The Official Conservative Political Thread

Why are you equating the nordic countries to countries like china?

Lyrical_sl said:

GDP nonsense

Click to expand...

And if you'd had watched that video I linked, you'd understand that comparing GDPs of G20 countries after a certain point is worthless. You have to look at comparisons intra-country: comparisons of wealth, income inside them. The bigger the gaps, the differences, the more social problems arise and exist.

To lyrical, Communist, Socialist, Marxist, Socially Democratic, etc. all mean the same thing. He uses them interchangeably.

Indian Take: India 1991: Economic Reforms, Liberalisation, Capitalism

When the Industrial Revolution (1775-1850) happened, India was under British rule (1757-1947). The British did not bother to industrialise India. Nor did they allow Indians to industrialise on their own. As a result, India could not industrialise, and was stuck in the Agricultural Age. In 1947, India finally overthrew the British and became independent. Now she was free to industrialise/modernise and enter the Industrial Age.

There were two industrial systems: capitalism and socialism. In capitalism, industries are owned by individuals and enterprises. In socialism, industries are owned by the government. Jawaharlal Nehru, India's first Prime Minister (1947-1964), chose socialism. With socialism, India's economy grew at about 3% per year. In other words, India industrialised/modernised at the rate of 3% per year. This went on for 40 years. Nehru's daughter Indira Gandhi (1966-1984) and grandson Rajiv Gandhi (1984-1991) continued with socialism.

Then, in 1991, India became bankrupt.Things could not go on as before. Something had to change. P V Narasimha Rao, the then Prime Minister, did the unthinkable. He changed India's industrial system from socialism to capitalism. He dumped socialism and adopted capitalism. As a result, India's economy started growing at 6% per year - double the earlier rate. Later it started growing at 9% per year - triple the earlier rate. That is, after adopting capitalism in 1991, India's rate of industrialisation/modernisation has now tripled. India is now industrialising/modernising thrice as fast as she was doing during the period 1947-1991.

That is what is happening today. And that is the significance of 1991. People call it "economic reforms" or "liberalisation". In fact, the switch from socialism to capitalism was nothing short of a revolution*. As a milestone in modern India's history, 1991 is second in importance only to 1947.

Lyrical_sl said:

Liberal nutbags, look at GDP growth in the countries that are free market, compared to the ones that aren't, and explain to me how Marxism is better. Look at the huge growth rates in the countries that switched from Marxism to Capitalism.

Click to expand...

Are you trolling? Every country on that list has a market driven economic system, including china since the 70s (2 decades before the chart starts).

Lyrical_sl said:

There were two industrial systems: capitalism and socialism. In capitalism, industries are owned by individuals and enterprises.In socialism, industries are owned by the government...

Click to expand...

Wtf? You must be trolling.

khalid_sl said:

Why are you equating the nordic countries to countries like china?

Click to expand...

Because, you can look at the rapid growth we've seen in those countries when they switched. There were massive lifestyle changes when they allowed things like Creative Destruction to creep in. Gone were the days of having factories full of millions of dollars widgets collecting dust. Gone were the days of government propping up industries that didn't need to be there, like in India. At one point, 70% of the country lived on subsidies, the other 30% supported them. Where capitalism was allowed, you saw real and meaningful change.

Yes, let's talk all day about how great that neo-liberal doctrine is working. Let's ask the millions who got their house stolen or pensions emptied by our financial institutions, and then were forced to bail those same institutions out with their own tax money.

Let's talk about neo-liberalization.

So China is great, Norway sucks and GDP growth based on a graph from 2005 is the foundation of your argument. Is that the gist of your argument? Lol, wow.

Denaut_sl said:

Are you trolling? Every country on that list has a market driven economic system, including china since the 70s (2 decades before the chart starts).

Click to expand...

And some of those are less market driven, and the GDP growth rate tends to be much lower. Look at the countries with the larger growth rates, they moved to almost a naked capitalism (which I am not proposing). Look at a country like China, their factories literally spew toxic chemicals into people's drinking water, and the government turns its head.

TheBeagle_sl said:

So China is great, Norway sucks and GDP growth based on a graph from 2005 is the foundation of your argument. Is that the gist of your argument? Lol, wow.

Click to expand...

It doesn't even say that, according to the chart Norway had equal or better growth than the US. I don't really follow what he is trying to say at all.

Denaut_sl said:

It doesn't even say that, according to the chart Norway had equal or better growth than the US. I don't really follow what he is trying to say at all.

Click to expand...

Murcia' best all other countries shit is I think the gist of it.

Lyrical_sl said:

And some of those are less market driven, and the GDP growth rate tends to be much lower.Look at the countries with the larger growth rates, they moved to almost a naked capitalism (which I am not proposing).

Click to expand...

And nobody here is proposing the opposite (except for maybe Dumar). Lets get this back on track though.Yousaid the Nordic countries weren't worth a shit, andyouwere hilarious ignorant and wrong, just as I said you were. Now you're trying to distract the thread with absurd comparisons between countries like China and Norway, as though their systems have ever been remotely similar. My hypothesis for why you're trying to do this is that you don't actually understand the words that you're using, and you think Social Democracy = Marxism = Communism = etc.

I think once the beeapocolypse happens perhaps Tad can make room in the bunker for Lyrical. We can always blast Morgan Freeman reading Karl Marx outside their doors.

Dumar_sl said:

Yes, let's talk all day about how great that neo-liberal doctrine is working. Let's ask the millions who got their house stolen or pensions emptied by our financial institutions, and then were forced to bail those same institutions out with their own tax money.

Let's talk about neo-liberalization.

Click to expand...

You make my arguments for me, thanks. Government stepped in and got involved in things it shouldn't have, and not what should be done in a free market. You had the SLC of the 80's, where government decided to ensure the bets of bankers. No matter what, the bankers' losses were ensured. So what does the banker do? He makes risky bets, since government covered his losses. And this last go around, government pushed home ownership abnormally high, through artificially low rates and again, ensuring risky bets on home ownership. And yes, I put that to blame on the past few conservative and liberal presidents. It became something to boast about while trying to get relected, Bush bragged about home ownership stats the same as everyone else.

That doesn't sound like a free market to me, where government ensures bets of companies and banks. Too big to fail? I'm not so sure about that. We'll probably see another banking crisis again in the next two decades, because we tell the banks we won't let them fail.