In the other hand, from a economical point of view, they act as a pseudo capitalist country. — javi2541997

No, they’re not capitalist. They’re not pseudo-capitalist either. Attributing their successes to capitalism is meaningless. It’s a state-directed economy with extensive state intervention in the economy at every level. To call that “capitalist” is absurd. The only reason for doing so is the irrational belief that capitalism (whatever it means) is a universal good.

China rejected neoliberal policies. The reforms in the 70s and 80s may be said to be neoliberal in part, because of reliance on foreign investments and markets, but that has nothing to do with neoliberalism.

So again, if not neoliberal — then how is it capitalist? It’s a state-directed economy. The state is a communist one. Yet somehow communism doesn’t get credited with pulling millions out of poverty and achieving growth rates that blow the US out of the water? Odd…

It doesn't make sense to be a "Marxist economy" while your GDP increases each year thanks to the principles of world trade and international market.
Cuba (for example) is another Marxist country. They are poor as hell and their economy has no future. Exactly for doing old communist acts as expropriation and removing the private property. This is a real communist country, not like China. — javi2541997

So an economy is only Marxist if it’s failed, poor, and has no future. Otherwise it can’t be Marxist— it’s gotta be something else…it’s gotta be capitalist, at least economically.

Is this really an argument?

Sorry, but you really don’t really know what you’re talking about. There’s a lot of literature to read on this if you’re interested. Ha-Joon Chang, Alice Amsden, Robert Wade, etc.

It would do you well to broaden your perspective. You’ve been brainwashed if you truly can’t see how silly this is.

Yeah, so in your world what’s needed is for everyone else to tighten their belts, lose their pensions, and live even shittier and more precarious lives.
— Xtrix

According to your own criteria, how can we live "good?" — javi2541997

By providing healthcare, education, infrastructure, public transportation, and housing for people. Plenty of work to be done. This creates jobs and growth too.

Or we can decide to allow the wealthiest people to continue to collect 90% of business profits and accumulate more wealth than the bottom 50% of the world population. Ignoring this is ignoring the problem— and so far you’ve ignored it and instead talk about spending cuts, which is more trickle-down economic / neoliberal talking points.

I am just sceptical on the way a state is wasting resources and increasing the taxes on the middle-class workers. — javi2541997

I haven’t once mentioned taxes for middle class workers. I’m talking about taxing the wealthy, and I’ve defined what I mean by “wealthy.”

The state does indeed waste resources — because the state is run by corporations and the wealthy. Which is why passing wealth taxes is so hard. That too needs to change. As does the propaganda that says that the state is the problem— it isn’t. The problem is greed and plutocracy.

In the other hand, from a economical point of view, they act as a pseudo capitalist country. — javi2541997

It's a mixed economy. They gave a very robust and powerful private sector.

Taxation will always be a fine balancing act debt for example delays the individuals ability to gain a foothold on life’s many essentials such as housing proving for their offspring and other everyday commodities. The wealthy on the other hand might have charity in mind but proper deployment of their wealth to the disenfranchised has the difficulty of falling into corrupt hands where it is needed the most

No, they’re not capitalist. They’re not pseudo-capitalist either. Attributing their successes to capitalism is meaningless. — Xtrix

Meaningless? Are you serious about such claim? Ok let's check the facts and statistics about Chinese GDP and economy in both Mao's China and Aperture China in the 1990s.

The Economy of China under Mao's leadership (1949 -1969): The economy of Communist China. When the Chinese Communists assumed power in October 1949, they inherited an economy that can be called backward by any quantitative criterion. Prolonged external war and subsequent civil strife had inflicted immeasurable damage. Confronting this
situation, the new government set forth two major economic goals: first, to restore the deteriorated economy as soon as possible, and second, to begin a rapid, forced-draft industrialization program to break the vicious cycle of backwardness and poverty. In the course of industrialization, the economy experienced acute inbalances, strains, and supply bottlenecks, which forced the planners to alter their scheme. In terms of scale of priority, rate of capital formation, and investment technique, the development strategies followed between 1949 and 1969 can be roughly divided into four consecutive stages. (I will not quote all the stages because the post will be so long but you can see it in the link I have provided previously)

Chinese pseudo capitalism (as I said): Since the late 1970s, China has undergone transition towards a market economy. In terms of economic growth, China has achieved an impressive record. The average annual growth of GDP per capita was as high as 8.4 per cent during the period 1978 to 1997. The human development index also indicates an improvement in well-being on the average for the Chinese population (UNDP 1998). China has become strongly integrated into the world economy. China's exports grew an average of 16.7 per cent per annum over the last two decades. China absorbed US$205 billion as foreign direct investment during the period 1990-97. Transition towards a market economy and openness has not been without its problems. link: Changing income distribution in China

Is this really an argument? — Xtrix

Give one example of successful Marxist economy.

By providing healthcare, education, infrastructure, public transportation, and housing for people. Plenty of work to be done. This creates jobs and growth too. — Xtrix

You would need wealthy companies and entrepreneurs to do so. A sick poor state cannot promote all what you are asking about. Whenever the state can't assume the debt it starts to raise the taxes to those who work hard to promote infrastructure and education. It is like an endless vicious circle.

As does the propaganda that says that the state is the problem— it isn’t. The problem is greed and plutocracy. — Xtrix

So, according to you, the state always wins and acts ethically. That's despotism and it is even worse...

They gave a very robust and powerful private sector. — frank

Exactly.

By providing healthcare, education, infrastructure, public transportation, and housing for people. Plenty of work to be done. This creates jobs and growth too. — Xtrix


You would need wealthy companies and entrepreneurs to do so. — javi2541997

How?

Using their profits to build and invest in all of those infrastructures and needs. It is not so weird to let a company to run a hospital or build a bridge... It is not necessary to let these tasks to public authorities.

Using their profits to build and invest in all of those infrastructures and needs. It is not so weird to let a company to run a hospital or build a bridge — javi2541997

We could let them sure, but what compels them? Or are you suggesting we leave it up to chance? If not, talk me through the mechanism which ensures everyone has adequate healthcare, education, infrastructure, public transportation, and housing via "wealthy companies and entrepreneurs".

Companies with big business or capital can provide qualitative infrastructures and goods. It is not impossible if we let the people acting with good faith to promote businesses where everyone can win. For example: An owner of a big plot who builds a building for one hundred families on it. Everybody wins in this operation: The owner who earned revenue and the families who purchased a new home to make a new life.
I know it is a simplistic example. But what I want to argue is that we should not be so sceptical with private sectors.

Or are you suggesting we leave it up to chance? — Isaac

No. We can reach successful businesseses using the reason and strategic plans. Promoting laws where the private sector can act according to comprehensive benefits and try to avoid the interaction of the state the less possible.

everyone — Isaac

Not everyone can take part on it because not everyone deserves it. Everyone having the right of taking part in those goods is a typical fallacy of socialism/Marxism ideologies.

No, they’re not capitalist. They’re not pseudo-capitalist either. Attributing their successes to capitalism is meaningless.
— Xtrix

Meaningless? Are you serious about such claim? — javi2541997

Yes. Might as well attribute the success to God.

Ok let's check the facts and statistics about Chinese GDP and economy in both Mao's China and Aperture China in the 1990s. — javi2541997

Why? No one is claiming there hasn't been a change in GDP. We're talking about what we're attributing it to. That's a complicated question, and one you haven't looked into much. Waving our hands and saying "It's because of capitalism" is, as I said before, meaningless.

Unless we want to attribute any economic success to the amorphous term "capitalism." But then, again, you might as well attribute it to God.

Give one example of successful Marxist economy. — javi2541997

Give one example of a successful capitalist economy.

Meaningless.

By providing healthcare, education, infrastructure, public transportation, and housing for people. Plenty of work to be done. This creates jobs and growth too.
— Xtrix

You would need wealthy companies and entrepreneurs to do so. A sick poor state cannot promote all what you are asking about. — javi2541997

That's like saying you need guys like Bill Gates and Microsoft to have the Internet. Complete nonsense.

Who said anything about a "poor, sick state"? What I had in mind was the United States. A pretty wealthy country, all things considered. What's the excuse there?

The problem is greed and plutocracy.
— Xtrix

So, according to you, the state always wins and acts ethically. — javi2541997

"Wins" what? States don't act -- people act. What people, who comprise a government, do is influenced by the wealthy and powerful in any country -- some more than others. In the US, it's a joke. Both parties are essentially beholden to corporate interests. The republican party is unapologetically corporatist; they make the democrats look reasonable, even though the last 40 years they've abandoned the working class.

But no -- I'm not saying anything like that.

Give one example of a successful capitalist economy. — Xtrix

Japan and South Korea.

But then, again, you might as well attribute it to God. — Xtrix

I don't understand this argument...

States don't act -- people act. — Xtrix

You are contradictory here. Because you said previously that we should limit the wealth of rich people. But now you are claiming that everything works thanks to people. Well, inside this criteria of "people" there are rich too. You don't like corporate interests but the only way to avoid it is with expropriation or the limitation of the market and the pure control of the state on every economic reform.

"It's because of capitalism" — Xtrix

But it is a fact that they increased their economy thanks to the transition to a market economy. If this is not capitalism, what economical system we are talking about? Plot twist: it is not socialism...

Companies with big business or capital can provide qualitative infrastructures and goods. It is not impossible if we let the people acting with good faith to promote businesses — javi2541997

I'm sure they can. My question was what mechanism ensured they actually did.

Not everyone can take part on it because not everyone deserves it. Everyone having the right of taking part in those goods is a typical fallacy of socialism/Marxism ideologies. — javi2541997

I see. So what is it that entitles someone to adequate healthcare, education, infrastructure, public transportation, and housing?

question was what mechanism ensured they actually did. — Isaac

A consumers' co-operative could be a good mechanism. Everyone takes part in the project of developing healthcare, infrastructure, education programs, transport, etc... with a common stock.
People who join cooperatives often have the same shared values, meaning they are willing to work together towards a common goal. One of those goals is to create a better services by working together and by shifting the focus of the business to place people over profit to build a more inclusive economy.

I see. So what is it that entitles someone to adequate healthcare, education, infrastructure, public transportation, and housing? — Isaac

I understand those "rights" or goods are so difficult to measure. What I wanted to say is that I consider unfair the fact of how many people who don't do anything for the state still consuming the benefits of it. I guess someone is entitled to take advantage of education or infrastructure (for example) when he/she is a formidable citizen who works or studies hard, doesn't commit crimes, respect the authority, etc... everything what we should expect from a regular citizen in a democratic country.
But... do you know what? Even the prisoners take part of the resources of the state because each convicted costs around 2.000 € per month. It is crazy... there are salaries of honest people lower than that digit.

A consumers' co-operative could be a good mechanism. — javi2541997

Again, I didn't ask how it might happen. I asked how we ensure it actually does.

I consider unfair the fact of how many people who don't do anything for the state still consuming the benefits of it. — javi2541997

Who would those be then?

I guess someone is entitled to take advantage of education or infrastructure (for example) when he/she is a formidable citizen who works or studies hard, doesn't commit crimes, respect the authority, etc... everything what we should expect from a regular citizen in a democratic country. — javi2541997

So someone who inherited their wealth ought have it taken away, as they don't deserve it, yes?

Or someone who worked only moderately hard but got lucky should only get the keep the proportion of their wealth which reflects their work, but not their luck?

And all the white collar crime - the tax dodging, the insider trading, the backhand payments, shell companies, illegal trading.... Those people should all have their wealth taken away too, as they don't deserve it either?

....I think we might be beginning to agree.

Also I'm having trouble squaring...

respect the authority — javi2541997

...with...

I think it is abusive. Nonetheless, socialists say this is the right thing to do... because the rich and businessmen need to be solidary with the working class or the poorest (meanwhile those taxes always end up to cover the costs of minorities... But this is a subject of a different topic). My country is a example of what happens when political correctness is in power. — javi2541997

Doesn't sound very respectful of the authority. Or did you have a different authority in mind?

I asked how we ensure it actually does. — Isaac

Respecting and keeping the law. Simple.

Who would those be then? — Isaac

Convicted criminals, lazy people who spend their money in gambling and drugs, all of those who don't respect the basic laws and pillars of a democratic state.

So someone who inherited their wealth ought have it taken away, as they don't deserve it, yes? — Isaac

No. All of those who inherited their wealth are just taking advantage of all the efforts did by their parents, grandparents, etc... otherwise, it would be expropriation.

And all the white collar crime - the tax dodging, the insider trading, the backhand payments, shell companies, illegal trading.... Those people should all have their wealth taken away too, as they don't deserve it either?

....I think we might be beginning to agree — Isaac

I am agree with you in this point.

Or did you have a different authority in mind? — Isaac

Judges, Courts, police officers, prosecutors, lawyers, military officers, and all the authorities who ensure the application of law.
I mean it is so easy to find out some authorities. Just look at what political correctness is against.

Respecting and keeping the law. Simple. — javi2541997

Go on... Which laws ensure adequate healthcare, education, infrastructure, public transportation, and housing and how do they do so?

Convicted criminals, lazy people who spend their money in gambling and drugs, all of those who don't respect the basic laws and pillars of a democratic state. — javi2541997

So most stock exchange workers, bankers, CEOs...where gambling, illegal prostitution and cocaine use are endemic?

All of those who inherited their wealth are just taking advantage of all the efforts did by their parents, grandparents — javi2541997

Are they? What about if those parents/grandparents merely inherited their wealth? And even if they didn't, the people in question are still taking advantage of someone else's hard work. That contradicts your statement that those deserving of adequate healthcare, education, infrastructure, public transportation, and housing are those who...

works or studies hard, doesn't commit crimes, respect the authority, etc... everything what we should expect from a regular citizen in a democratic country. — javi2541997

I am agree with you in this point. — javi2541997

So let's start there then. The volumes if money involved in white collar crime dwarf welfare payments by whole orders of magnitude. Why are taxes your target?

Judges, Courts, police officers, prosecutors, lawyers, military officers, and all the authorities who ensure the application of law. — javi2541997

Why?

But it is a fact that they increased their economy thanks to the transition to a market economy. If this is not capitalism, what economical system we are talking about? Plot twist: it is not socialism... — javi2541997

Exactly. Their command economy was stagnant and left hundreds of millions of people in extreme poverty. Transitioning to a private, profit based system turned things around dramatically. For all it's faults, we have to give this to capitalism: it works.

Go on... Which laws ensure adequate healthcare, education, infrastructure, public transportation, and housing and how do they do so? — Isaac

Positive laws published in codes. If there are some doubts on their application we can ask to the Supreme Court to establish a basic sense of basic positive law. This is called jurisprudence and it is very effective in terms of helping the law operators and authorities to achieve those benefits and goods such as: adequate healthcare, education, infrastructure, public transportation, etc…

So most stock exchange workers, bankers, CEOs...where gambling, illegal prostitution and cocaine use are endemic? — Isaac

No. When I said I exclude them? In the other hand… why do you think all CEOs or bankers act viciously or waste their resources on gambling, prostitution, drugs, etc…?

Why are taxes your target? — Isaac

Because at the end of the day taxes only affects middle class workers. It is unfair. At least, if we cannot get rid of taxation we have to find out a system that is not oppressive to the wealth of normal/regular workers. You say we should prosecute billionaires for tax fraud but there are a lot of workers who would suffer the consequences. Those billionaires or CEOs would put their headquarters in a tax heaven countries and we will end up in a scenario of not collecting anything…
Yet taxation affect people who only have around 150.000 or 200.000 € in your bank. That’s a regular digit that you would get along your life.

Why? — Isaac

Because they are authorities who promote the application of law. We should not disrespect them. If we start to not to value those operators we will end up in a chaotic society.
I don’t like how taxation is based so I will start to not paying it This sounds stupid right?. It is a typical argument which comes from someone who doesn’t like righteousness.

Note: as I said in a previous post to Xtrix, I am not neo liberal. I am skeptical about how the state waste all the resources while chokes the middle workers instead of promote the spending cuts

For all it's faults, we have to give this to capitalism: it works. — frank

I couldn’t have said it better :sparkle: :up:

Positive laws published in codes. — javi2541997

Which ones? And how do they work?

No. When I said I exclude them? — javi2541997

You said....

Not everyone can take part on it because not everyone deserves it. — javi2541997

... I asked...

Who would those be then? — Isaac

...you replied...

Convicted criminals, lazy people who spend their money in gambling and drugs, all of those who don't respect the basic laws and pillars of a democratic state. — javi2541997

...so I assume you include the majority of bankers stock traders and CEOs who use prostitutes and cocaine? Or engage in illegal trading, or tax avoidance, or insider trading, or any other illegal activity, yes?

You say we should prosecute billionaires for tax fraud but there are a lot of workers who would suffer the consequences. — javi2541997

Workers would also suffer consequences if we don't. So?

I don’t like how taxation is based so I will start to not paying it This sounds stupid right? — javi2541997

You do know where most tax avoidance comes from don't you?

Which ones? And how do they work? — Isaac

Positive laws based on taxation, the role of taxpayers, limits on the fees of each payer, compensations if they have personal issues (handicapped persons for example)
It is easy how they work. It is mandatory since they are published in a public bulletin. In my humble opinion, it is easy to respect the law if we see it in a objective/positive way.

so I assume you include the majority of bankers stock traders and CEOs who use prostitutes and cocaine? Or engage in illegal trading, or tax avoidance, or insider trading, or any other illegal activity, yes? — Isaac

But why do you assume all CEOs act viciously or against the law? We can consider a "CEO" a normal person who owns a business of exporting vegetables for example. Not all CEOs are rich...

Workers would also suffer consequences if we don't. So? — Isaac

Better collecting a brief taxation than nothing...
In the other hand, why you do you assume the CEOs always "win" and the workers always "lose"?
They win or lose on what? I only see a common responsible and it is the spendthrift state.

You do know where most tax avoidance comes from don't you? — Isaac

Well it is still an enigma. I will not say the responsibility of tax avoidance is always on CEOs shoulders.

Give one example of a successful capitalist economy.
— Xtrix

Japan and South Korea. — javi2541997

Neither are capitalist. Not even close.

But then, again, you might as well attribute it to God.
— Xtrix

I don't understand this argument... — javi2541997

The point is that the word capitalism is as meaningless as the word God.

You don't like corporate interests but the only way to avoid it is with expropriation or the limitation of the market and the pure control of the state on every economic reform. — javi2541997

The “only way”?

No. Corporations are the creations of states. Their interests can be avoided in multiple ways. One of the better ways is to make them co-ops, like the Mondragon Corporation in your country. That’s a good example: let the workers own the company. That’s one example of an alternative.

But it is a fact that they increased their economy thanks to the transition to a market economy. — javi2541997

First, that’s far from a “fact.” That you’ve read it from the opening paragraph of one article doesn’t make it factual.

Second, markets exist in any society. If the existence of markets and private property is the criteria for defining capitalism, then Cuba is capitalist too. (But it’s “failing,” so I guess it can’t be.)

For the umpteenth time: “capitalism” and “socialism” are so amorphous as to be meaningless.

Attributing China’s state-directed economy’s successes to “capitalism” is just childish and stupid. The only thing it shows is that the person making such a claim doesn’t have a clue about what capitalism is, and has defined it into oblivion. I’d suggest reading the sources I’ve mentioned.

Why not just make it easier: any successful economy is a capitalist economy. Any failed economy is a socialist or communist economy. Heads I win, tails you lose. Brilliant.

Arguments about capitalism always reminds me of the quarterback for the NFL team that wins the game and gives God the credit. No mention of God when they lose. George Carlin talked about this years ago.

God is undefeated, according to them.

Same is true of the apologists for capitalism: successful economy? Capitalism! Simple principle.

Take a look at Chile under Pinochet’s “reforms.” I guess the disaster must be attributed to something else. Can’t be capitalism, because capitalism always wins.

Positive laws based on taxation, the role of taxpayers, limits on the fees of each payer, compensations if they have personal issues (handicapped persons for example)
It is easy how they work. — javi2541997

Go on then... You've yet to connect any law by any mechanism to ensuring the provision of adequate healthcare, education, infrastructure, public transportation, and housing.

why do you assume all CEOs act viciously or against the law? — javi2541997

I don't. Drug use and illegal behaviour is nonetheless rife in those fields. You claimed that such people did not deserve adequate healthcare, education, infrastructure, public transportation, and housing. They nonetheless have such things, so a tax on those people would be just, no?

Plus you've neglected to answer the question about how the wealthy 'deserve' their inherited wealth when they haven't met your criteria of someone who...

works or studies hard, doesn't commit crimes, respect the authority, etc... everything what we should expect from a regular citizen in a democratic country. — javi2541997

But let's start with those laws. If you can show how a low tax government can ensure adequate healthcare, education, infrastructure, public transportation, and housing without taxing the rich then we're good. The rich can keep their money if everyone is adequately housed, fed and cared for.

One of the better ways is to make them co-ops, like the Mondragon Corporation in your country. That’s a good example: let the workers own the company. That’s one example of an alternative. — Xtrix

One example out of 1,000 which really works. Mondragon is a tiny city in Basque Country. Yes, the use the co-ops model and it works but it is easier if you do not have a big number of employees. Imagine using this way on macro business as Zara or Microsoft with thousands and thousands of employees.

If the existence of markets and private property is the criteria for defining capitalism, then Cuba is capitalist too. (But it’s “failing,” so I guess it can’t be.) — Xtrix

The markets and property don't exist in Cuba.

any successful economy is a capitalist economy. Any failed economy is a socialist or communist economy. Heads I win, tails you lose. Brilliant — Xtrix

I still waiting for an example of a successful socialist economy. I put a lot of examples of successful economies which operate on market and capitalism but you just considered them as "meaningless"
If you consider "meaningless" the huge development of Japan and South Korea is your problem not mine.

successful economy? Capitalism! Simple principle. — Xtrix

I think you are not aware of how lucky you are of living in a developed country as the USA. If you don't like capitalism, you can try another life in Cuba, Bolivia, Angola, etc...

The markets and property don't exist in Cuba. — javi2541997

Looks like a market and some property to me

They nonetheless have such things, so a tax on those people would be just, no? — Isaac

As a punishment, yes why not. Nevertheless, I never said the CEOs should not be taxed. I just complain about how taxation works. Collecting a lot of money through taxation don't lead us to solve all the problems. That's fake.

If you can show how a low tax government can ensure adequate healthcare, education, infrastructure, public transportation, and housing without taxing the rich then we're good. The rich can keep their money if everyone is adequately housed, fed and cared for. — Isaac

I don't pretend to remove all taxations but reduce the fees or the payment. You are misunderstanding. I am complaining because paying around 25 % or more of your revenue in taxes is abusive. 5 % or 10 % would be OK.
But I going to use an example of how we can ensure those goods without abusive taxation.

Education = Private schools and universities are always there. You pay a fee to join such educational system.

Infrastructure = I already put the example. We can let some companies to build up the highways. They assume the management and administration. We the citizens only pay for this service whenever we use it.

Houses = it is always better to let the real state companies to do so. Public administrations only speculate with the price of houses and plots. This is a big fact indeed.

Education = Private schools and universities are always there. You pay a fee to join such educational system. — javi2541997

What about those who can't afford the fee?

We can let some companies to build up the highways. They assume the management and administration. We the citizens only pay for this service whenever we use it. — javi2541997

What about those who can't afford the fee?

it is always better to let the real state companies to do so. — javi2541997

What about those who can't afford the price?

Looks like a market and some property to me — Isaac

If you call that as "markets" this is prosperity then: