Successful economy? That’s capitalism.
Failed economy? Socialism. — Xtrix

You could engage others in discussion to find out what they really think. And grow a sense of humor...

One of the main important facts of this debate indeed. But according to Xtrix China becoming the most powerful country in the world thanks to the aperture to market and capitalism is just meaningless. — javi2541997

It's very meaningful. Capitalism is a two edged sword. Capitalist economies tend to run hot. When the population adapts to a hot economy, there's pressure on the political system to keep it hot. Sooner or later it will melt down.

Bottom line: capitalism is dangerous, but it does create prosperity. That's the reason it's so enduring.

:up:

So they’re mixed economies — Xtrix

Sure. Japan and S. Korea are capitalist countries. That statement does not entail that the government has no role in the economy. It just means industry is privately owned and profit driven as opposed to a centrally planned.

We're only talking about this because you want to divert from your misinformation about China. China's prosperity is a direct result of the adoption of capitalism. Again, this is not controversial.

Two mental giants — Xtrix

There's no need to get personal. :lol:

The Japanese government is very much a servant of private owned industry. This gives Japanese companies a bit of an advantage over American ones where there's the legacy of conflict between government and manufacturing.

So let me know when you’ve done the bare minimum of homework on issues you have no clue about. — Xtrix

omg. Please stop

sacred figure of the Emperor :joke: — javi2541997

He's a genius!

Japan and South Korea are not meaningless.
They are not capitalist.

Somebody needs to tell Honda they're state owned. :lol:

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.

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.

They're conflict habituated, a sign of deep emotional wounds that probably go back to childhood.

don't think total humiliation will be accepted by the Russian regime, meaning, they might go crazy. One needs to give the opponent an off ramp, however distasteful it is. — Manuel

The problem with being entirely dishonorable and untrustworthy is that you can't get your opponent to accept a cease fire, especially when they're on a roll.

Not saying Ukraine shouldn't get them back, but I'd be careful in handling the situation. — Manuel

Careful how?

We should expect Ukraine to fight for these territories back, now Russia will consider it a direct attack on them. Quite a problem. — Manuel

Those areas are part of Ukraine.

Would Russia's army have been victorious without Western support for Ukraine?

Depends on what you consider "a lot." It's about 30,000 of 1.3 million. It was a relevant source of recruitment when the all volunteer force was under a lot of stress in the mid-late 2000s though. — Count Timothy von Icarus

It's not that many, then. I I guess it was related to trying to stabilize Syria?

Minority women are much more likely to go to trade school, get licenses, and join trade unions. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I wonder what proportion of those are single moms ready to take any path to earning wages.

I think Putin wants to stop where he is and just defend the (soon to be) annexed territories. If they're part of Russia, attempts to take them back are supposed to be an attack on Russia.

I can see this having serious follow on effects if other minority populations, who have made up a massively disproportionate amount of front line combat forces — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think the US gets a lot of their troops by offering citizenship to Latin Americans for service.

That's true. Though it should be. "Check on power" and all that media responsibility. — Manuel

The US government has built-in checks on power. We just want the newspapers to investigate and report.

There tends to be very little dissent in the NYT, it tends to go with the government in relation to wars, — Manuel

Dissent isn't their job, though.

Oh, and training? Forget about it, you are going straight to Kherson! — SophistiCat

They're going to be killed. I don't understand it.

What would be concerning if no Russian would want (secretly?) regime change. Yet many opt to leave... perhaps the ghost of Stalin is too frightening. — ssu

I guess if Biden wanted stability in the region, he would try to help Russia save face right now, instead of humiliating the fuck out of Putin? Maybe that's not even in the cards, though.

Putin had a somewhat good run for Russia. — ssu

True. I think he was pretty well respected after Syria. How things change.

It's for real. — magritte

What's concerning (among all the concerning stuff) is that Biden doesn't want domestic tranquility in Russia. He wants regime change.

The wording "catastrophic consequences " was part of a message to the Kremlin from the White House regarding the use of tactical nukes. :eyes:

Ideally the profits should go back into the business in R&D and positioning for future growth. That kind of thing declined in the 1980s as corporations came to be seen as objects of raiding as opposed to essential features of communities.

The economic position of the average American has declined. Even as wages increase, they're in worse shape. You see this as attributable to Biden?

Stephen Pacala's statistics strikes me as like only blaming the CEOs of corporations for the majority of sweat shop slavery. As if we privileged first world peeps who buy sweat shop produced items aren't the main cause. — Yohan

I couldn't find his original statement anywhere. It's alluded to without any citation. Kind of useless.

If it were false then it's negation would be true, irrespective of our certainty and judgements and justifications. Which would be a contradiction. — Michael

Antirealism is about the world, not metaphysics.

Sometimes, in the real world, it is actually raining, and sometimes, in the real world, it actually isn't raining, irrespective of our certainty and judgements and justifications. — Michael

This is an assumption. You can invite people to share your assumptions, but you can't really bang them over the head with them. Assumptions have no weight.

Ha!

:grin: Or just go somewhere else. :up:

But then, if we already know who's trolling, do we need some infamous mark? Can't we just not feed them, as SophistiCat is saying? — Olivier5

I was just thinking of ways to discourage it. I get your point.

Posters should argue in good faith. But if we were to mod everything we thought was false, we'd not unjustifiably be accused of censorship and bias. — Baden

If someone argues for several pages that Russia invaded Ukraine to control Nazis, we know that poster is a troll. Couldn't we at least identify them as such? Like with a T over their avatar?

Have patience. Wait until the mud settles and the water is clear. Remain unmoving until right action arises by itself.

Laozi

:smile:

The internet is inundated with false information about Ukraine.

Is there any way this forum could be an oasis from that? For instance, could there be a standard of at least trying to present correct information?

A couple of the posters here have admitted they aren't interested in being truthful. Could we sanction that?

Carry on. You're doing fine. :up:

And yet here you are, saying something about that. — Isaac

Yeah. The US sent in 500 troops to support the Somali government. And you're waving the Somali flag.

:lol:

The more I read anti-NATO imperialism supporters the more I feel like becoming a NATO imperialist supporter: — neomac

Surely we don't have a good representation here. I'm not on Twitter or Facebook, so I don't know. I think we just have a couple of people who are trying to be emotionally abusive. Probably because it feels good to them.

Yeah, because a much more appropriate reaction to America running an actual insurance racket is to tut quietly and move on to the sports section. Pathetic. — Isaac

You still have your pro-American flag waving. I don't know what to say about that.

You have a strange notion of outrage. But then, you are addicted to me. — Streetlight

Fine. Bye.