pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 12 replies \ @didiplaywell 6h \ parent \ on: "Free market capitalism" in America. Are we happy with the results? econ
There's no such combination. Any attempt in that direction do not only exacerbates the problem: it's the very cause of the problem in the first place.
Every wealthy empire in history evidences otherwise.
The British Empire via the East India Company could only force trade upon China because of its superior navy and cannons. They demanded Hong Kong and established the banking that enabled the Opium Trade and exploitation of China and the subsequent incursions by multiple western nations as well as Japan...all enabled by governments and their military power projection supporting their merchants.
The capital markets of the Netherlands enabled global trade and wealth for the Dutch.
The Spanish and Portuguese royalty sponsored conquest and exploitation of Latin America.
The US Petrodollar has only been operative due to US pledge to provide military defense and market and USTs to oil producing OPEC nations. US hegemony picked up the British Empires hegemony after WW2 with the same Jewish bankers in shadows operating the monetary networks that have run parallel to the military for hundreds of years.
Each empire declines as a new more proficient combination of merchants and government power projection is developed by a competing nation state.
China has won the trade war while USA carries a chronic trade and fiscal deficit that nobody sees as ever being repaid.
Trump is held hostage by China - 'if you want our refined rare earths essential to your military and manufacturing sponsors then bend the knee Donald!'
Wealth never endures without the framework of government providing the best conditions for its merchants and history tells this over and over and over again back to Roman times and before to King Solomon!
Learn from history or be condemned to repeat it.
reply
Every wealthy empire in history evidences otherwise.
No. Not in the slightest. Every single empire in history is an evidence of the exact opposite you're saying.
You are stuck in the cartoonish introductory version of history you might have learned in elementary school and have never read any actual source beyond that.
Learn from history or be condemned to repeat it.
reply
Please demonstrate you are capable of engaging in fact based reasoned debate rather than unsupported assertions.
Otherwise you are just an arrogant ideolog who makes baseless assertions and attacks those who disagree but cannot back your assertions with reason.
I have given numerous historical examples to support my reasoning.
You have not.
Nothing constructive can come from your approach.
You neither support your own assertions nor refute mine with any facts or reasoning.
reply
I did gave a fact based assertion: your assumptions and assertions are false. Hence all I could say about them: no.
The British Empire via the East India Company could only force trade upon China because of its superior navy and cannons.
Plunder of one empire over the other. Not "wealth production". Not "societal outcome". Absolute Zero Game, aka Plunder.
They demanded Hong Kong and established the banking that enabled the Opium Trade and exploitation of China
Plunder of one empire over the other. Not "wealth production". Not "societal outcome". Absolute Zero Game, aka Plunder.
The capital markets of the Netherlands enabled global trade and wealth for the Dutch.
An excellent example of free markets doing their job without government intervention. Not at all your point.
The Spanish and Portuguese royalty sponsored conquest and exploitation of Latin America.
Plunder of one empire over the other. Not "wealth production". Not "societal outcome". Absolute Zero Game, aka Plunder.
Not a single one of your examples sustain your point. What you want me to say? All than can be said about your argument is just: no. In fact through your examples you have proved yourself wrong. And you don't realize. That makes the debate impossible to be constructive, you will not acknowledge reality even when you yourself repeat it. No debate is possible. Hence the only answer I can give you: just, no.
reply
I'm enjoying your responses, but I'm pretty sure you're talking to a CCP chatbot
reply
Thank you buddy, on one hand I do it because I like to practice being able to deal with this extreme levels of idiocy. You will see in the last response of the CCP bot that I got him to vomit utter retardment as a last resource. I consider myself accomplished. It's like a programming-learning videogame. On the other hand, I know sometimes someone will look at this and that will be worth it, so thank you.
reply
Enjoy your Libertarian circle jerking echo chamber.
Outside of that you have no credibility in terms of a fact based reasoned dialogue.
You rely upon ganging up and personal attacks of your circle jerking echo chamber associates...avoiding the facts and issues because you and they cannot engage in a fair contest of ideas.
Undisciplined joins you in attacking me, the messenger, personally, because @Undisciplined is even more incapable of engaging in a contest of ideas than you are.
Ideological cronyism at its most blatant and shameless.
reply
1- The Opium Trade was not profitable for British and other nations traders who engaged in the trade??? Really? OMG! Please! Get real! FFS!
And the export of tea and porcelain from China that the Opium Trade enabled was not profitable for the British and other traders who were able to do this as a result of the British Empires military force? Really?
Not sure what drugs you are on but they are definitely clouding your thinking.
2- ' "The capital markets of the Netherlands enabled global trade and wealth for the Dutch."
An excellent example of free markets doing their job without government intervention. '
Wrong- it was only with the support of the Dutch government and the consistent ability to make and enforce contracts within the Dutch jurisdiction that the prosperous global trading ventures undertaken by the Dutch merchants were made possible. Capital markets cannot function well without rule of law and property rights provided by consistent governance.
The Dutch government provided the legal framework for free enterprise to prosper. If you knew the history you would understand that at the same time the Spanish royalty would repeatedly renege upon financial undertakings with those providing finance for expeditions of conquest and trade and due to the inconsistency and weakness and corruption within the Spanish government capital supply dried up as investors preferred the superior legal framework provided by the Dutch.
3- As long as it lasted the Spanish plunder of Latin Americas definitely provided significant wealth and societal prosperity for Spain.
It could be argued this is no more plunder than the removal of the Iranian government in the 1950s via the CIA establishing a Shah who would allow US and British exploitation of Iranian oil. This combination of state use of force and private enterprise developed over the following years to create the petrodollar global monetary hegemony and extraordinary privilege of the USD and thus derived and sustained the most wealthy empire in human history...USA.
Free trade is a cute slogan mostly touted by hypocrits who practice nothing of the sort.
To the extent that free trade can exist it must have the context of a legal system that protects and enforces property rights.
reply
The Opium Trade was not profitable for British and other nations traders who engaged in the trade???
Chose one. Now you talk about wealth being generated by trade. Excellent example of actual growth being caused by the absence of government intervention. But then, when you have to reinstate the figure of government intervention, you recur to the image of an "exploited China". If wealth was generated that way, then it was, as you yourself expressed, plunder. If it was not generated that way, then it was, as you yourself expressed, absence of government allowing for the free market to do its job.
Chose One!! Really? OMG! Please! Get real! FFS!
it was only with the support of the Dutch government and the consistent ability to make and enforce contracts
Chose one. Now you talk about thread being generated by enforcement. Excellent example of an empire plundering its vassals. But then, when you have to reinstate the figure of commerce, you recur to the image of trade. If wealth was generated that way, then it was, as you yourself expressed, absence of government allowing for the free market to do its job. If it was not generated that way, then it was, as you yourself expressed, plunder.
Chose One!! Really? OMG! Please! Get real! FFS!
If you knew history, you would stick to history. Instead, you wander about whatever fits the narrative the party imposed upon you in the moment.
reply
1-Plunder is quite simply wealth creation and accumulation.
It is capital raising in the most direct form!
Do you not understand that?
Chinese plunder western manufacturing technology for example.
And they get rich upon it, by combining that plunder with government support of manufacturing sector competitiveness. The early British empire did similar with its pirates raiding Spanish Galleons...who had in turn plundered Latin America.
Its a great way to raise capital if you can get away with it and if your government is stronger than the one you are plundering.
The continuum between what might be called plunder and trade is often proportional to the degree of force one trader can exert of the other and often that force is coming from the first traders government and their military.
2- 'it was only with the support of the Dutch government and the consistent ability to make and enforce contracts'
It is really very simple. Merchants cannot confidently raise capital and embark on trading ventures or manufacturing ventures if there is not a reliable legal system in place with which to enforce those financing, manufacturing and trading contracts.
The Dutch government provided the sound and predictable legal system for a capital raising market to confidently develop and flourish.
The Spanish failed to do that and their empire went into decline.
This is indicative of the fundamental interdependence of free enterprise and government.
The reality is not black or white- it is understood when you grasp the synergies between the different players in the economy- government and enterprise when working together can create huge wealth and opportunity.
Alone and without the other, neither is very productive.
reply
Plunder is quite simply wealth creation and accumulation. It is capital raising in the most direct form!
Enough said. You're clinically retarded.