Oops! As they are so fond of saying and the fact that he is ignoring all these county's vast investment in infrastructure as opposed to countries like Mexico. I told him that he would not, could not hear what I was saying and I am just tired of always being right. Every country wants to be thought of as business friendly but who is gonna give an effective tax rate of between 14 and 0% baby! The good old U.S. of us!
So you are telling me that because somebody/something does one thing wrong, everything they do has to be entirely wrong? Interesting philosophy you are trying to live by.
You know as well as anyone here that the PRoC utilizes a form of State Capitalism. The key word here is "capitalism", not communism or socialism. They're starting to learn that capitalism works. Now, if they could just adopt an American style of capitalism. You see, as the article below states, "the ultimate motive is not economic, but political". So, they're just using a capitalistic method in order to gain power, wealth and control for their communist leaders. I applaud their method, but not their goal. People's Republic of China Many analysts assert that China is one of the main examples of state capitalism in the 21st century.[41][42] In his book, The End of the Free Market: Who Wins the War Between States and Corporations, political scientist Ian Bremmer describes China as the primary driver for the rise of state capitalism as a challenge to the free market economies of the developed world, particularly in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis.[43] Bremmer describes state capitalism thus:[44] In this system, governments use various kinds of state-owned companies to manage the exploitation of resources that they consider the state's crown jewels and to create and maintain large numbers of jobs. They use select privately owned companies to dominate certain economic sectors. They use so-called sovereign wealth funds to invest their extra cash in ways that maximize the state's profits. In all three cases, the state is using markets to create wealth that can be directed as political officials see fit. And in all three cases, the ultimate motive is not economic (maximizing growth) but political (maximizing the state's power and the leadership's chances of survival). This is a form of capitalism but one in which the state acts as the dominant economic player and uses markets primarily for political gain.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism
Tell me something new. If you noticed, I used the phrase "self-indentified" to qualify the claim of the Chinese government that it is Communist. I think it's generally acknowledged that whatever form of government it is that's running things in Beijing these days, it's not recognizably Communist. The bit from Wiki that you quote doesn't mention Communism at all. It talks about State Capitalism. You seem to think that it's possible to practice both at once. You could be right. But personally I don't think you know what you are talking about. Especially since you still haven't shared with us what you think Communism is in the first place. That's the beauty of your arguments from your point of view. When your words have no meaning it's hard to refute them. By the way, have you read the entire article that you pulled the quote from?
So what is that one thing and who did it and why was it wrong? The last part might be self-evident once we know the answers to the first two questions, but at this point I can't say.
I would think the first question is rather self evident both from this post and you previous post, but I have no idea what "the last part" is?
Well back after a week with little or no internet and I see nothing has changed LOL HAPPY HOLIDAY FOLKS
**THIS JUST IN**BREAKING NEWS** Due to the state of BO's economy there are not enough people currently employed to celebrate Labor Day therefore the holiday will be postponed until conditions improve!!
I'm a bit of a plodder. I really want to know what that one thing is and who did it and why it was wrong. Could you give me a break and help me out here? And while I'm begging your indulgence, allow me one more question. Do you consider Denmark to me a Socialist country?
Time for workers to take back Labor Day On Monday, September 3, millions of Americans will celebrate Labor Day. For most, it will mean nothing more than the unofficial end of summer, a weekend for one last barbeque, campout, or trip to the beach. However,according to the United States Department of Labor, the day represents, “a yearly national tribute to the contributions workers have made to the strength, prosperity, and well being of our country." For a holiday little more than a century old, Labor Day’s origins are surprisingly opaque. Some say that Peter McGuire, co-founder of the American Federation of Labor, was the first to propose such a holiday. Other records indicate that it was another McGuire, named Matthew, who came up with the idea in 1882 when he was secretary of New York’s Central Labor Union. Whatever the truth, the first Labor Day celebration was held in New York City on September 5 of that year. By 1894, the United States Congress had passed legislation recognizing the first Monday in September as Labor Day. Unfortunately, as one might expect from a holiday that sprung from the brow of organized labor, Labor Day celebrations all too often degrade into a celebration of unions rather than individual workers, the vast majority of whom, after all, are not members of a union. And for good reason -- unions have a long history of taking advantage of their members by, among other things, forcibly collecting dues which labor bosses then spend on political activities, regardless of whether union members support the candidates and policies endorsed by the union. No wonder union membership in the United States has plummeted from 20.1 percent in 1983 to 11.8 percent in 2011. In fact, it is the coercive nature of modern unionism makes it so offensive to the sensibilities of a free people. According to a new Heritage Foundation study (“Unelected Unions: Why Workers Should Be Allowed to Choose Their Representatives”), only 7 percent of private-sector union members have actually voted to join their union: “The remaining 93 percent are automatically represented by a union they had no say in electing,” notes author James Sherk. “The United Auto Workers (UAW), which organized General Motors’ Michigan factories in 1937, is a case in point. Michigan does not have a right-to-work law, so union-represented workers must pay the union's dues or get fired. General Motors’ current employees never had the chance to vote for or against the UAW. UAW representation was a non-negotiable condition of their employment." This Labor Day, you won’t see union bosses acknowledging the fact that they force workers into arrangements made by other people decades earlier. Nor will they openly celebrate the union-negotiated government employee contracts that are busting state and local budgets across the country, forcing politicians to raise taxes, cut essential government services, or both (though some brave souls, like Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, are choosing a third path by reforming and restructuring their government’s relationship with its workforce). And you certainly won’t hear anything about the fact that teachers’ unions’ stranglehold on public education protect lazy and incompetent educators to the detriment of students languishing in our failing schools. No, you won’t hear about these union contributions to our society at Labor Day parades, this or any other year. But you should. If individual workers really want to do something to celebrate their day, they should do what millions have already done -- opt out of union membership altogether. If opting out is not an option, then agitate for that choice; lobby for the freedom to choose with whom you associate. True, such rights are already guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. I guess unions didn’t get the memo. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/03/time-for-workers-to-take-back-labor-day/#ixzz25QJUOpB3
You too? Pretty much RW canned crap all around isn't it? You guys can't define your terms, you stonewall when asked for clarification. You criticize and condemn without even reading what it is you're criticizing and condemning. Just spout what the party hacks tell you and hope no one questions it and when they do, toss a smoke bomb or two and run away.
Brilliant. This is so new so fresh. So what is Socialism then? You want tell explain what you mean by that? You don't seem to like it much, so you should be able to define it. And while we're at it, what's Communism? How do you define that one? Let's get these terms as you use them nailed down. You're constantly throwing them out there. You can at least tell us what they mean, can't you?
I answered your question. You did not ask me to define my terms, but to interpolate your terms. I tried. Sorry if I got it wrong. BTW, in today's society, there are no pure socialist countries, no pure capitalist countries, and no pure democratic countries. However, there may be some pure theocracies or dictatorships.
That's a fair question. And I'll be happy to try to answer it. I've been thinking about it for a long time and maybe attempting to put it down on paper for you will help me sort it out. I've been using it as kind of a catch-all term, which is not very meaningful and kind of lazy. I will work on it and post what I come up with.
