Never mind Merv and Alistair - it could be worse for you!

JayScottGreenspan

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Interesting that you seem to equate Was not Great Britain capitalist at the time of the potato famine?

"At the end of the day, you will pay the price if you're a fussy eater"

kennyboy66_2

michaels wrote: »

Thanks for correcting me - I knew vaguely that Chiles stats were much better than its neighbours but hadn't checked whether this improvement had happened during pinochets time or not. Of course we can not know what the counter factual would have been had chile been run during the pinochet era by a collectivist govt. Populism in Argentina has not been a great sucess tho!

In fairness to the 1973 - 1990 period, child mortality went down even as unemployment went up.

Probably lots of things at play - I would guess that female literacy has a strong correlation with low child mortality.

Generali

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Interesting that you seem to equate Capitalism with free markets.

Was not Great Britain capitalist at the time of the potato famine?

You can't defend this line of argument, Generali.

Of course I can. Capitalism is a economic and political system that requires, broadly speaking, freedom to act economically, socially and politically. The Corn Laws were very specifically anti-free markets. (Be sure that you understand the Corn Laws. BTW have you garnered some clarity around what the Big Bang was yet?).

Do you want me to pwn you on another weekend? I'm really busy tomorrow so you've gotta get a good argument going today that I can't just shoot down in flames (again) tomorrow morning.

Generali

ninky wrote: »

but in a capitalist economy without a welfare state certain sections of the population would be allowed to starve whilst others ate. i don't think that is any more acceptable.

also, can you name a socialist country where people are pushed onto the street and left to die from hospitals because they don't have insurance? as is what happens in a rich capitalist country like the US?

btw i'm not defending north korea. horrible regime. but i don't think north korea is evidence that capitalism works.

North Korea isn't evidence that capitalism works but it sure is evidence that Communism doesn't.

I go along with Churchill - Capitalism is lousy but is better than anything else we've tried.

ninky_2

the dust bowl famine in the american midwest was significantly caused by farming methods designed with the profit motive in mind. the 'ideology' of capitalism was also such that it pretty much left those affected to fend for themselves.

Generali

ninky wrote: »

the dust bowl famine in the american midwest was significantly caused by farming methods designed with the profit motive in mind. the 'ideology' of capitalism was also such that it pretty much left those affected to fend for themselves.

How many died in that 'famine'?

Stalin did for about 20,000,000 during collectivisation. Mao killed 25,000,000 in a 2 year period IIRC. Pol Pot caused about 1/6th of the country's population to die from starvation.

As for what's going on in North Korea? We won't know until these despots (hopefully) get the Mussolini treatment* but it is highly unlikely to have been a positive time in Korean history.

Are you seriously trying to defend these people? More people died in Communist famines than in the Nazi massacres/genocides - I condemn them both and find it very hard to see why so many apparently well educated posters seem to want to defend the former while they would never think of defending the latter.

Why do you think that Communists deliberately starving their own people to death is a good thing ninky?







*Mussolini was reputedly hanged from a lamp post having been castrated and partly choked on his own testicles first. Apparently this is a myth, albeit a pervasive one.

Sir_Humphrey

Generali wrote: »

Of course I can. Capitalism is a economic and political system that requires, broadly speaking, freedom to act economically, socially and politically.

Which presumably means freedom to operate as a oligopoly or monopoly.

Free market Capitalism is just a sub-set of Capitalism. Let's not turn this into a definition debate.

You don't have a leg to stand on with this one.

ninky_2

Generali wrote: »

Why do you think that Communists deliberately starving their own people to death is a good thing ninky?

i don't. i think you are twisting my words here. and whether the dust bowl famine killed fewer people than pol pot it still highlights a failure of capitalism. and if it was you and your family that suffered i don't suppose it made you feel any better to think at least there were fewer deaths than under stalin. i don't think any posters are saying what great leaders stalin or pol pot were.

Generali

ninky wrote: »

i don't. i think you are twisting my words here. and whether the dust bowl famine killed fewer people than pol pot it still highlights a failure of capitalism. and if it was you and your family that suffered i don't suppose it made you feel any better to think at least there were fewer deaths than under stalin. i don't think any posters are saying what great leaders stalin or pol pot were.

With respect, I don't really understand the point you were trying to make in that case. Can you clarify?

Why bring in a disaster that happened in a broadly capitalist country as a counterpoint to a disaster that was deliberately allowed to continue for ideological reasons?

This isn't a debating point BTW, I genuinely don't understand how your comments fit together and am seeking clarity.

Generali

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Which presumably means freedom to operate as a oligopoly or monopoly.

Free market Capitalism is just a sub-set of Capitalism. Let's not turn this into a definition debate.

You don't have a leg to stand on with this one.

Free, regulated markets are clearly a part of a Capitalist system. If you think otherwise it's no reason you hate Capitalism. I wouldn't want to live in an entirely unregulated market system.