[QUOTE]Britain adopted free trade only in the 1860s, when its industrial dominance was absolute. In the same way in which the US was the most protectionist country in the world during most of its phase of ascendancy (from the 1830s to the 1940s), Britain was one of the world’s most protectionist countries during much of its own economic rise (from the 1720s to the 1850s). [/QUOTE]But of course all countries, especially those who have the weakest economies, are supposed to adopt free trade now. What was permissible then, is no more now. Otherwise the economic powerhouses might lose some of their dominance and the benefits that go with it.

I am reading the article now, and it says just that. Let us hope I will not be the only one reading it :-)

Jacob

I'm a bit late to this party. I'm hesitant to join, given that the last big debate that involved davar55 ended up being a fiasco because he redefined common terms in such a way that his conclusions naturally followed.

From what I can tell, this thread was severed from another (in the same way one severs a diseased limb to save the body, no doubt) and I'm afraid I might have missed something already.

I tried reading the first four pages but I never really understood what the initial proposition was anyway.


Is this just a case of davar55 not correctly defining his terms, or do we actually have a bunch of socialists in here saying that the Free Market is bad? I had hoped this particular group of people would have been smarter than that, so I really hope we have a bunch of capitalists arguing against davar55's "capitalism".

[QUOTE=TheMawn;394448]I'm a bit late to this party. I'm hesitant to join, given that the last big debate that involved davar55 ended up being a fiasco because he redefined common terms in such a way that his conclusions naturally followed.

...

Is this just a case of davar55 not correctly defining his terms, or do we actually have a bunch of socialists in here saying that the Free Market is bad? I had hoped this particular group of people would have been smarter than that, so I really hope we have a bunch of capitalists arguing against davar55's "capitalism".[/QUOTE]Careful. There are socialists, "socialists" and Socialists.

It is entirely possible to be a capitalist and not believe in a free market, just as it is possible to be a socialist and a capitalist. Part of davar55's rhetorical style, as you've noted, is to choose his definitions carefully and then make dogmatic statements which he claims are self-evidently unassailably true.

[QUOTE=xilman;394402]Very well, so you now accept that capitalism is not the only way to create wealth. You previously stated:
We're making progress.[/QUOTE]

I guess not. Quoting myself in context, only that part of a non-Capitalism economy that reflects Capitalism
can possibly be the source of the creation of wealth. And I am not coflating wealth, money, and capitalism,
they are intimately related but not identical. Non-Capitalist economies are theft.

[QUOTE=kladner;394403]Bravo. The dirty laundry comes out.[/QUOTE]

Nonsense. That article is anti-Capitalist and full of errors.

[QUOTE=S485122;394424]But of course all countries, especially those who have the weakest economies, are supposed to adopt free trade now. What was permissible then, is no more now. Otherwise the economic powerhouses might lose some of their dominance and the benefits that go with it.
I am reading the article now, and it says just that. Let us hope I will not be the only one reading it :-)
[/QUOTE]

It is wrong on its premises.

Back in the 90's I mistakenly believed that mainland communist China would be unpolished in capitalistic practices. Au contraire. A brief excursion showed me otherwise. For example, all kinds of things were available for fees; at a zoo, I was able to get photographed lifting up a crocodle. And they were planning an expansion for hunters.

[QUOTE=TheMawn;394448]I'm a bit late to this party. I'm hesitant to join, given that the last big debate that involved davar55 ended up being a fiasco because he redefined common terms in such a way that his conclusions naturally followed.
From what I can tell, this thread was severed from another (in the same way one severs a diseased limb to save the body, no doubt) and I'm afraid I might have missed something already.
I tried reading the first four pages but I never really understood what the initial proposition was anyway.

Is this just a case of davar55 not correctly defining his terms, or do we actually have a bunch of socialists in here saying that the Free Market is bad? I had hoped this particular group of people would have been smarter than that, so I really hope we have a bunch of capitalists arguing against davar55's "capitalism".[/QUOTE]

Hey, I'm typing from memory and using my noggin for the presentation.
Finding miscellaneous authors and quotes (that article is WAY flawed)
implies a fundamental lack of understanding. If you (generic you)
can't handle the truth... stay out of the kitchen.

[QUOTE=only_human;394460]Back in the 90's I mistakenly believed that mainland communist China would be unpolished in capitalistic practices. Au contraire. A brief excursion showed me otherwise. For example, all kinds of things were available for fees; at a zoo, I was able to get photographed lifting up a crocodle. And they were planning an expansion for hunters.[/QUOTE]

And is this bad? No.

We (the more capitalistic world) are the ones who taught them.

[QUOTE=xilman;394450]Careful. There are socialists, "socialists" and Socialists.
It is entirely possible to be a capitalist and not believe in a free market, just as it is possible to be a socialist and a capitalist. Part of davar55's rhetorical style, as you've noted, is to choose his definitions carefully and then make dogmatic statements which he claims are self-evidently unassailably true.[/QUOTE]

All three of these claims are false or inaccurate at best.

[QUOTE=davar55;394462]And is this bad? No.

We (the more capitalistic world) are the ones who taught them.[/QUOTE]
It's bad when they sell [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diethylene_glycol"]diethylene glycol[/URL] in lieu of glycerine and it ends up in medicine. It is bad when they sell toxic melamine as a protein substitute for [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal"]milk[/URL] and petfoods because its high nitrogen content fools food protein assays and it kills children and pets.

It is also bad when we inject water into poultry prior to freezing to make it weigh more. It is unnecessary except for the profit incentive by weight and is a potential vector of contamination. Not to mention the henway.