Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
An interesting conversation.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="curiousbrain" data-source="post: 824890" data-attributes="member: 31608"><p>There is certainly something to be considered in how capitalism and communism can coexist. In some sense, I feel like China was sort of forced into it; the majority of wealth and power in the world had become concentrated in the West and there was very little possibility (as I see it anyway, which is perhaps not saying much) of getting a real economy going without engaging the rest of the world - and that meant opening up China to foreign investment.</p><p></p><p>Also, the recognition that China had a labor force that surpassed almost any other in the world probably didn't hurt - seeing how NAFTA and other treaties had moved production from high-cost labor locations to low-cost labor locations, it stands to reason that at some point some enterprising individual in China said "We should try that; our cost of living is so low we can produce cheaper than almost anyone else."</p><p></p><p>That realization was perhaps a result of institutional changes post-Mao, as implemented by Deng Xiaoping, although who can say.</p><p></p><p>I might also add that I think (I stress that part), even though there is a lot of China-phobia around the world today, the government has a deal with the people - your standard of living will go up, and we get to stay in power. If the economy over there ever started to really shrink, there is a real possibility of social upheaval.</p><p></p><p></p><p> </p><p>Agreed; if I understand you correctly, I think the Soviet economy would be a good example of this - centrally planned and directed, it became a sort of monstrous zombie economy that was unable (or not allowed, which is effectively the same thing) to act according to certain "natural" laws.</p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, agreed; the problem with intervention in any system is that the system does not care about intentions, good or bad; I would defer to Chaos theory in this regard, of which I have no in-depth understanding, but enough to say that I think the point stands, at least in a general sense - I wouldn't consider a large economy to be totally deterministic, for example.</p><p></p><p>On the other hand, though, part of the "system" that is our political and economic landscape is the pressure of the people - and, sad to say, the people often demand empty gestures and actions to assuage their own insecurity about the impotency of government. That is to say, giving the government the benefit of the doubt and suggesting that they know intervention has unforeseen consequences, they are still under enormous public pressure to do at least something. This might not be the fundamental cause of the arrogance of government intervention, but it certainly doesn't help matters.</p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>It certainly makes sense (to me, at least) that if the people surrender their right/ability to know what is going on, they have little ability to defend themselves from the powers that be. As an aside, to me that is what is meant by the phrase "information is power."</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="curiousbrain, post: 824890, member: 31608"] There is certainly something to be considered in how capitalism and communism can coexist. In some sense, I feel like China was sort of forced into it; the majority of wealth and power in the world had become concentrated in the West and there was very little possibility (as I see it anyway, which is perhaps not saying much) of getting a real economy going without engaging the rest of the world - and that meant opening up China to foreign investment. Also, the recognition that China had a labor force that surpassed almost any other in the world probably didn't hurt - seeing how NAFTA and other treaties had moved production from high-cost labor locations to low-cost labor locations, it stands to reason that at some point some enterprising individual in China said "We should try that; our cost of living is so low we can produce cheaper than almost anyone else." That realization was perhaps a result of institutional changes post-Mao, as implemented by Deng Xiaoping, although who can say. I might also add that I think (I stress that part), even though there is a lot of China-phobia around the world today, the government has a deal with the people - your standard of living will go up, and we get to stay in power. If the economy over there ever started to really shrink, there is a real possibility of social upheaval. Agreed; if I understand you correctly, I think the Soviet economy would be a good example of this - centrally planned and directed, it became a sort of monstrous zombie economy that was unable (or not allowed, which is effectively the same thing) to act according to certain "natural" laws. Again, agreed; the problem with intervention in any system is that the system does not care about intentions, good or bad; I would defer to Chaos theory in this regard, of which I have no in-depth understanding, but enough to say that I think the point stands, at least in a general sense - I wouldn't consider a large economy to be totally deterministic, for example. On the other hand, though, part of the "system" that is our political and economic landscape is the pressure of the people - and, sad to say, the people often demand empty gestures and actions to assuage their own insecurity about the impotency of government. That is to say, giving the government the benefit of the doubt and suggesting that they know intervention has unforeseen consequences, they are still under enormous public pressure to do at least something. This might not be the fundamental cause of the arrogance of government intervention, but it certainly doesn't help matters. It certainly makes sense (to me, at least) that if the people surrender their right/ability to know what is going on, they have little ability to defend themselves from the powers that be. As an aside, to me that is what is meant by the phrase "information is power." [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
An interesting conversation.
Top