Massive state intervention on every level is…capitalism. Got it. — Xtrix

How can you prove with facts that Japan has massive state intervention? You don’t stop to replicate this argument but you are not proving it.

But you’re welcome to your fantasies. — Xtrix

Educate yourself please: What Is the Laffer Curve?

China's prosperity is a direct result of the adoption of capitalism. Again, this is not controversial. — frank

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.

Two mental giants. — Xtrix

At least we recognize Japan and South Korea as capitalist countries and we condemn communism and the Cuban dictatorship. I think we are in the right path not like you.

The United States. — Xtrix

Average argument of a socialist. The United States of America is guilty of all the disasters of this world. Keep with your brainwashed claims!

So they’re mixed economies— like the rest of the world. — Xtrix

Yes, ok. We can be agree here. They are mixed but closer to capitalism than other economical doctrine.

You can do a simple Google search to educate yourself. — Xtrix

Hey, one advice: do not believe in everything you find out in internet or Google. 90 % of data are fake news or Marxist liars who want to spread their fundamentalism.

I’ve been to Cuba. I liked it a lot, actually. I like Jamaica as well. I noticed a lot more poverty in Jamaica, but both were nice. — Xtrix

Conclusion: you enjoy poverty and you see formidable the struggle of a country which suffers from dictatorship. Cool.
At least Jamaica is a democracy and they can vote whatever they want. Or you will now that Cuba is more democratic than Jamaica? Because you seem obsessed with this country.

If I have money I can buy wool, cotton and SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM. — I like sushi

Sounds profitable for me :yum:

Somebody needs to tell Honda they're state owned — frank

:rofl: ! HAHA.

Nintendo, Toyota, Kawasaki, Mitsubishi, Mazda, Suzuki, Sony, Fujitsu, etc… all of them are controlled by the Japanese diet and the sacred figure of the Emperor :joke:

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

According to your own economical criteria what the hell are they? Because they are so far for being communist. If you want to see a good indicator just check the differences between North and South Korea. It will terrify you...

The reason for Cuba’s poverty isn’t socialism or communism. — Xtrix

What is the main issue of Cuban poverty then? They are been living in a establishment which they cannot get rid of. It is damn dictatorship. I think it would be shameless not to point Bolivarian communism for being responsible of the main problems and calamities of Cuban people.

Because Cuba does have markets and private property. — Xtrix

No, they haven't. Go on and search some information about Cuban markets or private property. Oh you will not find it because it is an opaque dictatorship. It is impossible to find data.

Simple google search of Cuba: — Xtrix

Those are fake and have a lot of Photoshop.

Try growing up and educating yourself before embarrassing yourself online repeatedly. Deal? — Xtrix

Only if you leave of your comfort democratic capitalist zone and go to Cuba to prove how good they are living there :yum:

I see we've descended into lunacy. Well, it was a pleasant chat... — Isaac

Thank you for debating with me. Appreciated it.

And in the US... — Isaac

The US too ;) (waiting for images of Cuba like the following ones)

I’m still waiting for an example of a successful capitalist economy.

That you continue to miss the point isn’t my problem. I’ve been fairly explicit. — Xtrix

Again? I already pointed out Japan and South Korea as a good examples of developed nations but you consider them as "meaningless". I think the one who is missing the point is you because you think that a country like Cuba has markets and private property. How do you know that? Because the official website of the dictatorship say so? Come on... they don't even have medical supplies.

I haven’t once denied the development of either. Nor of China. — Xtrix

What is "meaningless" according to you then?

Yeah, Cuba is pretty bad.

Oh wait, that’s the US. — Xtrix

Yes, in USA poverty exists too. But it is not even compared to Cuba... more facts (which you would treat them as "meaningless")

40-51% of the Cuban people live in poverty.. Literally the half of the population.

In 2020 the poverty rate of USA was 11.4%.

Roughly more than a 10 % of Americans.

Yes both countries are so similar... come on man.

What about those who can't afford the fee? — Isaac

So pessimistic. I guess everyone can afford those basic fees...

What about those who can't afford the price? — Isaac

There always will be people who can afford it. You arguments are pessimistic and catastrophic. I am talking about purchasing a normal home not a yacht or helicopter...

Looks like a market and some property to me — Isaac

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

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.

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...

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.

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

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

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

Maybe slow down the expansion, based on more stringent criteria? — Olivier5

Completely agree. Good point :up:

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.

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.

But history called, and the EU answered something, something they were confortable with: markets. — Olivier5

What should we have done then?

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 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.

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.

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

Exactly.

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...

First: China is a communist country, ruled by a communist government. I wouldn’t call it truly communist myself, but that’s what they claim. Whatever we call it, however, it’s not democratic or republican form of government. — Xtrix

I think you are mixing politics and law with economics. Yes, China is a communist/Marxist country which controls all the population with induration and persecution.
In the other hand, from a economical point of view, they act as a pseudo capitalist country. It doesn't matter how the state can take part in the market because as I said previously, they are the first developers and producers of the world. 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.

But yeah, sure, let’s cut the military budget by 90%. That’ll more than pay for what we need. I won’t hold my breath for that suggestion. — Xtrix

I knew you would be agree with me towards spending cuts.

What a shocker there was no mention of military expenditure — the most bloated of all discretionary spending. I wonder why? — Xtrix

Because in Spain we are not used to spend in military forces. That's why I forgot to put it in my examples. But yes, I am agree it is another expenditure which needs spending cuts.

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?" Before answering, think deeply if the state can assume the way of life you are referring in your "world"

See Ha-Joon Chang to educate yourself, if of course you’re willing to break out of neoliberal delusions — Xtrix

I am not neoliberal. I am just sceptical on the way a state is wasting resources and increasing the taxes on the middle-class workers.

They know: they’re communist. — Xtrix

No. They are not communist since the 1990s. The Chinese economic reform or reform and opening-up is the program of economic reforms termed "Socialism (?) with Chinese characteristics" led by Deng Xiaoping, often credited as the "General Architect". In 2010, China overtook Japan as the world's second-largest economy by nominal GDP and in 2017 overtook the United States by becoming the world's largest economy by GDP. Only a capitalist country can reach such improvements in just two decades.

Higher taxes on wealth is a good start. I hear no alternative suggestions from you. — Xtrix

It is not a good start and here is another solution I put on the table: spending cuts

If we are living difficult times with inflation and prices rising, it is time to remove all the things that make debt to the state's budget. So, it is needed to reduce the public expenditure.
For example: Highways and transport (instead of 5 buses, we only let 3 buses per hour). Local authority spending (reduce the number of seats in Congress, Senate, City hall, etc... or less number of ministers and secretaries). Centralisation (all the public organisms or buildings relocated to the capital city instead of having a lot of public representatives along the country)

I know this would sound "selfish" but yes, it is necessary to freeze pension payments. We can be attached a big public debt if we decide to increase it among the consumer price index.

As you see there are a lot ways to reduce national debt. Raising taxes to stakeholders or businessmen is not the solution. They even would transfer their money to a tax heaven country anyway...

What does GDP have to do with anything? — Xtrix

I have used it as an economical fact where it shows why some countries are wealthier than others. USA is an example that a country can works with private ownership and a few taxes because it is clearly a world leader towards industry and technology. Meanwhile, in Spain you would not get rich or wealthy. Our government is against private property and stakeholders.
Imagine the United States Secretary of the Treasury saying to Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Zuckerberg, Real State owners, etc... to pay 23 or 25 % of their revenue in taxes. That would be expropriation and your country would not be as rich as it is nowadays.
Trust me: expropriation and tax abuse doesn't work. Just look at Latin American or ex Soviet countries.

China has a bigger GDP too— so what? Should we be ruled by authoritarianism? — Xtrix

It is a Rara avis country. They do not even know what they really are. Nevertheless, they are the primarily leaders of worldwide providers and suppliers. They created a very complex economical structure. China is subject of a different topic.

We need some kind of electoral reform to do away with fist past the post voting systems that always result in a two-party system. — bert1

Be careful about what you wish, multi-party system can lead to a chaos. Whenever you have multiple politicians with different views it is harder to promote laws or manage the state. In my honest opinion, it is more efficient to hold a two-party system. At least, you will have the assurance that they will run the country.

Have you heard of Gödel's loophole? Maybe something similar is going on with socialism & communism - there's a bug in it — Agent Smith

I couldn't have explained it better!

I'm a big fan of skepticism — Agent Smith

Understandble and you are in the right path. It is normal to be sceptical in nowadays due to the spread of fake news in media and press.

I think yes and @Deus is right when he said that the most socialist countries or states use tyranny to promote Marxism. Because they know this is the only way to do so.

Syād/Syat = Maybe/Perchance/Perhaps — Agent Smith

Interesting terminology! :up:

Better yet, let the workers run the factories and companies themselves. — Xtrix

I see it as impossible. Every factory or company needs a hierarchical structure. You can run a company when you know how to do it because you have a big knowledge on economics, law, strategy, etc... it is not so easy. I think it is populist to say that "all the owners or stakeholders are abusers of working class". That's not true.
Imagine you start a company based on print books. You need to hire some workers to help you to produce X number of copies. Are you a "tyrant" if you perceive more revenue than the workers when the company is yours? Come on...

I consider them rich. And they should be taxed much more. — Xtrix

Facts: INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND.

GDP of USA: $25.35 trillion.

GDP of Spain: $1.435 trillion.

The GDP of your country is 24 points bigger than mine.

Do you still think a country ruled by socialism is a good idea? Taxing factories is common sense? Where? We are just a soft country with a mediocre economy.

I noticed they are slashing the 10% sales tax for feminine hygiene products. You’re right. Political correctness is in power. — NOS4A2

Completely. Political correctness is a big problem inside a country's administration. It is a wasteful pit without control. There is a public administration called "equality ministry" and this lobby has promoted a law that when women has the period they have the right to stay at home until it finishes... imagine the recession of many industries which have female workers in.

Taxing the rich more is common sense, yes. — Xtrix

But who do you consider as "rich"? Because those tax payers barely holds around 200.000 € in the bank. I consider them as a middle class workers not rich or millionaires.

Spain does the common sense thing. Good for them. — Xtrix

Common sense is to pay 23 % of your earnings in taxes? I would call it expropriation, and that's what happens when political correctness rule a country.

Classical Marxism defines workers and peasants as virtuous and the bourgeoisie (the
middle class) and other owners of capital as evil. — Breivik

. In fact I think overcoming being falsely imprisoned is a merit. — Xtrix

Understandable, but I think that's the way you see it. Others see him as a Marxist criminal.

A company earning more than a million has to give a quarter of what it earns to your government. — NOS4A2

Yes and 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.

To cover that cost while at the same time covering the overhead the best one can do is lower wages, raise prices, cut corners, lay people off, and so on, just to be able to pay such exorbitant prices. Even if we let the state get away with the act of theft, it’s hard to look past the effects all this has on the poorer among us who have to deal with the rise in the cost of living, a large amount of which is used to cover any offsetting. A tax on the rich is also a hidden tax on the poor, in this sense. — NOS4A2

Conclusion: The state creates a thief model which pick up the private earnings of both businessman and workers to just feed their political lobbies.

if governments can play around with taxes to win votes, it means taxes have no logic to them — Agent Smith

Agreed! :up:

Syād — Agent Smith

I don't understand what does it mean but I like when you use that word