free market

[wu_trax]

maybe that whole concept isnt such a good idea, at least not for the currency market.. look at the bloody dollar right now, it looses about 1% of its value every single day against all the major currencies. given the fundamental data of the us it is normal that the dollar should drop sooner or later, the thing that worries me is the speed at wihich this happens. this is caused purely by speculations against the dollar and if this continues at the current speed it will most likely turn the whole international trade into chaos.

[Rumad]

as long as my british pound still worth a british pound in teh uk I don't care

[ChubbyChecker]

The dollar is dropping because China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and many other South East Asian countries have their currency pegged to the dollar, so if the market was freer this problem many not be so severe.

Also Japan is holding billions in reserves, keeping their currency artificially low which is also worsening the problem. Though I suppose this happens in a free market anyway.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Rumad

as long as my british pound still worth a british pound in teh uk I don't care

the point is: many companies in uk will have a lot of trouble to sell their goods in the US. usually this wouldnt be much of a problem, if these companies have enough time to find other markets. but as it is now one day they can sell their goods in the us and a few days later they either have to live with losing money or not sell their goods at all.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by ChubbyChecker

The dollar is dropping because China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and many other South East Asian countries have their currency pegged to the dollar, so if the market was freer this problem many not be so severe.

Also Japan is holding billions in reserves, keeping their currency artificially low which is also worsening the problem. Though I suppose this happens in a free market anyway.

the WTO said that they dont think the chinese currency is that much undervalued. but thats beside the point: if japan would not have bought billions of dollars in the last month things would be even worse right now, not better.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

What does this thread have to do with the free market?

the free currency market, which seems to be the most free of all, probably will cause very big problems.
(other than that i didnt know what else to take as a subject)

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

the point is: many companies in uk will have a lot of trouble to sell their goods in the US. usually this wouldnt be much of a problem, if these companies have enough time to find other markets. but as it is now one day they can sell their goods in the us and a few days later they either have to live with losing money or not sell their goods at all.

Thats why most successful UK manufacturing have there base in cheaper countries (pilkington are based in china and several manufacturers are based in the far east and india / africa).

And I still don't give a toffee as long as UK inflation stays static

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Rumad

Thats why most successful UK manufacturing have there base in cheaper countries (pilkington are based in china and several manufacturers are based in the far east and india / africa).

And I still don't give a toffee as long as UK inflation stays static

no matter what labor costs are, they will still calculate their profit in pound, wont they?
(and yes, everyone goes to china these days, at least for the jobs that require lots of human labor)

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Well it already does. Currency exchanges account for billions of dollars which destabilise economies by moving in and out very quickly. They create a sort of virtual senate which erves to keep states subservient to interests of international capital. For instance were the majority of a population to elect a leader whose promise was to put social welfare before business interests then you can lean back and watch their currency crash as it gets dumped. The effect of this is of course to destabilise the country and ruin the governments' program.

oh please, no conpiracy-theories. these people just bet on things that will happen. the problem is that some of them have control over enough money to inlfuence on what is going to happen.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

no matter what labor costs are, they will still calculate their profit in pound, wont they?
(and yes, everyone goes to china these days, at least for the jobs that require lots of human labor)

Yes they do - but if there operating cost base is more reflective of lower cost then they are capable of infact operatingat lower and more competitive rate. Micro-manufacturing or cottage industries (medium to small manufacturing) will in reality market to other companies in the uk and maybe some in europe. Net effect is minimal. As long as inflatin is ok my care for this is negligible

[ChubbyChecker]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

the WTO said that they dont think the chinese currency is that much undervalued.

Not undervalued in relation to what? The US dollar? Because that's what I was referring to.
Obviously it is undervalued in relation to the US dollar. The US dollar is depreciating because of the huge current account deficit. China is partly to blame for the defiict. So the US devalues to correct the deficit. Devaluing does nothing to help the problem with the deficit with China (and all other countries that are pegged on the dollar), which is why having a pegged currency is a bad thing in this instance.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Use your head, if you're placing bets then are you gonna bet on the hard right capitalist country ot the socialist country? It's not a conspiracy it's systemic, everyone goes the same way and the fact that they are allowed to do so because no one will set up international currency control regulations puts socilaist country's at a disadvantage.

You're giving capital a level of overarching, united logic and politicsation it doesn't really posses.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Use your head, if you're placing bets then are you gonna bet on the hard right capitalist country ot the socialist country? It's not a conspiracy it's systemic, everyone goes the same way and the fact that they are allowed to do so because no one will set up international currency control regulations puts socilaist country's at a disadvantage.

I agree. Socialism doesnt work, so we should set up a world government in order to force everyone to pretend that it does.

Novus ordo seclorum, comrade.

[Marilyn Manson]

I think Nemo enim fere saltat sobrius, nisi forte insanit is a much better line. 'Tis most true.

[Marilyn Manson]

I am not mad. I have recovered.

[Work_Child]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

it looses

learn to speel before you try acting smart!

[Vermillion]

Sic ad nauseam

[pablissimo]

Gold standard++

Oh dear wait

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by pablissimo

Gold standard++

Aw, Gawd, Nod's off again. Someone give 'im his medication.

[pablissimo]

Hi, my name's Pablissimo and I'm a Nodroholic.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by pablissimo

and I'm a Nodroholic.

Facing up to your problem is the first step to recovery.

[pablissimo]

Well I think this thread's been sufficiently derailed. When's lunch?

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Use your head, if you're placing bets then are you gonna bet on the hard right capitalist country ot the socialist country? It's not a conspiracy it's systemic, everyone goes the same way and the fact that they are allowed to do so because no one will set up international currency control regulations puts socilaist country's at a disadvantage.

no necessarily. look at the current situation, the US grew more than 2% in the last quater. most european countries can be happy if they manage to reach 2% for the whole year. the country i live in can be happy if it reaches 0.2% of economical growth.
the us is far more hard-right capitalist than any european country (or japan for that matter) and still the capital right now flows from the us to europe and japan.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by ChubbyChecker

Not undervalued in relation to what? The US dollar? Because that's what I was referring to.
Obviously it is undervalued in relation to the US dollar. The US dollar is depreciating because of the huge current account deficit. China is partly to blame for the defiict. So the US devalues to correct the deficit. Devaluing does nothing to help the problem with the deficit with China (and all other countries that are pegged on the dollar), which is why having a pegged currency is a bad thing in this instance.

im not talking about devalueing the dollar to represent the current economical circumstances, but about the very volatil currency market. even the current us deficits do not explain that the dollar looses (no, ill never get this, so dont even try) 1% of its value every day. this happens purely because of speculations.

(other than that, do look at tthe situation so simplisitc. the current trade deficit of the us has increased constatly over the last decades, no matter in what direction the exchange rates moved.)

[pablissimo]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

the us is far more hard-right capitalist than any european country (or japan for that matter) and still the capital right now flows from the us to europe and japan.

I'm sure everyone wants to be investing in a country whose current account deficit is looking to be about 6% of GDP by year-end 2003. Or they could choose Japan, with a surplus and who hasn't seen much of a market wobble since '98.

Tough decision that.
Edit: Apparently that means I agree with the statement you just made but I'm sure I'll be disagreeing in the end, it's what I do.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by pablissimo

I'm sure everyone wants to be investing in a country whose current account deficit is looking to be about 6% of GDP by year-end 2003. Or they could choose Japan, with a surplus and who hasn't seen much of a market wobble since '98.

Tough decision that.
Edit: Apparently that means I agree with the statement you just made but I'm sure I'll be disagreeing in the end, it's what I do.

the account deficit didnt matter for anyone in the late 90s, did it?
(ok, poor argument, but i fthought i had to some up with something)

[SPQR]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Use your head, if you're placing bets then are you gonna bet on the hard right capitalist country ot the socialist country? It's not a conspiracy it's systemic, everyone goes the same way and the fact that they are allowed to do so because no one will set up international currency control regulations puts socilaist country's at a disadvantage.

Socialism had it's chance and has prooved to be an utter failure. You can't expect people to put trust in such a flawed system, neither can you expect them to even invest money in it.

[SPQR]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Capitalism has had it's chance and proven to be an utter failure. you can't expect people to put trust in such a flawed system, because of the priorities of bourgeois investors which are contrary to those of the people, that's why we need international capital controls.

Capitalism succeeded on a very large scale and still exists. Whereas Socialism has been abolished again by most people that had the 'pleasure' to live under it.

[SPQR]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

When has capitalism succeded, when has bloody existed and where? And when you say socialism to what are you reffering?

It's easy to make bland statements but where's your evidence.

If you need examples, just check out your history book. The chapter about german history after WW2 may be very interesting for you. I really can't be bothered to waste my time writing drivel to convince you. You seem to much convinced by the ideas of Marx and co. already to ever accept that capitalism may not be the perfect economy sytem but still is superior to socialism.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

When has capitalism succeded, when has bloody existed and where? And when you say socialism to what are you reffering?

It's easy to make bland statements but where's your evidence.

No system has ever succeeded even slightly, ever. Just some of them fail less spectacularly than others. I guess by capitalism succeeding he's actually referring to mercantilism and colonialism and then the pre-WWI up until 1930 "free market system" (which was very nationalist but whatever) and then modern corporate welfare/capitalism with the giant subsidies which works because if you set up a company in Africa there's a 5 billion % tax on manufactured goods being exported to the First World and so on. Oh and the East Asian authoritarian capitalist regimes like Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore and so on. They've got a fairly high per capita GDP so I guess you can say that system is working if you're shallow enough to base everything on economic performance averaged out across the whole population ignoring massive social inequalities from certain perspectives.







PS Stalin was just misunderstood.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by SPQR

If you need examples, just check out your history book. The chapter about german history after WW2 may be very interesting for you. I really can't be bothered to waste my time writing drivel to convince you. You seem to much convinced by the ideas of Marx and co. already to ever accept that capitalism may not be the perfect economy sytem but still is superior to socialism.

German history after WWII? You mean when the enlightened western democracies didn't bother sending enough food or relief supplies and hundreds of thousands (lower end estimate) of germans starved or froze to death? Or when the freedom loving Allies recruited various SS and gestapo operatives to help oppose communism? Or do you actually mean when the US injected billions into the (mostly western) European economy in an event so mind-bogglingly not capitalism I'm beginning to laugh here?

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by SPQR

If you need examples, just check out your history book. The chapter about german history after WW2 may be very interesting for you. I really can't be bothered to waste my time writing drivel to convince you. You seem to much convinced by the ideas of Marx and co. already to ever accept that capitalism may not be the perfect economy sytem but still is superior to socialism.

Ah, so in fact when you say Socialism, you actually mean Communism, which has indeed fallen in many states, largely because of its dictatorial nature.

However there exist a number of 'socialist' states, most of which are doing better than the US in terms of quality of life, employment, life expectency, and so on.

Socialism is most certainly not a failure, by any means. One could argue that a true marxist socialist state would be impossible, or at least very difficult, as there needs to be some elemets of capitalism present, which is true.

However, a true capitalist state is equally impossible, and even the US has embraced many different socialist meaures such as welfare, unemployment insurance, minimum wage, unionisation, social security, state pensions, and dozens more.

Thus by any standard socialism is alive and well. Communism on the other hand has largely fallen by the wayside as a failed experiment.

[SPQR]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

Ah, so in fact when you say Socialism, you actually mean Communism, which has indeed fallen in many states, largely because of its dictatorial nature.

As I learnt it Socialism is just one step on the way to Communism. But I can't think of a country that has ever had real Communisn. Socialism again has been tested and abolished in many countries again (Eastern-Germany for example). I also disagree that those states have fallen because of their dictatorial nature. The dictatorial nature was simply necessary to keep those systems alive for some time, without it they would most probably have fallen much earlier.

Originally Posted by Vermillion

However there exist a number of 'socialist' states, most of which are doing better than the US in terms of quality of life, employment, life expectency, and so on.

Care to mention some?

However, I agree that pure capitalism is also not an option, simply because extremes are never good.

[SPQR]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

German history after WWII? You mean when the enlightened western democracies didn't bother sending enough food or relief supplies and hundreds of thousands (lower end estimate) of germans starved or froze to death? Or when the freedom loving Allies recruited various SS and gestapo operatives to help oppose communism? Or do you actually mean when the US injected billions into the (mostly western) European economy in an event so mind-bogglingly not capitalism I'm beginning to laugh here?

All those things didn't really damage Western Germany, did they?
People in Eastern Germany again were not as happy...

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by SPQR

As I learnt it Socialism is just one step on the way to Communism.

You learnt wrong. Socialim and Communism are on the same side of the political spectrum, but they are certainly not temporal stages of each other. A socuialist state can become a communist state with the addition of a Dictator.

The dictatorial nature was simply necessary to keep those systems alive for some time, without it they would most probably have fallen much earlier.

Entirely supposition of course, but it is true that an experiment with true socialism, that is the complete absence of any kind of market incentive, would likely not work, just as a completely capitalist system would not work.

The most sucessful state that has been the closes to pure socialism was the USSR under Lenin's NEP, a fantastic program that brought huge wealth to the country, before it was discontinued and its practitiones liquidated by Stalin.

Care to mention some?

However, I agree that pure capitalism is also not an option, simply because extremes are never good.

Sweeden, Norway, Switzerland, Canada, Japan, Australia... just look at the list of the top places in the world to live according to the UN index, most of them are socialist states. Of course, all also have a free market element to them.

So if we agree that pure socialsm does not work, nor does pure capitalism, and that both seem to work well in moderation with the other, then how can you claim socialism is a failure, when it has succeded in exactly the same manner as capitalism - not in its extremem form, but moderated by the best parts of its opposite?

[wu_trax]

ok, lets completly change the topic :/

i think Vermillion confused something: a truely communist state never existed and most likely never will. socialism existed and completly faild. (the countries in eastern europe called themself socialist, not communist, although communism was there longterm goal)

i dont think that you can call a country socialist just because it has some social security system or allows labor unions. in that case any country on earth would be 'socialist'. every country on earth is just somewhere in the middle between the two extremes.

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

ok, lets completly change the topic :/
i think Vermillion confused something: a truely communist state never existed and most likely never will. socialism existed and completly faild. (the countries in eastern europe called themself socialist, not communist, although communism was there longterm goal)

I am not confused, but I did fail to define my terms, which was silly. Like left and right (see other thread) there are many different definitions for Communism, ranging from Stalinism to the original Paris communes. However the modern definition of communism seems to be a socialist state driven by a dictatorial leader.

Eastern Europe may have referred to its elf as socialist, but that doesnt matter, propagandistic self naming has never been a terribly reliable measure.

i dont think that you can call a country socialist just because it has some social security system or allows labor unions. in that case any country on earth would be 'socialist'. every country on earth is just somewhere in the middle between the two extremes.

Its more than just the presence of unions, its higher taxes to pay for the common good, its rehabilitative justice systems, its care of the people by the state, not care of the state by the people. Its state control or assistance of some industries or iof the economy.

In principle I agree with you completely, every nation is a middle ground between two extremes, with some nations closer to one than the other. Thus, by that very argument it is silly to say that socialism has 'failed' any more than capitalism has failed, they both have enormously strong points which have been identified and incorporated into modern states. The very fact of that balance demonstrates that socialism has in fact succeeded in reshaping society over he last 150 years.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

Sweeden, Norway, Switzerland, Canada, Japan, Australia... just look at the list of the top places in the world to live according to the UN index, most of them are socialist states. Of course, all also have a free market element to them.

It isnt particularly surprising that an index that rates states based on how much socialism they have embraced is largely populated with socialist states.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

I am not confused, but I did fail to define my terms, which was silly. Like left and right (see other thread) there are many different definitions for Communism, ranging from Stalinism to the original Paris communes. However the modern definition of communism seems to be a socialist state driven by a dictatorial leader.

Eastern Europe may have referred to its elf as socialist, but that doesnt matter, propagandistic self naming has never been a terribly reliable measure.



Its more than just the presence of unions, its higher taxes to pay for the common good, its rehabilitative justice systems, its care of the people by the state, not care of the state by the people. Its state control or assistance of some industries or iof the economy.

In principle I agree with you completely, every nation is a middle ground between two extremes, with some nations closer to one than the other. Thus, by that very argument it is silly to say that socialism has 'failed' any more than capitalism has failed, they both have enormously strong points which have been identified and incorporated into modern states. The very fact of that balance demonstrates that socialism has in fact succeeded in reshaping society over he last 150 years.

yes, all right, but i would never refer to such a system as socialist. I only know two countries in the world that i would call socialist right now and thats cuba and north korea. (but then, Cuba isnt doing that bad given the circumstances)
must be language-thing, the term socialism has diffrent meanings in german and in english. SPQR are you german by any chance?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

It isnt particularly surprising that an index that rates states based on how much socialism they have embraced is largely populated with socialist states.

The UN Human Development Index generally looks at outcomes, not the structures which deliver them. The French health system is less "socialist"* than the British health system, yet the UN rate theirs better. *shrug*

* You're all idiots for using the term "socialist" to apply for a state system of insurance inside a capitalist system of production.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

The UN Human Development Index generally looks at outcomes, not the structures which deliver them. The French health system is less "socialist"* than the British health system, yet the UN rate theirs better. *shrug*

* You're all idiots for using the term "socialist" to apply for a state system of insurance inside a capitalist system of production.

The criteria used to evaluate states are largely socialist (eg "% of people with access to health care" rather than "general quality of health care", or stupid categories like "% of people in relative poverty" rather than "amount of poor people" and such like). I cant remember the exact categories offhand, but I recall rolling my eyes when I last saw them.

[Intrepid00]

I also find it amusing countries get poor people that have TVs food and shelter. I bet people in some small African countries wish they could be poor instead of lower then dirt.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

The criteria used to evaluate states are largely socialist

From memory, most of it is on life expectantcy, income, education, etc. I don't think relative poverty is measured, since the US actually does relatively well on it (7th, I think).

God damn commies.

[Dante Hicks]

btw :

What is the HDI?
The Human Development Index (see page 252 Technical Notes) measures a country's achievements in three aspects of human development: longevity, knowledge, and a decent standard of living. Longevity is measured by life expectancy at birth; knowledge is measured by a combination of the adult literacy rate and the combined gross primary, secondary, and tertiary enrolment ratio; and standard of living, as measured by GDP per capita (PPP US$).

I can see why all of those need to be condemned outright as nothing short of raving Communist propaganda.

edit : http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/faq.cfm as source

[Baron Morte]

To enlighten this discussion.

so·cial·ism n.
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

com·mu·nism n.
A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
Communism
A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.

[SPQR]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

SPQR are you german by any chance?

I am german, and from the east actually. And if you come here you can still hear people talking about all the nice welfare and full employment we had and crap like that. Yet everyone forgets that our nice socialist economy wasn't even able to provide everyone with a car withing 10 years (and i don't exagerate in the slightest here) after ordering it. And we aren't even talking about cars like they were in the west. The cars we could order had a hull of pasteboard (correct word?) and the technology-standard of the 1950s. That's Marxist Socialism live!

[queball]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

maybe that whole concept isnt such a good idea, at least not for the currency market.. look at the bloody dollar right now, it looses about 1% of its value every single day against all the major currencies. given the fundamental data of the us it is normal that the dollar should drop sooner or later, the thing that worries me is the speed at wihich this happens. this is caused purely by speculations against the dollar and if this continues at the current speed it will most likely turn the whole international trade into chaos.

Purely speculation as opposed to what? How would you rather do things? Have a few controls? Propose something, and while I really doubt it'll make sense, it could be interesting.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by SPQR

That's Marxist Socialism live!

Or maybe that's a less developed country - live. I can go and compare Cuba to Haiti if you want to be silly.

p.s. The East Germany economy (and assorted problems) had nothing to do with Marxism, beyond name.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by SPQR

I am german, and from the east actually. And if you come here you can still hear people talking about all the nice welfare and full employment we had and crap like that. Yet everyone forgets that our nice socialist economy wasn't even able to provide everyone with a car withing 10 years (and i don't exagerate in the slightest here) after ordering it. And we aren't even talking about cars like they were in the west. The cars we could order had a hull of pasteboard (correct word?) and the technology-standard of the 1950s. That's Marxist Socialism live!

then help to convice them!!! it doesnt even help to tell these people that without capitalism (and you can hardly call germany a capitalist country. im not sure what it is, but its definitly not capitalism.) they wouldnt even have computers right now to post on that forum. no, the captial is the evil and only exploids the poor

but the only reason i asked if you are german is because i think the term socialism(Sozialismus) is used in a different meaning in german and english.

[Baron Morte]

If we had always been comunists, and capitalism would arise in the 2oth century, im pretty certain that it would fail and collapse in a fraction of the time, and also it would have done terrible unspoken tragedies on its population