Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Singapore Great Example of Capitalism

Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2014 9:05:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Look at the gains made in per capita income by year: http://bit.ly...
This comes as a result of its relatively free economy: http://www.heritage.org...

Compare these relatively new economic successes to an old success that has become progressively (more realistically regressively) more socialist: http://goo.gl...
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Chimera
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2014 8:05:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2014 9:05:37 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Look at the gains made in per capita income by year: http://bit.ly...

Singapore is also famously known for having some of the most ridiculously draconian laws in the world. For instance:

Importation of chewing gum is banned, but can be prescribed by a doctor (sales are also forbidden).

Capital punishment for drug dealers/ those in possession of drugs.

Public caning for forgetting to flush the toilet.

Illegal pornography (the term 'pornography' in Singapore also means nudity, so walking around your house naked is a crime).

Need I go on?

This comes as a result of its relatively free economy: http://www.heritage.org...

Just because 'economic successes' are made does not justify laissez-faire economics. One could say that 'economic successes' were made in Nazi Germany, or Stalin's Russia, or even slave societies. Does this justify Nazism, Stalinism, or slavery?

No. So you aren't making an argument here.


Compare these relatively new economic successes to an old success that has become progressively (more realistically regressively) more socialist: http://goo.gl...

I would hardly say that the UK is becoming 'progressively more socialist' lol. I don't see many worker's cooperatives fighting against wage slavery and bourgeois class supremacy over there.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 2:35:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/15/2014 8:05:30 PM, Chimera wrote:
At 9/14/2014 9:05:37 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Look at the gains made in per capita income by year: http://bit.ly...

Singapore is also famously known for having some of the most ridiculously draconian laws in the world. For instance:
Importation of chewing gum is banned, but can be prescribed by a doctor (sales are also forbidden).
Capital punishment for drug dealers/ those in possession of drugs.
Public caning for forgetting to flush the toilet.
Illegal pornography (the term 'pornography' in Singapore also means nudity, so walking around your house naked is a crime).
Need I go on?

I understand economic freedom =/= personal freedom. What's your point? You essentially concede that the country has made tremendous gains in per capita income.

If Singapore's personal freedom is held constant, while its economic freedom is increased how is this a bad thing? It may not be ideal (ideal would be personal freedom and economic freedom increasing greatly), but it's still making them better off.

This comes as a result of its relatively free economy: http://www.heritage.org...

Just because 'economic successes' are made does not justify laissez-faire economics. One could say that 'economic successes' were made in Nazi Germany, or Stalin's Russia, or even slave societies. Does this justify Nazism, Stalinism, or slavery?

That's why you look at causal factors. Nazi Germany had increases in income after the great depression's worst year in 1933. Was that due to Nazism or was that due to coming out of a depression? The latter. Also, if you're referencing GDP from the period preceding WWII and during WWII, you must concede that most of those increases in GDP are from government purchases of weapons, tanks, planes, ships, and other destructive means of war that made life worse off for Germans, Americans, and Russians alike. Clothing, food, and many other goods were rationed during these years, making life even worse for these over-taxed people.

Compare these relatively new economic successes to an old success that has become progressively (more realistically regressively) more socialist: http://goo.gl...

I would hardly say that the UK is becoming 'progressively more socialist' lol. I don't see many worker's cooperatives fighting against wage slavery and bourgeois class supremacy over there.

The general trend is toward socialism, not away from it: http://www.heritage.org...
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Fly
Posts: 2,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 2:48:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Singapore has a lot on the ball, yet it is indeed draconian regarding personal liberties.

I'm not sure where one would get the idea that it is the poster child for laissez faire capitalism, though. It's counterpart version of our SEC has some real teeth, and their regulators/overseers are WELL paid in order to avoid the lax attitudes and corruption one sees in the US regarding oversight of the financial sector.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Fly
Posts: 2,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 2:54:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Oh, sorry-- one might get that idea from the Heritage Foundation. THAT explains it!

I see that Australia and Canada make the cut for "most free" economically. So, we are to conclude, based upon that, that they are laissez faire economic systems?

It is to laugh...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 3:07:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
You realise capitalism works on a state level, too, right? What? Singapore has no exports? Nah, that doesn't play into the overall goodness of capitalism at all, eh?
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 4:19:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2014 9:05:37 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Look at the gains made in per capita income by year: http://bit.ly...
This comes as a result of its relatively free economy: http://www.heritage.org...

Compare these relatively new economic successes to an old success that has become progressively (more realistically regressively) more socialist: http://goo.gl...

Its an island. Not a country.

It is basically like Las Vegas. Instead of an island of Casinos it is an island of Banks. Its like running an experiment in a closed circuit with control groups. Its too small a population to expound on economic trends. Its too small of a control group to serve as "an example", right?

All the asian countries that surround this island are too tumultous politically to invest in. Singapore provides a perfect hub for all the big global banks to dock HQs there. Appealing to your knowledge of finance- think of Singapore as fortress, or 'a sea of calm', amidst the turbulence of asian capitalism. Again finance: Investing in India for example means no laws, a legal case can sit for up to seven years before actually being look at (source: see the World Bank Doing Business Report 2014), and since finance needs rules . Singapore provides rules (where rules = dictatorship).

Singapore is great. But it is a good example of capitalist dictatorship. Not capitalist democracy as your title assumes..
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 4:25:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/16/2014 2:54:59 PM, Fly wrote:
Oh, sorry-- one might get that idea from the Heritage Foundation. THAT explains it!

What's wrong with that source?
Fly
Posts: 2,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 4:44:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/16/2014 4:25:15 PM, fazz wrote:
At 9/16/2014 2:54:59 PM, Fly wrote:
Oh, sorry-- one might get that idea from the Heritage Foundation. THAT explains it!

What's wrong with that source?

If you are familiar with it, then nothing I can say will illustrate to you what is wrong with it.

However, if you are unfamiliar, the Heritage Foundation, like most political think tanks, politically active religious organizations, etc. have reached a certain conclusion/ideology and will actively and readily filter any information in such a way as to support only that conclusion. In other words, it is a propaganda arm.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 4:48:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/16/2014 2:54:59 PM, Fly wrote:
Oh, sorry-- one might get that idea from the Heritage Foundation. THAT explains it!

I see that Australia and Canada make the cut for "most free" economically. So, we are to conclude, based upon that, that they are laissez faire economic systems?

It is to laugh...

Economic freedom is on a continuum. One end is complete economic freedom and the opposite end is economic repression. When a country is close to either of these extremes it is easier to say they have a free economy or laissez faire economy, then to expound on the hundreds of economic indicators that lead to that specific percentage of economic freedom (which isn't perfect per se).

I live in Canada right now, and compared to the US it is quite awesome. Both in personal and economic freedom (based on an aggregate of economic and personal freedom rankings it is in the top 3). I'm already regretting my necessary move to Los Angeles after Toronto.

There are a few non-Heritage sites that rank economic freedom if you can't accept statistical data simply because it comes from a website you do not like (I'm an anarchist, so most heritage stuff I disagree with as well). You can check out the Fraser Institute's as well. It's the best in my opinion, but the graphical representation isn't as beautiful or intuitive as Heritage's.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 5:06:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2014 9:05:37 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Look at the gains made in per capita income by year: http://bit.ly...
This comes as a result of its relatively free economy: http://www.heritage.org...

Compare these relatively new economic successes to an old success that has become progressively (more realistically regressively) more socialist: http://goo.gl...

The world is a great example of capitalism- just look at how messed up it has become.
You can call me Mark if you like.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 5:35:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
There is no real distinction between capitalism and statism - segmented government, for example, is essentially irremovable from freeing up the market; in the end, it only comes down to reactivity. Now, there is some argument there that capitalism - which is only this greater reactivity in a certain place; exactly equal to entrusting military, navy, air force command, etc. to individuals for greater flow - might better the world in terms of digging up its resources faster; starving nations might be brought to bloom faster with command dispersed rather than having to wait on the orders of one man for every little thing; but to simply point to Singapore, or South Korea, etc., and say, "Look, capitalism good, statism bad," is nothing short of idiotic. In truth, it is exactly capitalism from which the state arises in the first place; the state should in fact be considered a monopoly which has arisen from the power struggle which is capitalism, then turned stagnant. Further, it is simply not any sort of a viable plan for humanity, if you will, in that it is essentially disordered: completely blind and pillaging; for the only goal is to get ahead; and the more it tends toward order, or regulation, the more it tends back towards a state; and the benefits of a state - the ideal state - should be blatantly obvious here. And let alone that greater capitalist nations are also easily an unjust drain on less developed nations' resources - who thinks the US, or China, are paying fair dues in their extracting minerals from the likes of Africa, the Middle East, etc.? Money pools: the rich are afforded to rob the poor by market means - you think there's really "equal exchange"? No, rather some baron gets a wad of cash which he selfishly blows, a nation is crippled, and the US flourishes in its unfair gains.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 5:39:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/16/2014 5:35:06 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
There is no real distinction between capitalism and statism - segmented government, for example, is essentially irremovable from freeing up the market; in the end, it only comes down to reactivity. Now, there is some argument there that capitalism - which is only this greater reactivity in a certain place; exactly equal to entrusting military, navy, air force command, etc. to individuals for greater flow - might better the world in terms of digging up its resources faster; starving nations might be brought to bloom faster with command dispersed rather than having to wait on the orders of one man for every little thing; but to simply point to Singapore, or South Korea, etc., and say, "Look, capitalism good, statism bad," is nothing short of idiotic. In truth, it is exactly capitalism from which the state arises in the first place; the state should in fact be considered a monopoly which has arisen from the power struggle which is capitalism, then turned stagnant. Further, it is simply not any sort of a viable plan for humanity, if you will, in that it is essentially disordered: completely blind and pillaging; for the only goal is to get ahead; and the more it tends toward order, or regulation, the more it tends back towards a state; and the benefits of a state - the ideal state - should be blatantly obvious here. And let alone that greater capitalist nations are also easily an unjust drain on less developed nations' resources - who thinks the US, or China, are paying fair dues in their extracting minerals from the likes of Africa, the Middle East, etc.? Money pools: the rich are afforded to rob the poor by market means - you think there's really "equal exchange"? No, rather some baron gets a wad of cash which he selfishly blows, a nation is crippled, and the US flourishes in its unfair gains.

Oh, but... MURICA, F*CK YEAH! See WSA, I don't think you're that much of a cunt though...
Fly
Posts: 2,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 7:03:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/16/2014 4:48:09 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 9/16/2014 2:54:59 PM, Fly wrote:
Oh, sorry-- one might get that idea from the Heritage Foundation. THAT explains it!

I see that Australia and Canada make the cut for "most free" economically. So, we are to conclude, based upon that, that they are laissez faire economic systems?

It is to laugh...

Economic freedom is on a continuum. One end is complete economic freedom and the opposite end is economic repression. When a country is close to either of these extremes it is easier to say they have a free economy or laissez faire economy, then to expound on the hundreds of economic indicators that lead to that specific percentage of economic freedom (which isn't perfect per se).

You will have to explain to me how being close to the extreme of economic repression can be identified as having a free or laissez faire economy. Perhaps you misspoke?

I live in Canada right now, and compared to the US it is quite awesome. Both in personal and economic freedom (based on an aggregate of economic and personal freedom rankings it is in the top 3). I'm already regretting my necessary move to Los Angeles after Toronto.

There are a few non-Heritage sites that rank economic freedom if you can't accept statistical data simply because it comes from a website you do not like (I'm an anarchist, so most heritage stuff I disagree with as well). You can check out the Fraser Institute's as well. It's the best in my opinion, but the graphical representation isn't as beautiful or intuitive as Heritage's.

You misunderstand me. I do not resent the chart provided by the Heritage Foundation; I resent what they imply that it concludes: laissez faire capitalism = economic freedom = prosperity.

See, I would not equate laissez faire capitalism with economic freedom, but followers of the Heritage Foundation would. The foundation depends upon a certain amount of ignorance regarding the economic policies of those countries that rate high in economic freedom.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 7:46:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/16/2014 7:03:17 PM, Fly wrote:
At 9/16/2014 4:48:09 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 9/16/2014 2:54:59 PM, Fly wrote:
Oh, sorry-- one might get that idea from the Heritage Foundation. THAT explains it!

I see that Australia and Canada make the cut for "most free" economically. So, we are to conclude, based upon that, that they are laissez faire economic systems?

It is to laugh...

Economic freedom is on a continuum. One end is complete economic freedom and the opposite end is economic repression. When a country is close to either of these extremes it is easier to say they have a free economy or laissez faire economy, then to expound on the hundreds of economic indicators that lead to that specific percentage of economic freedom (which isn't perfect per se).

You will have to explain to me how being close to the extreme of economic repression can be identified as having a free or laissez faire economy. Perhaps you misspoke?

laissez-faire or socialist* yeah

I live in Canada right now, and compared to the US it is quite awesome. Both in personal and economic freedom (based on an aggregate of economic and personal freedom rankings it is in the top 3). I'm already regretting my necessary move to Los Angeles after Toronto.

There are a few non-Heritage sites that rank economic freedom if you can't accept statistical data simply because it comes from a website you do not like (I'm an anarchist, so most heritage stuff I disagree with as well). You can check out the Fraser Institute's as well. It's the best in my opinion, but the graphical representation isn't as beautiful or intuitive as Heritage's.

You misunderstand me. I do not resent the chart provided by the Heritage Foundation; I resent what they imply that it concludes: laissez faire capitalism = economic freedom = prosperity.

Laissez faire: An economic doctrine that opposes governmental regulation of or interference in commerce beyond the minimum necessary for a free-enterprise system to operate according to its own economic laws.

Economic freedom: the ability of members of a society to undertake economic direction and actions. Even in the rankings: "These subcomponents include the size of government based on expenditures and taxes; the legal structure and its protection of property rights; access to sound money; freedom to trade internationally; and regulation of credit, labor, and business." which parallels the previous word.

Prosperity comes as a result of economic freedom. I ask that you find some counter examples to this statement. The two freest economies in the world: Hong Kong and Singapore brought millions of people out of poverty simply by allowing the people to undertake economic activity without the tremendous burden of government f*cking with them.

See, I would not equate laissez faire capitalism with economic freedom, but followers of the Heritage Foundation would. The foundation depends upon a certain amount of ignorance regarding the economic policies of those countries that rate high in economic freedom.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 7:50:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/16/2014 7:46:25 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 9/16/2014 7:03:17 PM, Fly wrote:
At 9/16/2014 4:48:09 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 9/16/2014 2:54:59 PM, Fly wrote:
Oh, sorry-- one might get that idea from the Heritage Foundation. THAT explains it!

I see that Australia and Canada make the cut for "most free" economically. So, we are to conclude, based upon that, that they are laissez faire economic systems?

It is to laugh...

Economic freedom is on a continuum. One end is complete economic freedom and the opposite end is economic repression. When a country is close to either of these extremes it is easier to say they have a free economy or laissez faire economy, then to expound on the hundreds of economic indicators that lead to that specific percentage of economic freedom (which isn't perfect per se).

You will have to explain to me how being close to the extreme of economic repression can be identified as having a free or laissez faire economy. Perhaps you misspoke?

laissez-faire or socialist* yeah

I live in Canada right now, and compared to the US it is quite awesome. Both in personal and economic freedom (based on an aggregate of economic and personal freedom rankings it is in the top 3). I'm already regretting my necessary move to Los Angeles after Toronto.

There are a few non-Heritage sites that rank economic freedom if you can't accept statistical data simply because it comes from a website you do not like (I'm an anarchist, so most heritage stuff I disagree with as well). You can check out the Fraser Institute's as well. It's the best in my opinion, but the graphical representation isn't as beautiful or intuitive as Heritage's.

You misunderstand me. I do not resent the chart provided by the Heritage Foundation; I resent what they imply that it concludes: laissez faire capitalism = economic freedom = prosperity.

Laissez faire: An economic doctrine that opposes governmental regulation of or interference in commerce beyond the minimum necessary for a free-enterprise system to operate according to its own economic laws.

Economic freedom: the ability of members of a society to undertake economic direction and actions. Even in the rankings: "These subcomponents include the size of government based on expenditures and taxes; the legal structure and its protection of property rights; access to sound money; freedom to trade internationally; and regulation of credit, labor, and business." which parallels the previous word.

Prosperity comes as a result of economic freedom. I ask that you find some counter examples to this statement. The two freest economies in the world: Hong Kong and Singapore brought millions of people out of poverty simply by allowing the people to undertake economic activity without the tremendous burden of government f*cking with them.

Yes. But Hong Kong and Singapore are not real countries.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 7:53:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/16/2014 7:50:24 PM, fazz wrote:
Yes. But Hong Kong and Singapore are not real countries.

Why do you say that? What criteria makes a country a "real country?"
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 7:55:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Well, is manhattan a country?

Manhattan has 8 million people.

Singapore has 5 million.

Hong Kong has 7.
Fly
Posts: 2,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 7:56:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"Prosperity comes as a result of economic freedom. I ask that you find some counter examples to this statement. The two freest economies in the world: Hong Kong and Singapore brought millions of people out of poverty simply by allowing the people to undertake economic activity without the tremendous burden of government f*cking with them."

You misunderstand me again. I don't have a problem with economic freedom --> prosperity. I have a problem with laissez faire = economic freedom.

The banking and finance sectors of Australia and Canada are better regulated than the USA, and the USA is known for its laissez faire policies. And, as I said before, Singapore's regulators are effective and well paid. And per that chart, all those countries are rated as having more economic freedom than the US.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2014 12:10:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/16/2014 2:35:35 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 9/15/2014 8:05:30 PM, Chimera wrote:
At 9/14/2014 9:05:37 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Look at the gains made in per capita income by year: http://bit.ly...

Singapore is also famously known for having some of the most ridiculously draconian laws in the world. For instance:
Importation of chewing gum is banned, but can be prescribed by a doctor (sales are also forbidden).
Capital punishment for drug dealers/ those in possession of drugs.
Public caning for forgetting to flush the toilet.
Illegal pornography (the term 'pornography' in Singapore also means nudity, so walking around your house naked is a crime).
Need I go on?

I understand economic freedom =/= personal freedom. What's your point? You essentially concede that the country has made tremendous gains in per capita income.

If Singapore's personal freedom is held constant, while its economic freedom is increased how is this a bad thing? It may not be ideal (ideal would be personal freedom and economic freedom increasing greatly), but it's still making them better off.

This comes as a result of its relatively free economy: http://www.heritage.org...

Just because 'economic successes' are made does not justify laissez-faire economics. One could say that 'economic successes' were made in Nazi Germany, or Stalin's Russia, or even slave societies. Does this justify Nazism, Stalinism, or slavery?

That's why you look at causal factors. Nazi Germany had increases in income after the great depression's worst year in 1933. Was that due to Nazism or was that due to coming out of a depression? The latter. Also, if you're referencing GDP from the period preceding WWII and during WWII, you must concede that most of those increases in GDP are from government purchases of weapons, tanks, planes, ships, and other destructive means of war that made life worse off for Germans, Americans, and Russians alike. Clothing, food, and many other goods were rationed during these years, making life even worse for these over-taxed people.

Compare these relatively new economic successes to an old success that has become progressively (more realistically regressively) more socialist: http://goo.gl...

I would hardly say that the UK is becoming 'progressively more socialist' lol. I don't see many worker's cooperatives fighting against wage slavery and bourgeois class supremacy over there.

The general trend is toward socialism, not away from it: http://www.heritage.org...

Totally agree. Political freedom is just a fraction of what economic freedom represent, in a politically totalitarian nation, you simply can't express your political opinion. In complete socialist economy, your very life is subjected to the government rule, yet so many people love it.. because they are not on the paying side of the deal.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2014 3:04:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/16/2014 7:55:07 PM, fazz wrote:
Well, is manhattan a country?

Manhattan has 8 million people.

Manhattan is a borough of a city (NYC) of a state (NY) of a country (USA).

Singapore has 5 million.

Singapore is the Republic of Singapore, is a sovereign city-state and island country in Southeast Asia.

Hong Kong has 7.

Hong Kong is a more interesting example, but check this video for elucidation: https://www.youtube.com...
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2014 3:19:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/16/2014 7:55:07 PM, fazz wrote:
Well, is manhattan a country?

Manhattan has 8 million people.

Singapore has 5 million.

Hong Kong has 7.

so do Israel, some places like New Zealand or Greenland has even lower, are you implying they are not country as well?
slo1
Posts: 4,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2014 12:53:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2014 9:05:37 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Look at the gains made in per capita income by year: http://bit.ly...
This comes as a result of its relatively free economy: http://www.heritage.org...

Compare these relatively new economic successes to an old success that has become progressively (more realistically regressively) more socialist: http://goo.gl...

laughable. I guess state run pension and compulsory savings the state requires on its citizens is free. Could you imagine in the US if anyone even suggested it? Heck, we can even get people to see why compulsory heath insurance is good.

http://online.wsj.com...
Fly
Posts: 2,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 10:26:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/21/2014 12:53:02 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/14/2014 9:05:37 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Look at the gains made in per capita income by year: http://bit.ly...
This comes as a result of its relatively free economy: http://www.heritage.org...

Compare these relatively new economic successes to an old success that has become progressively (more realistically regressively) more socialist: http://goo.gl...

laughable. I guess state run pension and compulsory savings the state requires on its citizens is free. Could you imagine in the US if anyone even suggested it? Heck, we can even get people to see why compulsory heath insurance is good.

http://online.wsj.com...

Indeed. This thread illustrates that merely reading Ayn Rand novels does not prepare one to adequately process the realities of macroeconomics... or even sustain an open and honest discussion on the matter...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 11:38:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/21/2014 12:53:02 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/14/2014 9:05:37 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Look at the gains made in per capita income by year: http://bit.ly...
This comes as a result of its relatively free economy: http://www.heritage.org...

Compare these relatively new economic successes to an old success that has become progressively (more realistically regressively) more socialist: http://goo.gl...

laughable. I guess state run pension and compulsory savings the state requires on its citizens is free. Could you imagine in the US if anyone even suggested it? Heck, we can even get people to see why compulsory heath insurance is good.

http://online.wsj.com...

Actually, when I first see this topic I kind of thinking of the same but since they are able to show that statistic-wise they are now free, or at least comparatively free compare to the rest of the world so I assume that those policies are no longer there - or at least no longer significant in anyway.
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 11:47:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2014 11:38:59 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 9/21/2014 12:53:02 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/14/2014 9:05:37 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Look at the gains made in per capita income by year: http://bit.ly...
This comes as a result of its relatively free economy: http://www.heritage.org...

Compare these relatively new economic successes to an old success that has become progressively (more realistically regressively) more socialist: http://goo.gl...

laughable. I guess state run pension and compulsory savings the state requires on its citizens is free. Could you imagine in the US if anyone even suggested it? Heck, we can even get people to see why compulsory heath insurance is good.

http://online.wsj.com...

Actually, when I first see this topic I kind of thinking of the same but since they are able to show that statistic-wise they are now free, or at least comparatively free compare to the rest of the world so I assume that those policies are no longer there - or at least no longer significant in anyway.

Excellent point. But what does history tell us: The basis for any good democracy is dictatorship.