"Capt. JG" wrote in message
newsYudnZbFvawqtNfVnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d@bayareasolut ions...
"Road Rage!" wrote in message
...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions...


This the Univ. of Chicago style of argument that has been shown over and
over to not work (if you're interested, there are lots of examples out
there, the justification for Iraq war included). Capitalism must be
moderated with a societal safety net in order to take full advantage of
its benefits. "Pure" capitalism doesn't work as advertised.

Where has it been shown not to work? Give one real example of a laissez
faire economy that demonstrated this over at least a two decade span.
Tell us what "working" is.

Well, sockpuppet, I suggest doing some reading. I'm sure you're head will
explode, but Naomi Klein wrote a very nice book about it... Disaster
Capitalism.

One problem with that book is that it fails to distinguish between economic
and political systems. Did you find that also?



Capitalism can have and has had private safety nets without government
intervention.

Can and does/have are two different things.

Yes they are. There were no government safety nets before 1900 in the US. It
was all private. Social inequality and suffering exploded when government
got involved in the charity industry. Such safety nets as the "war on
drugs", the "Great Society, the "New Deal" resulted in even greater
incarcerations for victimless crimes, increased poverty and crime. The New
Deal was the greatest environmental disaster the world has ever seen.



What is "pure" capitalism and were has it existed?

Unfettered capitalism. No gov't rules/regs. It hasn't existed, but it's
been attempted.

The lack of a government is needed for unfettered capitalism. Under
unfettered capitalism there would be no war, taxes pay for war. The
existence of government is why unfettered capitalism will never exist.


Chile comes to mind under that paragon of humanity Pinochete. Even he
couldn't do it, although he tried.

Nice slam. Why not bring up FDR and the internment camps or Truman and the
nuking of Japan and innocent people as examples of the outcome of
capaitalism when controlled by the left?



What schools of economic thought preceded the "University of Chicago"
style of argument on which the U of C arguments are based?

Keynesian... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics

Vs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman


Clueless! Go back a few hundred years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Bastiat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_smith

Did your head explode yet?


The thing you fail to realize is that there is only one economic system.
What exists in the world today are distortions of that system by political
systems and they will all fail, some will take longer than others.
Politicization of the economic system will eventually end it. Politics in
science is no longer science, politics in education becomes indoctrination,
politics in social systems increases misery, politics in anything destroys
it.

So why do so many look to politicians and lawyers to solve society's ills?
Especially since politicians and lawyers are held in such low regard?

"Road Rage!" wrote in message
...
This the Univ. of Chicago style of argument that has been shown over
and over to not work (if you're interested, there are lots of examples
out there, the justification for Iraq war included). Capitalism must be
moderated with a societal safety net in order to take full advantage of
its benefits. "Pure" capitalism doesn't work as advertised.

Where has it been shown not to work? Give one real example of a laissez
faire economy that demonstrated this over at least a two decade span.
Tell us what "working" is.

Well, sockpuppet, I suggest doing some reading. I'm sure you're head will
explode, but Naomi Klein wrote a very nice book about it... Disaster
Capitalism.

One problem with that book is that it fails to distinguish between
economic and political systems. Did you find that also?

My last response to you, then off to the bozo bin, so enjoy it while you
can.

Firstly, there is no distinction in the modern world. Secondly, it did quite
nicely, as best as she could IMHO.


Capitalism can have and has had private safety nets without government
intervention.

Can and does/have are two different things.

Yes they are. There were no government safety nets before 1900 in the US.
It was all private. Social inequality and suffering exploded when
government got involved in the charity industry. Such safety nets as the
"war on drugs", the "Great Society, the "New Deal" resulted in even
greater incarcerations for victimless crimes, increased poverty and crime.
The New Deal was the greatest environmental disaster the world has ever
seen.

The Great Society was, in a large measure, a success, and would have done
better had we not gotten so entrenched in Vietnam. Johnson, despite his many
faults, was succeeding with things like civil rights reform and a better
safety net. The New Deal has saved millions from untold suffering. Feel free
to disagree. The War on Drugs was not a safety net. It's a puritanical
program that the majority of the people think they support, when in fact,
it's a boondoggle.



What is "pure" capitalism and were has it existed?

Unfettered capitalism. No gov't rules/regs. It hasn't existed, but it's
been attempted.

The lack of a government is needed for unfettered capitalism. Under
unfettered capitalism there would be no war, taxes pay for war. The
existence of government is why unfettered capitalism will never exist.


Yes. The first sentence is true. The second sentence indicates to me that
you don't know much about economics, and implementing this brings us to
systems such as Russia's oligarchy. Anyone seriously advocating no gov't
either isn't thinking clearly or is delusional... well, unless you're John
Lennon.

Chile comes to mind under that paragon of humanity Pinochete. Even he
couldn't do it, although he tried.

Nice slam. Why not bring up FDR and the internment camps or Truman and the
nuking of Japan and innocent people as examples of the outcome of
capaitalism when controlled by the left?

Not a slam, but a fact on the ground. Not sure what the interment camps have
to do with capitalism, but it sure sounded nice. Truman... left??? You sound
like a right-wingnut... LOL


What schools of economic thought preceded the "University of Chicago"
style of argument on which the U of C arguments are based?

Keynesian... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics

Vs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman


Clueless! Go back a few hundred years:

Ah, so we're supposed to model our society from the middle ages. Why not
just follow bin laden. Much easier and he's a bit more contemporary, since
he uses capitalistic societies to do his bidding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Bastiat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_smith

Did your head explode yet?

Clearly yours is about to!


The thing you fail to realize is that there is only one economic system.
What exists in the world today are distortions of that system by political
systems and they will all fail, some will take longer than others.
Politicization of the economic system will eventually end it. Politics in
science is no longer science, politics in education becomes
indoctrination, politics in social systems increases misery, politics in
anything destroys it.


Yes, money is money. We get it. The rest is a rationalization for the
f*ck-everyone-else mentality.

So why do so many look to politicians and lawyers to solve society's ills?
Especially since politicians and lawyers are held in such low regard?

Because they're not willing to get involved and solve them. But, that's my
opinion.

Vote for McCain! Another four more years!


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions...
The War on Drugs was not a safety net. It's a puritanical program that the
majority of the people think they support, when in fact, it's a
boondoggle.

One would expect an admitted illegal recreational drug abuser to have such
an opinion.

Yes, money is money. We get it. The rest is a rationalization for the
f*ck-everyone-else mentality.

Isn't that exactly the attitude you adhere to when raising your hand and
flipping off the laws of the society you claim to support when you
admittedly break the law and flaunt your breaking of the law in public as in
your many posts about your using illegal drugs?

There is one thing liberals like you are always consistent about - you are
consistently hypocrites.

--
Gregory Hall

On 2008-06-07 14:18:39 -0400, "Gregory Hall" said:

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions...
The War on Drugs was not a safety net. It's a puritanical program that the
majority of the people think they support, when in fact, it's a
boondoggle.

One would expect an admitted illegal recreational drug abuser to have such
an opinion.

But some of us who don't partake feel the same.

The "war on drugs" is as misguided and destructive as prohibition was.

--
Jere Lull
Xan-à-Deux -- Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD
Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/
Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/

"Jere Lull" wrote in message
news:200806081346428930-jerelull@maccom...
The "war on drugs" is as misguided and destructive as prohibition was.

--
Jere Lull
Xan-à-Deux -- Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD
Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/
Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/



You were responding to a known liar, thief, and stalker, aka Neal Warren,
but I agree with your statement.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com