What policies could possibly improve our economy?

[nerdvincent]

Quote by: TheWord I'm also confused as to why we are still arguing about ownership at all. A change in the ownership of industries will do nothing to improve the economy at all, whether it be socialization or privatization.

Of course brutal changes always have risks for the economy, but this is not the point. Common ownership would improve the standard of living of the workers (if we skip the risk included in some form of transitions, not all of them) and the industries acting in a more cohesive way would garantee a more efficient production in all possible way. Also, the risk of an economic crisis in a planified economy is next to 0. Conclusion: now here is the recession, socialism couldn't help much to solve it without too much risk, but to prevent the next one it would be kinda useful.

Quote by: TheWord I'm not sure if everyone will be able to find it, but the mutilated and condensed version essentially states that a change in ownership of capital between firms (read ownership of industries when extrapolated to a Governmental Scale) will suffer from inefficiencies due to our inability to specify our rights and obligations in contractual terms. These inefficiencies result in an incomplete integration (either in a firm becoming entirely public or private) and lower overall productivity.

The problem doesn't look that bad: we should just avoid in-betweens and nationalize all at once (thus "contractual terms" would be an internal business, easily broken), or build "public industries" out of nothing instead of nationalizing industries already under contractual conditions. But I suppose I should read the full lenght text before arguing more deeply about it. I'll try to find it on the internet.

[TheWord]

Quote by: dixon 73.4% of China's industrial output in 1983 came from the public sector. By 2003 this was only 11.1%. Your claim that China "espouses public ownership" has no relation to reality.

It really helps your argument if you read what you post.

"In 1995, ownership reform was significantly accelerated when the central government decided to retain the ownership of between 500 to 1000 large-scale SOEs and to allow smaller SOEs to be leased or sold"

First off they retained 1000 SOEs, which are entirely public. This does not include all the businesses and industries supporting them, which are also public in nature as they are dependent upon the SOE for business and profit. Remember also that the word 'enterprise' is attributed to both single corporations as well as congonlmerates, so retaining 1000 entities that are entirely public is extremely significant.

It is also important to note that they sold and leased some smaller SOE's, which implies the government still holds a minority stake in some, if not most, of the business. This fact makes them at least partially public.

"By 1998, a national survey showed that one quarter of China’s 87,000 industrial SOEs had restructured and another quarter planned to restructure in some way"

Restructuring does not necessarily mean they became entirely private. It most likely means they were able to ignore labor regulation laws. This though by no means indicates that the government forfeited its interest ("stock") in the company.

"By the end of 2001, 86 percent of all SOEs had been restructured and about 70 percent had been partially or fully privatized."


I would assert that the actual number of fully privatized SOE's remains rather small in comparison to those that are still partially public.

"The number of SOEs fell from 64,737 in 1998 to 27,477 in 2005"


I never disputed this point. In fact I believe I said earlier that the number of State-owned enterprises did indeed fall, though the number of businesses in which the Chinese government has some minority or relative majority interest has increased.

"The public sector’s share of all industrial output dropped from 73.4% to only 11.1% between 1983 and 2003"


This portion is simply faulty analysis of statistics by the web site. If you click on the link to the source, you can see that the graph represents only SOE's and not the entire Public Sector. It entirely excludes all businesses in which the Government has some degree of control, making the statistic misleading and invalid.


"The number of SOEs fell from 64,737 in 1998 to 27,477 in 2005. At the same time, industrial output increased"


You should know that correlation does not imply causation by now. Because two things change does not mean they are necessarily related. The rise in industrial output could just as easily be attributed to China's joining the WTO, causing increased demand for exports (leading to the rise in industrial output); as it could to the fall in numbers of SOE's. In fact in 2001 when China joined the WTO, it's industrial output noticeably increases; indiciating that the WTO has much more of an effect on industrial output than the number of SOEs.


My point is simply that although the percentage of ownership in any one company the Chinese Government has a stake in has decreased, the number of companies they have do in fact have a stake in has increased. This is true simply because the number of Chinese companies has increased since a decade ago. And they do indeed "espouse" public ownership of industries: it is written in their constitution. I don't see where my assertions have "no relation to reality". If anything, you shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet. Try thinking for yourself.

[TheWord]

Quote by: nerdvincent Of course brutal changes always have risks for the economy, but this is not the point. Common ownership would improve the standard of living of the workers

Common ownership of industries would improve the standard of living only insofar that it would increase nominal wages. This increase in wages would in turn increase the price of goods and commodities, rendering the increase in wages mute. This is known as Cost-Push inflation and leads to runaway prices - which is not a good thing.

Economically, it is an intrinsic fact that you can't have a person set their own wages ("common ownership"). Socially, I'd agree with you that our standard of living should be increasing for the low and middle class, though common ownership of industry is not the way to do it.

Instead, we need to change the relative value of our labor comparative to other nations. Our workers need to be able to do work that no other workers can do - and they need to be able to do this work efficiently. This is the only way our standard of living will increase sustainability.

Quote by: nerdvincent ...industries acting in a more cohesive way would garantee a more efficient production in all possible way. Also, the risk of an economic crisis in a planified economy is next to 0.

Industries acting in a cohesive way (read without competition) does not make them more efficient. What you are talking about is a system of oligopolies, which we had during the 1950's. And though a relatively stable economic period (this was our "socialist" era), the resulting decades in which capitalism flourished were statistically more productive. And this is not a partisan issue of Socialism versus Capitalism: it is a simple fact that capitalism has for our history been more productive in terms of aggregate GDP. This is not to say socialism is an invalid economic system - it is indeed a harmonious one, but in terms of raw production it cannot keep pace with Capitalism.

Quote by: nerdvincent Conclusion: now here is the recession, socialism couldn't help much to solve it without too much risk, but to prevent the next one it would be kinda useful.

It would be useful in the sense that it would provide more regulation for a Capitalist system that has begun to run wild. I don't think I would support a full-fledged replacement of the two, but our system of Capitalism needs some controls.

One final point:

Quote by: nerdvincent Also, the risk of an economic crisis in a planned economy is next to 0.

I don't know where you got that idea but it is completely false. I actually identify myself as hybrid between socialism and capitalism in terms of economic ideology, but I can't support that statement with any degree of honesty. The Soviet Union was a planned economy, it collapsed. North Korea has a planned economy, if you can even it call it that, and it is collapsing as we speak. Indeed both Iran and Venezuela also have planned economies and are experiencing fundamental economic crises due to 'demand shock' for oil. This is not to say that Capitalism also doesn't have its economic crises, but to say that planned economies don't have any is dishonest and damages the ideas you have put forth.

[dixon]

Quote by: TheWord My point is simply that although the percentage of ownership in any one company the Chinese Government has a stake in has decreased, the number of companies they have do in fact have a stake in has increased.

I know thats your point. Like I said you are wrong.

The number of SOEs fell from 64,737 in 1998 to 27,477 in 2005. At the same time, industrial output increased . As the public sector shrunk, the private sector expanded. The number of private enterprises increased from 440,000 in 1996 to 1.32 million in 2001,

[TheWord]

Quote by: dixon I know thats your point. Like I said you are wrong.

Since you obviously didn't read my post, or understand it, I'll let you in on a little secret.

Since 1949, every corporation and business in China is legally owned by the Chinese Government. The 'reforms' of the 1980's did not change this fact. In fact the reforms of the 1980's were much more a change of semantics rather than in fundamental economic principles.

Indeed, SOEs became PLCs, which could be traded on the stock market publicly, though the Chinese government still controls both the trade indexes and the company itself through relative majority stakes. Essentially the reforms of the 1980's allowed foreign investors to bring capital into the Chinese Government through investment in PLCs.

These are facts I'm offering you here. Try reading them this time. I'd also suggest that you re-read my original post, as it explains where your wrong.

[nerdvincent]

Quote by: TheWord Common ownership of industries would improve the standard of living only insofar that it would increase nominal wages. This increase in wages would in turn increase the price of goods and commodities, rendering the increase in wages mute. This is known as Cost-Push inflation and leads to runaway prices - which is not a good thing.

They said the same about fordism. The money is here, only the capitalists are spending it for us. Whether it is the capitalists or the workers who are spending this money doesn't matter as long as the global goods/money ratio is constant. Or if you mean that greedy salesman would increase their prices, you forgot that under a competent communist government the prices would be (cost of production)+(constant margin, considered to be taxes).
To have a better view of things, let's just say that a communist government would also be more flexible: there is food, people need food, we ajust he value of money so that people get food, even if the economy must suffers a bit. During the 30's there was food, people needed food, but they often failed to have some because capital and personal interest acted as an invisible and absurd wall between the farmer and the people.

Quote by: TheWord Economically, it is an intrinsic fact that you can't have a person set their own wages ("common ownership").

There is no wages, but only fair redistribution of profit. They don't set their own wage, they work and get an amount of money (which is nothing more than a number) to make the correspondance between the work done and the ressource available. They wouldn't have a arbitrary "per-hour" amount of money which can be expressed as debt, but a "percentage of the global profit" reflecting "the percentage of the global work done", and as long as their sum is 100% and 100% the system cannot crash for that reason.

Quote by: TheWord Socially, I'd agree with you that our standard of living should be increasing for the low and middle class.

Only a madman would say the contrary; and there is such people.

Quote by: TheWord Instead, we need to change the relative value of our labor comparative to other nations. Our workers need to be able to do work that no other workers can do - and they need to be able to do this work efficiently. This is the only way our standard of living will increase sustainability.

I can't see how this is going against what I said above, it only depends on the situation: an independent communist town, a communist country or a global communism. All of them has a different way of dealing with this issue.

Quote by: TheWord Industries acting in a cohesive way (read without competition) does not make them more efficient. What you are talking about is a system of oligopolies, which we had during the 1950's. And though a relatively stable economic period (this was our "socialist" era), the resulting decades in which capitalism flourished were statistically more productive. And this is not a partisan issue of Socialism versus Capitalism: it is a simple fact that capitalism has for our history been more productive in terms of aggregate GDP. This is not to say socialism is an invalid economic system - it is indeed a harmonious one, but in terms of raw production it cannot keep pace with Capitalism.

Here I'll have a little jump into reality, and I'll be right back with a touch of pragmatism in my definition of "cohesive".
Ressources are depleting, the earth is too small. Capitalism will eventually slow down and crash. I ain't denying the fact that in the golden age of consumption capitalism went faster than the so-called "socialist" countries (for I don't consider communism to have ever been tried - but this is for another debate), I just say that this is not sustainable.
Now back to theory: by cohesive, I mean consuming and producing no more ressources than required: there is no profit to be done exept for the common good, and the most basic common good is our survival. Read sustainable: it's way easier to plan (here's the good part of planned economy) ressources than managing without them.

Quote by: TheWord It would be useful in the sense that it would provide more regulation for a Capitalist system that has begun to run wild. I don't think I would support a full-fledged replacement of the two, but our system of Capitalism needs some controls.

Well from a philosophical point of view, taking aside the practical side of things and all, I see capitalism (private ownership - renumerate ownership instead of work) as bad. Of course we could manage about the same way with an hybrid, well regulated "market socialism", but I see no reason to stick with bits of capitalism if we can get rid of them.

Quote by: TheWord The Soviet Union was a planned economy, it collapsed. North Korea has a planned economy, if you can even it call it that, and it is collapsing as we speak. Indeed both Iran and Venezuela also have planned economies and are experiencing fundamental economic crises due to 'demand shock' for oil. This is not to say that Capitalism also doesn't have its economic crises, but to say that planned economies don't have any is dishonest and damages the ideas you have put forth.

I think anwered most of it 2 paragraphs above: in the context of a world with depleting ressource, planned economy will be the only survivor, while full-throttle capitalism will hit the wall real hard.


I had a real good time answering your post: it was without personnal ambition of pointlessly winning an argument which should be an important debate.
Also, you make sense and have a deep knowledge in the matter. It's much more interesting that way.

[dixon]

Quote by: TheWord Since you obviously didn't read my post, or understand it, I'll let you in on a little secret. Since 1949, every corporation and business in China is legally owned by the Chinese Government.

LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!! Yeah, there are more corporations and businesses now than there were before, why didnt you just say that. And you evidently have a different definition of "private ownership" than I or any published source regarding the matter.

[ironeagle]

I don't believe taxation or capitolism is the downfall of economy, I think it's overtaxation and imbalance in cost of living verses pay which causes most of the economic down fall. In addition our rediculous "need" for constant credit causes unrealistic allocations of monies which ultemately transfer to monopoly money creating outstanding debt, and failing banks, mortgage companies and businesses. Whta we really need is a good five year price fix and a minimum wage of $15.00 to even out the score. It's really not as rediculous as it sounds, if a worker in a fast food resturant sells 50 sandwiches at $5.00 a pieace in a four hour shift, he can easily meet his pay and in addition the resturant still brings in $47.50 an hour as their profit which is still three times the amount the worker gets paid an hour. I knwo it's not that simplistic but just a quick example. For instance in a salon I previously worked at I brought in on average $50.00 an hour during our busy times each day for the salon, keeping in mind there were always two to four other stylist there too making money for the salon, I also averaged $2,000.00 amonth in product sales, but I only recieved 10% of those sales, earning an additional $200.00 a month which just upped my taxes $200.00 a month, and I only got $7.25 of the $50.00 an hour I made for them. i decided I got sick of spending the $200.00 amonth on gas to get to work and not getting paid near what I deserved, so I left. These jerks could have afforded to give me 20% commision and at leats $10.00-$16.00 an hour but nope it was too expensive supposedly but that's a flat out lie.

[the_act26]

An energy deductible for those who have hybrid cars, solar power, and thermal energy

[ironeagle]

It's been mentioned before it's a good idea but it won't do much good right now because most people plain can't afford the cost of the hybrids, or solar power cells.

[TheWord]

Quote by: dixon LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!! Yeah, there are more corporations and businesses now than there were before, why didnt you just say that. And you evidently have a different definition of "private ownership" than I or any published source regarding the matter.

Condescension does not make your point any more valid, nor your argument any more credible. The fact that this is your response to my arguments would suggest, at least to me, that you are unable to do so.

As for my definition of private ownership, I find it to be rather straight-forward: A private company is one in which the ownership is not publicly controlled (i.e. government ownership of 'stock', regardless of percentage, precludes a company from being private)

[dixon]

Quote by: TheWord Condescension does not make your point any more valid, nor your argument any more credible. The fact that this is your response to my arguments would suggest, at least to me, that you are unable to do so.

Declaring that "every corporation and business in China is legally owned by the Chinese Government" isnt an argument. Show me ANY published source that supports your declaration because my source directly contradicts it.

[TheWord]

My source is the Chinese Constitution.

Articles 6-11

CONSTITUTION OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA.

I think my source is more reliable and incontrovertible.

I also think you especially should read the 4th Amendment, Section 5. Though there are innumerable ones that also support my case and refute yours.

"5 Second paragraph of Article 11:"The State protects the lawful rights and interests of the individual and private sectors of the economy, and exercises guidance, supervision and control over individual and the private sectors of the economy."

Revised to: "The State protects the lawful rights and interests of the non-public sectors of the economy such as the individual and private sectors of the economy. The State encourages, supports and guides the development of the non-public sectors of the economy and, in accordance with law, exercises supervision and control over the non-public sectors of the economy."

[nerdvincent]

Democratic People's Republic of Korea isn't democratic even if it's what the constitution says.

[TheWord]

Quote by: nerdvincent They said the same about fordism. The money is here, only the capitalists are spending it for us. Whether it is the capitalists or the workers who are spending this money doesn't matter as long as the global goods/money ratio is constant.

It does indeed matter who is ‘spending the money’. In the 1950’s oligopoly system, the money was spent on worker’s wages, which was not a bad thing. But starting in the 1970’s the money was spent on capital investment and innovation, which as both you and I have noted, increased aggregate GDP and efficiency of production; though it did also caused a rise in unemployment.

What our society needs to establish is whether we would like an equality of lifestyles, or whether we would like a progress in terms of living standards. For indeed, one cannot deny the average standard of living has increased from 50 years ago. Thus for the average American family, the standard of living has historically increased under Capitalism; though recently this fact has become somewhat distorted due to our ‘surprising’ recession.

Quote by: nerdvincent Or if you mean that greedy salesman would increase their prices, you forgot that under a competent communist government the prices would be (cost of production)+(constant margin, considered to be taxes).

If you have prices controlled (read: kept artificially low) and simultaneously raise workers wages, you achieve again in only nominally raising wages – increasing inflation.

This premise is explained in Bronfenbrenner’s Aggregate Wage Theory, which states that raises in real wages have both the potential to stimulate or depress the economy only when accompanied by raises in aggregate price levels. If you have one without the other, you achieve only in increasing the nominal levels of growth and encouraging inflation as a result.

Quote by: nerdvincent To have a better view of things, let's just say that a communist government would also be more flexible: there is food, people need food, we ajust he value of money so that people get food, even if the economy must suffers a bit. During the 30's there was food, people needed food, but they often failed to have some because capital and personal interest acted as an invisible and absurd wall between the farmer and the people.

If you adjust the value of money without also adjusting the supply of money, you create inflation. What you are suggesting would work only if the government increased production of commodities (read food), which would be inefficient and unable to rapidly adjust to changes in demands.

Quote by: nerdvincent There is no wages, but only fair redistribution of profit.

That is an issue of semantics.

Quote by: nerdvincent They wouldn't have an arbitrary "per-hour" amount of money which can be expressed as debt, but a "percentage of the global profit" reflecting "the percentage of the global work done", and as long as their sum is 100% and 100% the system cannot crash for that reason.

The system you have set up could indeed crash. If the ‘global profit’ decreases, the ‘percentage of global profits’ must also decrease (read wage cuts) in conjunction. This however is unlikely to occur due the Keyes’ “Ratchet Effect”, wherein wages may be increased, though they resist being cut. This resistance to wage cuts, while profits fall, would cause industry to fail.

You are correct that this system could work, but only if people were periodically able to accept wage decreases. This is something I’m not liable to believe in, as human beings are inherently greedy.

Quote by: nerdvincent Here I'll have a little jump into reality, and I'll be right back with a touch of pragmatism in my definition of "cohesive". Ressources are depleting, the earth is too small. Capitalism will eventually slow down and crash. I ain't denying the fact that in the golden age of consumption capitalism went faster than the so-called "socialist" countries (for I don't consider communism to have ever been tried - but this is for another debate), I just say that this is not sustainable. Now back to theory: by cohesive, I mean consuming and producing no more ressources than required: there is no profit to be done exept for the common good, and the most basic common good is our survival. Read sustainable: it's way easier to plan (here's the good part of planned economy) ressources than managing without them.

Essentially what you are arguing is Paul Ehrlich’s ‘Population Bomb’, wherein resources are depleted through growth of industry. However, I believe you are underestimating the intrinsic ability of human beings to exploit their environment. Technology has the ability to increase available production quantities, though you are correct that we have a finite amount of resources. This quandary I believe can be solved through controls on the growth of Capitalism, though not a replacement of the system entirely with Socialism. Capitalism does have its redeeming qualities, and as such it would be foolish to ignore them. The most efficient system would be one in which we utilize both the strengths of Socialism (relative equality of wealth; large middle class) and Capitalism (progress of industry; rapid increases in standard of living).

Quote by: nerdvincent I had a real good time answering your post: it was without personnal ambition of pointlessly winning an argument which should be an important debate. Also, you make sense and have a deep knowledge in the matter. It's much more interesting that way.

I also enjoy answering your posts. It’s not often I am able to debate someone with your point of view without getting too bogged down in the philosophical nature of our argument.

[TheWord]

Quote by: nerdvincent Democratic People's Republic of Korea isn't democratic even if it's what the constitution says.

I would argue China is incomparably more responsive to its people and the International Community, and therefore more liable to its own Constitution, than North Korea.

Though you do make a good point that Constitutions are often just words - take the U.S. Fourth Amendment for instance.

[nerdvincent]

Quote by: TheWord It does indeed matter who is ‘spending the money’. In the 1950’s oligopoly system, the money was spent on worker’s wages, which was not a bad thing. But starting in the 1970’s the money was spent on capital investment and innovation, which as both you and I have noted, increased aggregate GDP and efficiency of production; though it did also caused a rise in unemployment.

It wouldn't have been impossible to do the same with socialism, only with a few difference. The raise of "efficiency of production" could have been put more direclty to the advantage of the common good. Explanation:

Quote by: Paul Lafargue, The Right To Lazyness A good working woman makes with her needles only five meshes a minute, while certain circular knitting machines make 30,000 in the same time. Every minute of the machine is thus equivalent to a hundred hours of the workingwomen’s labor, or again, every minute of the machine’s labor, gives the working women ten days of rest. What is true for the knitting industry is more or less true for all industries reconstructed by modern machinery. But what do we see? In proportion as the machine is improved and performs man’s work with an ever increasing rapidity and exactness, the laborer, instead of prolonging his former rest times, redoubles his ardor, as if he wished to rival the machine. O, absurd and murderous competition!

The capitalists are the one [directly] taking profit out of efficiency. We could have a global decreasing of working hours for the same amount of money, yet here is what happened instead: http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-...WideDivide.gif
Here is where the increasing of GPD is gone.

Quote by: TheWord What our society needs to establish is whether we would like an equality of lifestyles, or whether we would like a progress in terms of living standards. For indeed, one cannot deny the average standard of living has increased from 50 years ago. Thus for the average American family, the standard of living has historically increased under Capitalism; though recently this fact has become somewhat distorted due to our ‘surprising’ recession.

What makes the average living standard increase is massive investments in new technologies, which can be done in both systems.
But here you said something important: American family. What's so special with the American family? The fact that they can buy cheap goods produced in Third World, while earning big wages. Globalisation, not capitalism, contributed the most to the increasing of the living standards in the Western World. What did capitalism cause in Africa, Asia and South America?
Although mild capitalist exploitation is common inside the US, globalization made it become the norm on a much greater scale everywhere else. If the American living stadards are so high today, that's because they became the "bourgeoisie state" of this world, while Bangladesh and Africa became the "proletarian states". "Class struggle" have meaning only on an international basis today, it is much less present than inside the state.

Quote by: TheWord If you have prices controlled (read: kept artificially low) and simultaneously raise workers wages, you achieve again in only nominally raising wages – increasing inflation. This premise is explained in Bronfenbrenner’s Aggregate Wage Theory, which states that raises in real wages have both the potential to stimulate or depress the economy only when accompanied by raises in aggregate price levels. If you have one without the other, you achieve only in increasing the nominal levels of growth and encouraging inflation as a result.

I don't know enough about this yet to enter in a deep debate, but here is what I think (I may be wrong): We don't increase wages, we redistribute it. This money is now the capitalist, yet it exists.

Quote by: TheWord If you adjust the value of money without also adjusting the supply of money, you create inflation. What you are suggesting would work only if the government increased production of commodities (read food), which would be inefficient and unable to rapidly adjust to changes in demands.

If the money is only redistributed, not created, and if the money expresses the availability of commodities produced and their equivalence in work, it's only a back-to-basics redefinition of money in which your argument cannot ake place.

Quote by: TheWord The system you have set up could indeed crash. If the ‘global profit’ decreases, the ‘percentage of global profits’ must also decrease (read wage cuts) in conjunction. This however is unlikely to occur due the Keyes’ “Ratchet Effect”, wherein wages may be increased, though they resist being cut. This resistance to wage cuts, while profits fall, would cause industry to fail.

I'm not familiar enough with those theories, so I have no choice but abstain from answering, yet. See you soon when I'll have completed some more my knowledge.

Quote by: TheWord You are correct that this system could work, but only if people were periodically able to accept wage decreases. This is something I’m not liable to believe in, as human beings are inherently greedy.

Well today workers don't have wage decrease but massive layoff if the compagny is having trouble, so I the Ratchet Effect is a cheap illusion of security. Easily replacable workers are meatshields used to protect "higher worker's" (engineer,...) wage and capitalist's margins: here is your ratchet. Workers are under the risk of speculation and capitalism like "poor little investors" when things are getting hot, yet they are mostly left aside when there is profit.

Quote by: TheWord However, I believe you are underestimating the intrinsic ability of human beings to exploit their environment. Technology has the ability to increase available production quantities, though you are correct that we have a finite amount of resources.

To be more precise, I don't believe in any intrinsic human ability, but only in empirical observation of ressources depletion and people still wanting to increase the rate of exploitation in the name of profit. The only way out I can see is some form of socialism, may it be mine or yours, yet empirical observation still support the fact that people prefer short term-profit.

Quote by: TheWord This quandary I believe can be solved through controls on the growth of Capitalism, though not a replacement of the system entirely with Socialism. Capitalism does have its redeeming qualities, and as such it would be foolish to ignore them. The most efficient system would be one in which we utilize both the strengths of Socialism (relative equality of wealth; large middle class) and Capitalism (progress of industry; rapid increases in standard of living).

The "growth of socialism" haven't been observed, yet I'm sure that as long as there is engineers and scientists and investments, there can be growth, may it be under socialism or capitalism. And as I said in an earlier post:

Quote by: Vince Well from a philosophical point of view, taking aside the practical side of things and all, I see capitalism (private ownership - renumerate ownership instead of work) as bad. Of course we could manage about the same way with an hybrid, well regulated "market socialism", but I see no reason to stick with bits of capitalism if we can get rid of them.

Quote by: TheWord I also enjoy answering your posts. It’s not often I am able to debate someone with your point of view without getting too bogged down in the philosophical nature of our argument.

Then let's go on.

[dixon]

Quote by: TheWord My source is the Chinese Constitution. Articles 6-11 CONSTITUTION OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA. I think my source is more reliable and incontrovertible.

?????Not a single word supports your assertion that

"every corporation and business in China is legally owned by the Chinese Government"

And just what the hell you think they mean by "private sector"? If the best you have to support your assertion that every "business in China is legally owned by the Chinese Government" is

The State encourages, supports and guides the development of the non-public sectors of the economy and, in accordance with law, exercises supervision and control over the non-public sectors of the economy."

you only demonstrate you have nothing to support your assertions. Our government exercises "supervision and control " over business in America. That doesnt make every business in America owned by the US government.

[TheWord]

Quote by: dixon ?????Not a single word supports your assertion that And just what the hell you think they mean by "private sector"? If the best you have to support your assertion that every "business in China is legally owned by the Chinese Government" is you only demonstrate you have nothing to support your assertions. Our government exercises "supervision and control " over business in America. That doesnt make every business in America owned by the US government.

If you honestly believe the Chinese Government would have any trouble socializing a private company, then you are truly misguided. They have at all times absolute control over the companies within their economy. This I would equate, as I assume must other would, with legal ownership.

[dixon]

Quote by: TheWord If you honestly believe the Chinese Government would have any trouble socializing a private company, then you are truly misguided. .

LOLOLOL!!!! How can they socialize a private company when according to you they are all owned by the government? Nobody here is arguing what Chinese government can or cannot do. They are a dictatorship and can do as they please. This doesnt change the fact that while you claim they espouse public ownership of business, in the real worl China has undergone the most massive privitization of business in the last 20 years the world has ever seen.