President Bush Jr's Scorecard

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by gsmoove23


Their economies are not based upon strictly free markets and the idea of higher taxes for social services, welfare, etc... are fairly common. There is no way you can call these countries strictly capitalist.

More to the point (as long as we are all splitting hairs) there is no country in the world (US included) that is strictly capitalist or socialist as others have said more often than not. The degree to which one is capitalist/scocialist is open to interpretation.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Their economies are not based upon strictly free markets and the idea of higher taxes for social services, welfare, etc... are fairly common. There is no way you can call these countries strictly capitalist.

Who was calling them strictly capitalist?

They are capitalist states because their economies are based on the market. They are mixed economies, but profoundly based on capitalist models.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Imran,

LOL...

Do you have my office bugged or something?

.... Looks around for spy cam....

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Since the beginning. The FBI and CIA report directly to the Homeland Security Director.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/11/20/fac...and/index.html

While the new department would not become a domestic intelligence agency, it would analyze intelligence and "legally accessible information" from multiple sources such as the CIA; National Security Agency; FBI; Drug Enforcement Administration; Department of Energy; Customs Service, and Department of Transportation.

Having the power to analyze intelligence means it basically is the boss of the FBI and CIA.

The FBI and CIA are not agencies that will go under the umbrella of the department, and having acccess to their intelligence to analyse it is a completely different thing from being in control of an agency.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The FBI and CIA are not agencies that will go under the umbrella of the department, and having acccess to their intelligence to analyse it is a completely different thing from being in control of an agency.

It is, for all intents and purposes, administrative control. They can't tell the FBI and CIA what to do (the President directly does that), but they have access to the intelligence, which allows them to know the end product of both agencies and allow them to piece that together. When you have access to intelligence, it basically means they report to you and you decide what is important before telling it to the big boss (the President).

Think of it in a corporation setting. Boss tells the department to do whatever it wants, but he gets access to the final product and decides what is important and not.

[HershOstropoler]

"They can't tell the FBI and CIA what to do"

End of story.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by GePap

As for the ongoing Capitalism debate:

One thing is vital for Capitalism to work: information. An individual would have to know several things to then be able to make an intelligent and reasoned decision based on teh cost/benefit annalysis of an action. Unfortunitelly the average person does not have a way to get enough information to make a good reasoned guess, so that most time, people's choices are still based on hunches or whims, since they can hardly do better. Then there is the problem of interested parties making up, or giving out misleading information, which is why controlling and regulating the chanels of information is so vital to make the system work: if rampant lying occurs then the market fails.

Another problem with capitalism is thus: In a system of winners there must be losers: not everyone can win: we need maids, bus boys, seravnts, and if you believe in the system so much, you must acknowledge that the system will insure that we have busboys and maids and janitors. Not everyone can be rich, period. That is impossible. Now, at the same time, Capitalism is great at creating wealth. But this creates the problem of relative comparisons. People do not judge their standing on an absolute plain: they judge how they are doing based on other in the system. This is not only true for cost of lfe issues (a working poor person in the US is FAR FAR better of that poor working people in the 3rd world) but also in how one defines success. Thus capitalism breeds unhappiness not because it fails to create wealth (this it does fantastically) but because as everyone rises, everyone devalues it, and wants more and more, to equal those that have won, even though they can't, for the systm won't allow it.

Good post. I would point out that every economic system must find a way to clean it's bathrooms, bury it's dead, or whatever is considered bad but necessary duty. Capitalism is not in any way unique here.

I completely agree that information is critically necessary for a capitalist economy to work efficiently, just as it is critical for an efficient democracy. I also agree with your point abour relative wealth being much more important socially once one's basic economic needs (ie those necessary for survival) are being met.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Their economies are not based upon strictly free markets and the idea of higher taxes for social services, welfare, etc... are fairly common. There is no way you can call these countries strictly capitalist.

Who was calling them strictly capitalist?

They are capitalist states because their economies are based on the market. They are mixed economies, but profoundly based on capitalist models.

My argument was based on the fact that I don't think there are many here who would argue for a strictly socialist state or a strictly capitalist state but people are arguing as if this is the case. For instance, I would argue for a more european model of democracy where national healthcare, more funding on public services and public transportation, free or extremely cheap education and a more robust safety net. Stronger socialist ideas within a capitalist framework.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
Their economies are not based upon strictly free markets and the idea of higher taxes for social services, welfare, etc... are fairly common. There is no way you can call these countries strictly capitalist.

free market != capitalism

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Also, just look at how people vote with their feet. They flee socialist countries as soon as they are able. The reverse simply does not happen.

The vast majority of people flee from one capitalist country to another. Most capitalist countries are poor. Most socialist countries started in poor countries, and while they changed things greatly in relation to themselves, they didn't come very close to imperialist living standards.

It should also be restated that, at least during the 1980s, more than 60% of those who moved to the US from the USSR moved back to the USSR after a few years, according to a Nightline report. People also moved to the "socialist" states from poorer countries. There were substantianal numbers of Vietnamese and Africans in both the USSR and East Germany.

The US and Western Europe are built on the backs of imperialism. Much as the best house to live in the Italian ghetto was the home of the head of the mafia, so the best countries in the world to live in are those that preyed on the wealth of the planet.

[gsmoove23]

What is a free market che? Is the American system, regulation, labor laws, consumer protections, subsidies... free market? Are you saying socialist and capitalist ideas can't be merged to some extent? Its ridiculous. West coast dock workers have been able to use collective action to gain quite alot of capital for themselves. Many ideas of socialism have been co-opted into capitalist systems because they work, simply calling all 1st world democracies capitalist is incredibly simplistic.

[Imran Siddiqui]

"They can't tell the FBI and CIA what to do"

End of story.

So you are telling me in a company that has an independant subdivision, the person to whom that subdivision reports to isn't the boss of it?

free market != capitalism

Actually, che, that's what capitalism is. The free-market. You object to callling the USSR pure communism, so I don't think you can non free market countries capitalist. The free market has always been the basis of capitalist thought.