced capitalism(and a supporting legal system) after gaining independence?
I didn't say anything about a supporting legal system, which is a pretty fluid concept. But I will now: In the USA, for example, the "supporting legal system" is that those who control the wealth (and therefore the executive, legislative. judicial, media and monetary branches) are free to do whatever they please with it. Which, as far as I know, is pretty much the way it is in capitalist Africa, too, with some variations on the theme.
It is only the socialist states that have, to some degree, instituted policies that have at least tried to limit the harvesting of human resources for private profit. Admittedly, they have not done that very well, largely due to the meddling of the privileged class's allies abroad, but also because corruption is as rampant in socialist states as it is in capitalist ones.
Note that the whole of Africa is not a great deal more currupt than the shining capitalist models of east and south Asia, in terms of corruption, defined as "the misuse of public power for private benefit".
The dreaded Singapore ranks fifth best in the world, and Cuba ranks higher than India, Brazil, Argentina, Thailand, and even Italy. Cuba is "less corrupt" than any of the Brics countries.
If you examine the map, it might strike you that the less corrupt nations in Africa are often the ones that went through a decade or two of socialist "cleansing", to rout the greedy hereditary wealth and foster a future in which meritocracy had a place. Like Ghana, Tanzania, Madagascar, Mali.
I should hasten to add that all the definitions used to define "corruption" or any other modern concept come straight out of the textbooks of western capitalist economics, so it is not surprising that western capitalist economies score the highest on the resulting scales. It is unlikely that any villager from Cape Verde or Laos was on the panel having any input into what is regarded as the ideal and thereby influencing the metric criteria in use.
Last edited by jtur88; 06-22-2013 at 08:05 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
