And it has always been regulated by either the British formerly, or the Chinese currently. Or are you saying that the Brits have a completely unregulated form of capitalism?

I'm glad that you're a fan of universal health care and low-rent housing for the poor. Something that HK has had for a long time.

First, i said that i'm a fan of regulated capitalism. You're adding the "heavily" and "welfare" as a strawman, because you have no other way of winning this argument without making up stupid things.

There were major ****ups all around leading up to the 2008 meltdown. One of them was lack of oversight of the banking industry.

Are you seriously saying that you want a form of capitalism that has NO regulation? You do realize that it would quickly result in a handful of people owning everything and workers getting almost nothing. This never ends well for the ruling elites.

First, clearly you are getting emotional about your utopia, because you can't even remember what you wrote. Second, economists regarded HK before being transferred over back to the Chinese to be an experiment in laissez-faire capitalism. You'll have to give a citation to convince me that it was governed at all like the UK, or that Hong Kong is Singapore, etc.

http://www.hoover.org/research/hong-kong-experiment

The point is that "heavily regulated capitalism" with "welfare" and "social programs" is EXACTLY the mentality that led to Democrats like Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, etc. and Republicans to get on board with a home for everyone, which is how the bubble caused by low interest rates from the Federal Reserve manifested itself. Now, you may not like that example, and would rather paint a different picture by claiming Hong Kong is "heavily regulated capitalism", but you know, whatever. You're dream world is a real-life nightmare.

Lol, strawman, whaaaatever.

We both know that the 2008 meltdown was just as much due to deregulation and greed as it was due to idiots like Frank.

You're the one who brought up HK. I brought up Singapore as an example of places without natural resources that have been successful (relatively speaking). That was actually meant to help you, since you appear to desperately need help with your argument. Bali is probably a better example for your case. Another province that is almost entirely left alone by the ruling country.

Neither HK or Singapore are pure capitalism. Both have extensive social welfare programs paid for by *gasp* taxpayers! LMAO

Oh no! I bet you hate HK now. lol



But fine, i'm ok with you saying that i support heavily regulated capitalism. It's just an adjective. I like the American system, but would like to see more regulation wrt consumer protections and more severe criminal convictions of white collar crimes. I would also like universal health care for the poor with private options for those with money.

You never answered my question about pure capitalism. Are you a fan of no regulation at all?

thats right, im blaming the government that it didnt kill the wall street gangsters with drones like terrorists deserve it.

The right-wingers ITT think those guys are heroes. Anyone who can figure out a way to rip off suckers and get rich doing so are the Messiah to these clowns who want pure capitalism with no govt intrusion. What they don't realize is that they ONLY reason they're not working in a sweatshop with their 6-year old kids is bc the govt protects them.

peter, who ITT have said they want zero intrusion?

It is very sad that your brain thinks this way.

another counterargument against so called free trade:
free trade is a form of regulation as well, but not a direct one. instead, whichever country is in the position to define the rules of the so called "free trade", will win in the end. At least the finance elite of that country.

The reason TTIP wasnt succesfull is because the EU and the US couldnt find a definition of free trade they would both stick to, as they deeply mistrust each other.

What specific intrusions are you in favor of? Leaves appears to be a huge fan of universal health care and public housing. Are you as well?

I am in favor of all types of intrusions. I like the idea of public transportation, law enforcement, and even unemployment benefits.

Edit to address you edit: I am a fan of public housing (at least to an extent), but I'm not a big fan of universal health care.

Nah, you're just defining it how you want it. If you don't want to call the Nordic countries socialist that's fine. I would say the Nordic countries are much more anti capitalist in the sense that they never subscribed to laisse faire capitalism as primal and have many policies to mitigate what many would consider the good points of American style laisse faire capitalism. Many people would call people who advocate for more Nordic like policies socialist but if you don't then I don't have any truck. I'm sure whatever your definition of socialism whenever it gets described probably never worked.

Ok, fair enough. You and I are not too far apart.

The US isn't laissez faire capitalism at all. The markets are regulated too much to call it anything remotely close to that. The Scandinavia countries aren't anti-capitalist. I don't know where you got this idea from. Norway and Sweden have too big of a private sector to call them anything but capitalist countries.

Exactly. These socialists don't even understand the basics of socialism and point to heavily regulated capitalism as an example of it. lol

bwahahah Ol' Zwarte Piet in rare form

Srs question:

When you typed this out what chances did you give one of the trumpers responding with something like, 'oh, wow, thanks, I didn't know that'?

Plz give your answer in the form of snowballs in hell.

Unlikely. But change is often incremental.

Greed is a total cop-out. People merely act based on self-interest. There is no such thing as greed. And, I can't imagine what deregulation you are talking about as housing has been heavily regulated for a long time.

I didn't realize you asked a question about pure capitalism. I am sure by some convoluted reasoning you came to conclusions about what I think. Right now I am saying that Hong Kong is not an example of pure capitalism, but to portray it as an example of heavily regulated capitalism is a mischaracterization, and misinterpretation of history. And, also I can mention Hong Kong as an example without it being an example of pure capitalism. I don't see any contradiction in doing that.

Also, I cannot find a link to what Hong Kong's health care system looked like historically, but I am not willing to adopt your rose-colored version without evidence.

The laissez-faire solution to fires is to allow private fire companies and fire insurance, btw. So I would look at if that section of the market was private or not.

Not in practice but in ideology. Freedom of contract, process justification for riches, the primacy of property rights etc are highly prized in the US ideologically while Europe was more wary of capitalism's excesses and have more curbs via the welfare state and transfers, stipulations on labor contracts, etc.

Right wing libertarianism and its accompanying veneration of markets and "freedom" is almost a uniquely American phenomenon.

I'd feel more comfortable with left wing egalitarianism if it actually produced anything of value. Take for example an air conditioner. Why couldn't some left wing egalitarians get together and say, "You know what? The world needs an air conditioner, because then we'd all be more comfortable." But no, they can't make any great contribution like that, except maybe Linux, which you know, publicly traded.

I mean, I don't think it's too much to ask. If egalitarianism is so damn good, then why has it not contributed more to the advancement of civilization?

well that's a Not Sure If Srs if I've ever seen one

Pretty sure Nordic sauna technology > Nordic AC technology. Nordic AC technology is "open a window"

ever heard of the connection of the hippies and the early hacker-scene? alot of early IT-inventions were made by hippies that there just tech-nerds and playing around.

The problem with inventions by capitalists are, that capitalism wants immidiate profit and doesnt like to experiment in the dark. Therfor capitalists are bad at basic research and dont like trying out fancy things that seem to be too crazy to turn into profit.

Hahahahahaha!

Musk, Jobs, Gates, etc must all hate capitalism. Lol

God, you're dumb.