The Capitalism And Socialism Debate

By J. Yanqui Zaza


The Perspective
Atlanta, Georgia
June 28, 2017

                  



Karl Marx Adam Smith

Many thanks to you all for your contribution to this important debate. Well, brother Sylvester Moses, I assume that Mr. Andrew Worth does not share your view that many countries have instituted a mixed economy. For instance, the United States provides welfare programs for the poor and it also assists big businesses through cash contributions during financial meltdowns (i.e., 2008 financial debacle) or it initiates and, or finances research, which ends up generating huge profits for companies such as Microsoft.

For reference, read David Cay Johnston’s book called “Free Lunch...How the wealthiest Americans enrich themselves at Government expense..and stick you with the bill.” Or read Thomas Piketty’s book called “Capital ...in the twenty-first century.” You can also read “The Microsoft Monopoly: the facts, the law and the remedy,” by Jeffrey Eisenach and Thomas Lenard.

Mr. Andrew Worth, I have included a chart for your review in an effort to share with you my understanding that a government can improve the living conditions of its residents if it plays a role in managing lucrative assets (banking, diamond, gold, timber, education, utility services, etc). Many of the African countries are reporting huge deficits and owe significant amount debts. Please visit the 2016 budgetary documents, of South Africa, Sierra Leone, Guinea, Ghana, Uganda, Kenya, etc. Or visit the 2016 budgetary document of the state of Israel, a country where government bureaucrats did produce consumer merchandise and export armaments to neighboring countries many years ago before it privatized many of the state-owned entities during the privatization campaign by the World Bank and its allies (former U.S. President Ronald Reagan and former British Prime Minister Mrs. Margaret Thatcher.

 

Russian State Budget (in millions)

2006   
Total Rev. $6,276.20

Oil & GAS REV. $2,954.40

OTHER REV. $3,329.00

EXPENDITURE $4,283.30

SURPLUS $1,995

 

2007   
TOTAL REV. $6,614.2

OIL & GAS REV. $2,471.1

OTHER REV. $4,143.1

EXPENDITURE $5,615.5

SURPLUS $998.7

 

2008   
TOTAL REVENUE $6,644.2

OIL & GAS REV. $2,383.1    

OTHER REV. $4,261.3          

EXPENDITURE $6,507.3

SURPLUS $74.1

 

2009
TOTAL REVENUE $7,465.4

OIL & GAS REV. $2,351.9    

OTHER REVENUE $5,113.5

EXPENDITURE $7,451.2     

SURPLUS $14.2

 

The United States of America’s 2006 Budget.
Total Receipts[edit]

 

Receipts by source: (in billions of dollars)

Actual[8]

Individual income tax $1,044

 

Corporate income tax $354

 

Social Security and other payroll tax  $838

 

Excise tax        $74

 

Estate and gift taxes    $28

 

Customs duties           $25

 

Other miscellaneous receipts $45

 

Total Revenue $2,407

 

Total Spending[edit]
The President’s budget for 2006 totals $2.7 trillion. This budget request is broken down by the following expenditures:

$544.8 billion (20.90%) - Social Security

 

$512.1 billion (18.00%) - Defense

 

$359.5 billion (13.79%) - Unemployment and welfare

 

$345.7 billion (13.26%) - Medicare

 

$268.4 billion (10.30%) - Medicaid and other health related

 

$211.1 billion (8.10%) - Interest on debt

 

$88.7 billion (3.40%) - Education and training

 

$70.7 billion (2.71%) - Transportation

 

$68.4 billion (2.62%) - Veterans’ benefits

 

$43.1 billion (1.65%) - Administration of justice

 

$38.4 billion (1.47%) - Foreign affairs

 

$31.2 billion (1.20%) - Natural resources and environment

 

$26.0 billion (1.00%) - Agriculture

 

$24.0 billion (0.92%) - Science and technology

 

$19.1 billion (0.73%) - Community and regional development

 

$17.8 billion (0.68%) - General government

 

$23.4 billion - Energy
Adjustments[edit]

 

-$698 billion (2.68%) - Undistributed offsetting receipts

 

Sir, the breakdown of the revenue of the United States indicates that the government did not receive any profits from the production and sale of medicine as you indicated, while the State of Russia did include revenue from oil and gas. The State of Russia has surplus in each year, all because it received revenue from its oil and gas. Also, Russia’s total external debt is less than $1 trillion, but America owes $17 trillion. Why is America’s economic position looking bad? The United State does not have shares in its lucrative assets (banking, oil, gas, gold, etc.), but private-profit-making investors own or manage the lucrative assets.

I am aware that many individuals might conclude that capitalism is efficient and socialism is inefficient, because they might not have a complete picture of the two economic arrangements. More so, proponents of capitalism did wrongly inform the world that government bureaucrats do demand bribes before they perform their duties. They also stated that poor people are gullible to corruption, while rich people have limited motives to steal because they have sufficient resources to finance their needs and wants.

That was part of the rationale why the Liberian government, in 2004, consented to the recommendations of the World Bank that Liberia should privatize all state-owned entities, the economic activities that the government controlled. I guess, it was the basic rationale why President Sirleaf and the World Bank appropriated excessive salaries for a few privileged advisers to President Sirleaf.

However, economic activity such as the 2008 financial meltdown has refuted the false story that the rich does not steal. Also, Transparency International investigated and reported that it is big business that promotes bribes offering in order to increase profits, exposing the false story that government bureaucrats demand bribes. Further, the Report by the African Union Committee headed by the former president of South Africa, Mr. Thabo Mbeki, stated that of the $60 billion that is siphoned out of Africa yearly, multinational corporations are responsible for 95% of the amount. The report also stated that local officials are responsible for 3% to 5% of the $60 billion siphoned out of Africa.

Again, Liberia will not have adequate resources to finance its needed programs as long as it continues to award flawed concessionary agreements and allow diamond dealers, for example, to spirit diamonds outside of Liberia. Neither will it reduce the cost of living if, for instance, it does not institute real estate reform, including, but not limited to providing affordable housing units near the proposed multi-complex office buildings that the Chinese have agreed to build.


(jyanqui@aol.com)


Andrew Worth
J. Yanqui Zaza, in the other thread I mentioned how over the last 50 years Government ownership of industries has declined in Western countries, I give the examples of: Power production and distribution, banking, postal services, production of coal, rail, telecommunications, ports and airlines. Usually the reasons for Government selling off these industries were that under Government ownership they became inefficient and loss making, or as monopolies, to maintain their profitability they exploited they monopoly position with price gouging (when a seller spikes the prices of goods, services or commodities to a level much higher than is considered reasonable or fair, and is considered exploitative, potentially to an unethical extent).

I've no issue with mineral resources remaining the property of the state until they're developed and the state demanding royalties from those that develop and sell that mineral wealth.
Andrew Worth at 06:21PM, 2017/06/28.
j. yanqui
Hi Mr. Andrew Worth,

Yes, I have come across the two separate names: (1) capitalism and (2)free market capitalism, but I did not know that they have different meanings. I know that many members of the American Republican Party usually argue that government should allow an unfettered capitalism, implying that there should be zero or limited regulations. However, the question is can a government generate adequate revenue to finance sanitation, security, fire department services, infrastructure, education and healthcare, the training of a skilled manpower without effective regulations. Additionally, can capitalists suppress their human greed and operate without violating environmental laws, labor laws, tax laws, etc? Certainly, capitalists, with the intend to maximize their profits will usually, for example, violate revenue laws.

I have used the United States of America in my posting because of the following:

1) The country has many regulatory agencies;
2) It has many independent watchdogs institutions;
3) The United States of America has a significant influence over the United Nations, World Trade Organization, World Bank, International Monetary Funds, Millennium Challenge Corporation, etc;
4) It has $20 trillion gross national products, but $17 trillion debt;
5) Its population is over 300 million; but limited investment in its manpower;
6) It is encouraging, in some cases, blackmailing, countries to adopt capitalism in order to protect its economic interest.
7) It is the headquarters of big businesses that finance the loan the World Bank lends to poor countries; and
8) It is the headquarters of rating institutions that determine whether a company and, or a country has good or bad credit position to raise capital.

Why is the promoter of capitalism borrowing money from China, a country that continues to own and control banking and lending institution, natural resources, engineering companies, etc., to finance its programs? Forbes reported that "The total profit of China's 106 state-owned enterprise (SOE) came in at 623.47 billion yuan ($93.3 billion) in the first six months of the year, down 3% from the same period in 2015..."

I think Liberians should review our economic system (crony capitalism) since we usually adopt everything from America.


Once again, many thanks for your contribution
j. yanqui at 08:59PM, 2017/06/28.
j. yanqui
Hi Mr. Andrew Worth,

You stated, "... I mentioned how over the last 50 years Government ownership of industries has declined in Western country...selling off these industries were that under Government ownership they became inefficient and loss making..."

That was many years ago, but now governments in South America, Asia, Europe, etc., are experiencing higher prices charged by utility services under the control of private-profit-making investors. British leaders, French leaders, some U.S. democratic leaders are now recommending a review of capitalism, especially the high prices citizens are paying for utility services and drugs. The price of basic broadband, TV and phone is: $99 in San Francisco; $70 in NYC; $68 in Washington, D.C., while it cost $38 London; $35 in Paris; and $15 in Seoul, according to BBC News. Drugs price in the u.s. is high. For example, Gleevec (a cancer treatment) is expensive in the United States: $6,214 (per month/per customer) in the United States, compared to $1,141 in Canada and $2,697 in England.


So, let us continue the debate in order for our lawmakers and policy makes to begin to consider the idea of a review of our economic system, crony capitalism.
j. yanqui at 09:52PM, 2017/06/28.
Andrew Worth
I'm not claiming that "capitalism" and "free market capitalism" have different meanings, just that the term "capitalism" makes people think of big evil corporations whereas emphasizing "free market" usually makes people think of everyday traders in the familiar market place.

"Additionally, can capitalists suppress their human greed and operate without violating environmental laws, labor laws, tax laws, etc? Certainly, capitalists, with the intend to maximize their profits will usually, for example, violate revenue laws."

Capitalists are not required to suppress their desire to do well anymore than anyone else is, what is important is that the rules are always and fairly enforced, interestingly the most successful capitalist economies are also the least corrupt according to Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

I can agree with you that I think Liberia would do well to try to follow the path of countries other than the US. The methods used for success by other small countries like Singapore, Denmark, New Zealand, Finland and Sweden can, I think, be more easily be transfered and implemented in Liberia than the experiences and methods used by a huge economy like the US. Trade especially is far more important to the economies of small countries than large countries.

You seem to be obsessed by US debt, in reality such debt is of little importance as long as there is sustainable economic growth, if you want to look at how debt can cause damage look at examples where socialist leaning States have borrowed to excess in efforts to prop up failing economies, Greece being the most obvious resent example.
Andrew Worth at 10:28PM, 2017/06/28.
Andrew Worth
Utility services is an interesting dilemma because reticulated utility services usually fall into the category of being Natural Monopolies, a natural monopoly is a type of monopoly that exists as a result of the high fixed costs or startup costs of operating a business in a specific industry. Additionally, natural monopolies can arise in industries that require unique raw materials, technology or other similar factors to operate. So in the area of natural monopolies it is more difficult to argue for unregulated competition because such competition is often not practical, industries that fall into the category of being natural monopolies are however only a small part of all forms of industry, and yes, they often do end up under government ownership or strict regulatory control.

Regarding the expensive drugs in the US, the main reason of the high cost of US drugs compared to drugs in other parts of the world is that US patent law allows the developers of drugs to maintain a monopoly in the US market, throughout the rest of the world the medical drugs market is flooded by generic drugs produced mainly in South and South East Asia.
Andrew Worth at 10:47PM, 2017/06/28.
Theodore T. Hodge


Nice debate, fellows. If you'll allow me to chime in for a moment, I want to congratulate you two for presenting and defending your various theses on the two economic disciplines that dominate the world. According to my view, the debate is a draw because it boils down to preference. Brother Zaza adamantly prefers and proffers Socialism as strongly as Mr. Worth bats for Capitalism over socialism.

The reader will have learnt numerous nuances and distinctions about the topic, but I don't think either of you have come any closer to concede; perhaps you never will. So shake hands and congratulate each other for a clean fight. You punched hard and moved adroitly as you cornered your opponent during rounds, but you avoided any dirty and low punches.

What have I concluded? Mr. Zaza prefers Socialism while Mr. Worth swears by Capitalism. Thank you. I, and perhaps I speak for many others, enjoyed the exchanges. Thanks again, and Happy Holidays!
Theodore T. Hodge at 09:43AM, 2017/06/29.
j. yanqui
Hi Mr. Andrew Worth,

Sir, let us review some of your comments, including the issue of U.S. $17 trillion debts:

Your Comment: (1) "I've no issue with mineral resources remaining the property of the state until they're developed and the state demanding royalties from those that develop and sell that mineral wealth."

Response: I agree with you because Liberia government might receive reasonable revenue similar to the amount of revenue Botswana receives from its diamond industry, which might help the government to finance a significant portion of its budget.

Your Comment: (2) "I'm not a fan of the big foreign corporations in Liberia, in a free market all players compete on an even playing field, it's apparent that many of those foreign corporations that have moved into Liberia have run rings around the Liberian government gaining advantages over local businesses that are simply not what the free market is about, there are many examples of Government favoritism, the most resent I've heard being the tax concession to the Farmington Hotel."

Response: I agree with you because once big businesses are not involved in the bribery game, the kind of big business bribes offering that usually begins at the highest level of government, Liberia's Presidents and vice-presidents as well as lawmakers will have the moral authority to fight corruption.


Your comment: (3) "You seem to be obsessed by US debt, in reality such debt is of little importance as long as there is sustainable economic growth, if you want to look at how debt can cause damage look at examples where socialist leaning States have borrowed to excess in efforts to prop up failing economies, Greece being the most obvious resent example."

Response: Sir, Greece's debt problem was not because it instituted socialistic economic policy, rather Greece's banks followed the advice of Wall Street and borrowed money. The banking institutions, following Wall Street, gave the money to mortgage-investors who became bankrupt. Capitalists, making huge profits from trading in bonds, were turning mortgage (residential and commercial)transactions into tradable bonds. Every country became a potential market for lending money real estate investors once capitalists concluded that they can create bonds for trading from real estate transactions, .

Is the U.S. economy sustainable and its growth would generate adequate revenue to end the the yearly budget deficit and at the same time pay back the principal loan and interest? If not, politicians will reduce social security benefits and pension benefits, the meager resources poor residents rely on for survive. Economists continue to advise us that America must create the environment conducive for the economy to grow.

a) Increase America's skilled manpower in order for them to earn good salaries to purchase expensive products and services made in the U.S.;
b) Invest in infrastructure, affordable housing, healthcare, etc.;

c) Invest in Research and Development;

d); e; etc.

Your comment: (4) “America’s economic system is rigged;” There are numerous different ways in which Governments can manipulate the free market, Trump was not suggesting Capitalism itself was at fault, merely that the Government was influencing the free market in ways that he believed was unjust for his constituents, in fact Trump was speaking out against the more socialist aspects of the Obama Administrations policies.

Response: President Trump attacked President Obama policies and at the same attacked big businesses. In fact, he indicated that he would not be obligated to any special interest such as Wall Street chief executives who gave huge speaking fees to Mrs. Hilary Clinton, the U.S. Democratic presidential candidate.

Your comment: (5) "Bernie Sanders stated that had Americans been under socialism the price of a medicine would not have increased from $40 in 2001 to $40,000 in 2016. In the 6/14/17 NY Times newspaper, he concluded that capitalism “is a dismal failure.” "Bernie Sanders Cherry Picked one obscure example in which government policies had perverted the free market allowing a company to exploit its legislation enforced monopoly. There are numerous examples in which Government policies have far less effect on the free market so that the competition in the market place is closer to the free market ideal: Car manufacture and distribution, aircraft manufacture and distribution, electronics manufacture and distribution, food production and distribution, etc, etc. If the manufacture and distribution of these goods were as perverted by Government policy as the drug Sanders refers to is these goods and the services that use them would be far more expensive."

Response: Mr. Sanders, the U.S. Democratic presidential candidate was clear about the need to reform American capitalism. In fact, he proposed to institute socialistic policy from the beginning of his campaign.

Your comment: (6) "In Europe, French Democratic presidential candidate Mr. Jean Luc Melenchon . . . "All European economies rely on free market capitalism for the majority of the goods and services produced, government ownership can be profitable AS LONG AS THE CORPORATIONS IN PART OWNED BY GOVERNMENT STILL OPERATE IN A FREE MARKET, so the examples you give are not true examples of socialism, which is where there is no free market.

Response: I agree with you. And in fact, many governments of certain countries own certain lucrative assets that affect a majority of the population and do allow capitalists to operate small and medium-sized economic activities.

Your comment: (7) "The result of capitalism in Africa is even worst. . ."
There are few examples of free market capitalism in Africa in which Government meddling does not pervert the operations of the free market. Liberia's problems do not stem from the free market, they are a product of endemic corruption amongst Government politicians and employees, bribery is not part of a correctly functioning free market. It is the responsibility of Government to set the rules and enforce those rules fairly.

Response: I agree with you. However, capitalists will use portion of the profits generated from lucrative assets and bribe government bureaucrats in exchange for more flawed concessionary agreements, for example.

Your comment: (8) "President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf and the World Bank introduced the idea to pay excessive salaries to a few advisers in order to dissuade them from accepting bribes. Ironically, the rate of corruption has increased because the anti-bribery measure, a disparity in salary, in itself, is a source of corruption, while bribery, one of the lifelines of capitalism, has continued."Isn't that obviously a failure of Government? It's bizarre that you see corruption in Government as the fault of the free market system.

Response: Two separate organizations (International Transparency and African Union Committee on Illicit financial flows out Africa) have stated within their respective reports that big businesses do promote bribes offering because bribes offering creases the wheels of business. Do you disagree with the conclusions of the two organizations?

Your comment: (9) "If Africa or Liberia wants to prosper, should it reform capitalism?"
You appear not to get the most important aspect that makes free market capitalism superior to Socialism: Free Market COMPETITION. In the free market enterprises compete to produce the maximum of what the market wants for the minimum expenditure of resources and as a result it produces a lot of goods that must be affordable for the people to buy. Socialism does not have this efficient mechanism for producing the goods and services that the average person wants, though it can be pretty good at producing goods the the socialist rulers want.

Response: Several experts have concluded from numerous investigations that big businesses are not playing fair, therefore, Africa/Liberia does not have a free market for small and medium-sized businesses to survive.

Your comment: (10) "The debate about the benefits of government-profit-making activities versus the benefits of private-profit making activities has been around for centuries. However, the European leaders’ denunciations of capitalism and their positive view of socialism came at a bad time for capitalism." The examples you give are not instances of European leaders "denouncing capitalism" and espousing "positive views on socialism", they're critical of financial manipulation and espousing Government investment in the free market system.

Response: I quoted statements made by world leaders. I did not explain their statements.

Your comment: (11) "For example, how come governments operating under capitalism continue to experience budgetary problems, while those operating under socialism do not?" That claim is a total fiction, the US and Britain are not more capitalist than Germany and there are numerous other and better examples of more capitalist (Singapore, Australia, Switzerland, New Zealand and many others) and more socialist (North Korea, Venezuela, Russia, Cuba) examples that you choose to ignore.

Response: Sir, I stated in the article that the government of Germany invests in corporations and does receive dividends, which add onto the revenue of the government. Since the German government generates revenue from lucrative assets other than taxing income and, or taxing property, it is in a position to provide social services at reasonable prices to its population.

Your comment: (12) "If none of the above explanations is convincing, let us review the public-profit-making entities of China, which have generated $3 trillion reserves."
A truly priceless example, over the last 40 years the Chinese economy has shifted from socialism to an over regulated market economy, and as a result the Chinese economy has boomed. You couldn't find a better example of the evils of Socialism and the merits of Capitalism, and you insanely, manage to twist the Chinese example as an example of Capitalism failing. Again bizarre.

Response: In one of my comments, I quoted Forbes magazine, which stated that China has 106 stated-owned entities. In addition, Forbes reported that the state-owned entities reported $93 billion in the first six months of 2016. Such a report does not support your statement that China has shifted from socialism to capitalism.

Your comment: (13) "There are, without doubt, problems with how capitalist market economies are controlled throughout much of the world. There IS a problem in that the rich get richer while the poor continue to struggle, always getting enough to survive (in the western market economies) but never enough to really prosper. You suggest that Government minority investment in large companies operating in the free market (which you mistakenly believe to be Socialism) is a solution."

Response: Sir, what would you propose to solve the issue of the rich getting richer and poor getting poorer? Surely, awarding flawed concessionary agreements in exchange for bribes offered by big businesses, creating an environment conducive for diamonds dealers to spirit diamonds outside of Liberia and, or allowing Monrovia-landlords to inflate rental payment can not be a proposal.

Mr. Andrew Worth, many thanks for your intellectual discussion. I hope we will encourage our lawmakers and policy makers to begin a debate about how best to address Liberia's economic system, crony capitalism.


j. yanqui at 11:02AM, 2017/06/29.
Andrew Worth
THEODORE T. HODG: "According to my view, the debate is a draw because it boils down to preference."

Sorry I have to disagree with you, if the debate is which system is better at generating wealth - the centralized planning of Socialism or Adam Smith's invisible hand of the Market Economy the answer is the market economy, all the examples of Marx's system have fallen over, have switched to using the market economy or are struggling along like Cuba and Venezuela.

Even Mr. J. YANQUI isn't advocating true socialism but rather that Governments invest in businesses in market economies.
Andrew Worth at 03:23PM, 2017/06/29.
Theodore Hodge
Sir, I still think it is a matter of choice which system one prefers. The bottom line might not be singularly about money making. It could be a matter of ideology. One may prefer to live under Castto's regime in Cuba or swim across the ocean to Miami; many have made that choice over the years. The point is, both systems have their merits or demerits, as you two have amply demonstrated. Thanks again.
Theodore Hodge at 05:47PM, 2017/06/29.
Andrew Worth
It's a long swim, and if we look at where people stand in countries where they can make that choice freely, even those that are labeled "socialist" are, like Bernie Sanders and, judging by his comments J. YANQUI, actually Social Democrats.
Andrew Worth at 05:58PM, 2017/06/29.
Theodore T. Hodge


True, a long swim indeed. But the truth is, many made the decision to stay in a place like Cuba, instead of tempting fate. Many will tell you that the decision was worthwhile in more ways than one. It is only a mindless, or perhaps irrational, propagandist who will tell you (and history has the proof) that things weren't all bad on the island, or that things are so wonderful in the new land of Utopia. Everything is relative; and so, even when it doesn't seem to be that obvious to others, it still boils down to choice or preference.
Theodore T. Hodge at 08:00PM, 2017/06/29.
j. yanqui

Hi Mr. ANDREW WORTH,

These comments below indicate that you want the Liberian government to play a role in the economy.

"I've no issue with mineral resources remaining the property of the state until they're developed and the state demanding royalties from those that develop and sell that mineral wealth."


"I'm not a fan of the big foreign corporations in Liberia, in a free market all players compete on an even playing field, it's apparent that many of those foreign corporations that have moved into Liberia have run rings around the Liberian government gaining advantages over local businesses that are simply not what the free market is about, there are many examples of Government favoritism, the most resent I've heard being the tax concession to the Farmington Hotel."

However, let us talk about the reason(s) if you have changed your views.



Thanks.


j. yanqui at 09:00PM, 2017/06/29.
Andrew Worth
J. YANQUI, there is always a role for Government in an economy in most versions of the capitalist market system, just as, returning to the football analogy, there is a role for FIFA in setting the rules of the game - even though the governing body doesn't enter its own team in the competition. I define my own politics as Classical Liberalism, if you want a right of center form of politics that sees no role for government in the economy you to go out to the more extreme forms of Libertarianism and towards the views of Anarchists ("anarchism" being simply a system without Government which is not the same as "anarchy").
Andrew Worth at 09:37PM, 2017/06/29.
Andrew Worth
THEODORE T. HODGE, I have to admit that I'm not strong when it comes to the details of the Cuban economy, and you also probably should read this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Cuba

In short over resent years Cuba has begun to reduce the Government control of the economy and allow increasing market competition in many sectors with the result being a significant increase in economic growth - which had been declining under strict socialism.

So it seems that even the Cuban Government has decided to start swimming towards the free market.
Andrew Worth at 12:40AM, 2017/06/30.
Andrew Worth
J. YANQUI, here's a chart showing the Index Of Economic Freedom, the US is ranked 11th behind Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand (my country), Switzerland, Australia etc. Which is why I don't see the US as a good poster child for free market capitalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom
Andrew Worth at 12:58AM, 2017/06/30.
Andrew Worth
"Madam Ren, former Chinese Ambassador to Botswana, said the seeds of China’s rapid economic growth since the 1990s were first planted back in 1978 when the Communist Party started to introduce capitalist market principles, initially in the agriculture sector."

https://www.liberianobserver.com/business/china-tips-africa-as-next-big-miracle/
Andrew Worth at 01:29AM, 2017/06/30.
j. yanqui
Hi Mr. ANDREW WORTH,

I guess these countries (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc.)are doing better than the United States because the governments manage or have shares in certain economic activities as per the statement below:


"SOEs can be fully owned or partially owned by government. "... it...can also own regular stock, without implying any special interference. As an example, the China Investment Corporation agreed in 2007 to acquire a 10% interest in the global investment bank Morgan Stanley...Government-owned or state-run enterprises are often the result of corporatization, a process in which government agencies and departments are re-organized as semiautonomous corporate entities, sometimes with partial shares listed on stock exchanges. The term 'government-linked company' (GLC)... may be private or public (listed on a stock exchange) where an existing government owns a stake using a holding company...One definition purports that a company is classified as a GLC if a government owns an effective controlling interest (more than 50%), while the second definition suggests that any corporate entity that has a government as a shareholder is a GLC."

"In the Commonwealth realms, particularly Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, country-wide SOEs often use the style "Crown corporation", or "Crown entities".

"Singapore - Competition from State-Owned Enterprises. This information is derived from the State Department's Office of Investment Affairs? 2015 Investment Climate Statement. Any questions on the ICS can be directed to EB-ICS-DL@state.gov."

Sir, let us, once gain, visit the issues of America. American capitalists, for example, state that the United States economy will work effectively only if employable residents (i.e., about 4.5%) do not work. In addition, professionals such as physicians, lawyers, engineers, accountants, etc. usually lobby lawmakers to enact laws that limit the number of new professionals.

Mr. Worth, please explain why a country with 300 million plus population and a $20 trillion economy continues to recruit professionals from developing countries.

On the other hand, the Cuban government, in 2000, offered free medical education to U.S. blacks and Latinos, with a condition that they provide services to their communities after graduation.


Thanks to you for your contribution.
j. yanqui at 07:37AM, 2017/06/30.
Andrew Worth
J. YANQUI, I'm not going to spend too much time digging through the performance of state owned enterprises in various countries but in the case of New Zealand those partly owned by Government delivered a profit to government of around $500 million NZ dollars (the big ones: Air NZ, 3 power companies) those fully owned by government delivered a loss off around $300 million NZ Dollars (solid energy, post and rail) the net $200 million is small change to the NZ Government (anual government spending 80 billion NZ dollars.
Andrew Worth at 02:00PM, 2017/06/30.
Andrew Worth
The US attracts lots of professionals from developing counties because those professionals would rather live there.
Andrew Worth at 02:02PM, 2017/06/30.
j. yanqui
Hi Mr. ANDREW WORTH,

Yes, your view is correct that "The US attracts lots of professionals from developing counties because those professionals would rather live there."

However, there are other economic stories when a country does not invest in her citizens, but recruits professionals from other countries. The unskilled citizens, unemployed, do not have good purchasing power. Consequently, companies stop investing because a significant number of the population has limited purchasing power. The Nation-state's GDP does not only decline, but government also receives lower tax on income, minimal payroll tax as well as lower social security tax. And, of course, homophobia, animosity, envy, etc. becomes difficult to address.

Well, I guess capitalists do not care as long as they can grab more profits



j. yanqui at 08:58PM, 2017/06/30.
Andrew Worth
"Well, I guess capitalists do not care as long as they can grab more profits".

A common attack used by socialists, the reality is that when the Capitalists stuff up causing injury, deaths or injustices they're taken to the cleaners, when Government stuff up with the same results things are usually swept under the rug. Take the Grenfell Tower, owned by the Local Government of Kensington and Chelsea London Borough Council, it was a disaster waiting to happen, there were numerous safety breaches that, had it been privately owned would never have been allowed to happen. This same scenario happens too often, when Government both owns a building or enterprise and is responsible for enforcing standards too often waivers to those standards are common, if it had been a private sector owner they would have been nailed to the wall by the authorities for breaches before the disaster could happen.
Andrew Worth at 10:25PM, 2017/06/30.
j. yanqui
Mr. ANDREW WORTH,

"Yes, your view is correct that "The US attracts lots of professionals from developing counties because those professionals would rather live there."

"However, there are other economic stories when a country does not invest in her citizens, but recruits professionals from other countries. The unskilled citizens, unemployed, do not have good purchasing power. Consequently, companies stop investing because a significant number of the population has limited purchasing power. The Nation-state's GDP does not only decline, but government also receives lower tax on income, minimal payroll tax as well as lower social security tax. And, of course, homophobia, animosity, envy, etc. becomes difficult to address."

Please provide your view about "...other economic stories when a country does not invest in her citizens, but recruits professionals from other countries.

I shall comment on your claim that, "... Capitalists stuff up causing injury, deaths or injustices they're taken to the cleaners, when Government stuff up with the same results things are usually swept under the rug."

Sir, let us deal with one issue at a time.
j. yanqui at 03:19PM, 2017/07/01.
Andrew Worth
"However, there are other economic stories when a country does not invest in her citizens, but recruits professionals from other countries. The unskilled citizens, unemployed, do not have good purchasing power. Consequently, companies stop investing because a significant number of the population has limited purchasing power. The Nation-state's GDP does not only decline, but government also receives lower tax on income, minimal payroll tax as well as lower social security tax. And, of course, homophobia, animosity, envy, etc. becomes difficult to address."

It makes economic sense for a country to attract foreign professionals whose training has been paid for by someone else rather than pay for that training itself, of course it's very bad for the developing country that's paid for the training to then lose those professionals.

Everyone knows that education is important for the generation of wealth in this technological world, but your assumption that people will end up as unemployed as a result of a country importing professional doesn't hold water, in reality the opposite is true, many of those professionals will develop businesses and technology in their adopted country that will create jobs and so reduce unemployment, developments that would otherwise happen in their home countries or not a all.

Andrew Worth at 03:35PM, 2017/07/01.
Bai M. Gbala, Sr.
This great debate has been going on from the days of Karl Marx, Ricardo, Keynes, Freidman, Samuelsson etc., some of the world’s celebrated economic minds down to Liberia’s “Growth without development” and, now, our own, contemporary great minds. The debate, a pastime gymnastic in academic/intellectual exercise for its sake, as it were, will continue after we are all gone, like the others. Meanwhile . . .

It is argued, reasonably, on the basis of overwhelmingly-validated evidence in Liberia, on the African Continent and other poor, developing Third World countries that the ever-present political/economic problem is not so much about Capitalism versus Socialism, but the pervasive abuse and injection of lies, deceit, bribery, thievery, dishonesty or corrupt practices into the political/economic process. But, these variables (?), decadent activities by the economic actors, are external and inapplicable in both Capitalist and Socialist analysis.
Bai M. Gbala, Sr. at 10:24PM, 2017/07/01.
Andrew Worth
All socialist countries have either fallen over (USSR), switched to using capitalism to various degrees (China, Vietnam, Cuba), are very poor and held together only through a harsh dictatorship (N Korea), or are in civil strife due to the poverty that socialism causes (Venusuela).

There is no Capitalism vs Socialism debate, the debate is over what form of capitalism: Libertarian, Conservative, Social Democrat etc.
Andrew Worth at 01:03AM, 2017/07/02.

Post your comment

You can use following HTML tags: <a><br><strong><b><em><i><blockquote><pre><code><img><ul><ol><li><del>

Confirmation code:

Comments script


© 2017 by The Perspective
E-mail: editor@theperspective.org
To Submit article for publication, go to the following URL: http://www.theperspective.org/submittingarticles.html