[quote="LarryH, post:2, topic:1395"]Actually, with the efforts to save the miners probably happening free of charge, I think it would be easier to make the arguement that the miners were saved by people living out the saying[b] "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need." ;)[/b]
Either way, I believe associating any economic/political ideology with this triumph of the human spirit is churlish, as Henninger admits.[/quote]
Yes, except in non-capitalist societies, there’s very little ability to deliver anything to anyone in need. Q’s for you: how come a 7 on the Richter Scale earthquake kills 1 person in California but 7-10 thousand in Iran or Haiti? Iran has major oil revenues, in excess of $200 million per day. What’s the problem? Too busy spending it on IED’s to take care of their own people’s needs?
No economic system raises the general welfare of its people greater than capitalism. It’s not churlish if you want to continue to save mankind, or pay for things like new hockey arenas at state universities. I suppose Chile could have asked Cuba for help and they could have sent sugar, rum and cigars. Socialism kills. Friedman’s pencil story is in order. Incredibly, US universities don’t teach monetarism, most anyway, only Keynesian economics.
Power of the Market - The Pencil
Could you please stop injecting politics into this site. This is the most ridiculous topic ever. No economic system saved the miners. Every economy on the planet is a combination of capitalism and socialism. One cannot function without elements of the other. As to why earthquakes kill thousands in third world countries and not America, did you ever consider that America has far stricter building code (aka oppressive government interference.)
Capitalism can’t survive without socialism? You must be joking. Socialism collapsed where it was practiced fully. It needs capitalism to survive, not vice versa. The problem with socialism as described by Thatcher is that, “sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.” Check the news videos today on France. Why can the private sector lay people off but not the public sector? Are they a priviliged group that the private sector needs to fund their retirements? Why? Capitalism, in Hong Kong prior to Chinese takeover, and in the 19th century US did fine. Q for you: as there was no income tax or Federal deficit spending in the 19th century US, how did the US function, as there could not have been any socialism without taxes or deficit spending to fund it? BTW, it was the period of greatest growth in US history, with the greatest percentage increase in standard of living of any century. Zero socialism. There is one problem with capitalism, and that it does not provide for the 5-10% of citizens who just can’t make it, and for them, yes, something needs to be done. But as something like 46% of Americans now depend on some form of payment from the US Government, this is seriously out of control, and crushing business and jobs in the private sector and adding debt to citizens at an alarming rate. Re the building codes, of course there has to be a framework of rules. Citizens need to be protected. Government’s role in protecting its citizens from foreign attack or domestic attack, fraud, abuse, is totally legitimate. And there is a legal system. And that’s local building codes, proposed by its own citizens, and hopefully voted on. That’s democracy. Far cry from a top down Federal mandate imposed on citizens against their will with no popular vote. Of course, this election season is all about that. We’ll see what happens.
As other people post OT topics, like football, movies, hockey arenas, soccer, go bother them, or don’t read OT topics, but cool it on the personal attacks.