He apparently loves the Hong Kong system of free universal health care and low rent government housing, so maybe he's not a hard core capitalist after all. Sounds more like a confused leftist.

You have to cite your claims according to forum rules, btw. You are making conversation difficult, which perhaps you find to your advantage, like when you claimed I strawmanned you. You obviously have no qualms about strawmanning in general.

I have already cited the claims that HK has universal health care and low-rent public housing. You clearly said that you liked HK as a shining example of your kind of capitalism. No strawman there. You just feel used bc you really had no idea what goes on in HK. lol

The only links you posted were from HuffPo (liberal blog) and Wiki, and neither were relevant because I am not talking about HK today (as I have already stated). So you have not cited anythink about HK after tranfered to British rule. You implied wo eveidence that it was a form of British socialism, and I am waiting patiently for you to cite your implication or withdraw it as you stupidly strawman me and gripe about me claiming you favor heavily regulated capitalism which is what you precisely said. Your position is purposely murky, and you have no counter point to my position that I can use an example wo adopting all policies. Basically, you'll find any flaw in any example to prevent me from using examples overall, and show no interest in discussing those flaws and their implications.

I even underlined and bolded the date. You're just getting triggered now bc you used HK as an example without having a clue about it. Lol

That was public housing. What about the universal health care? I'm still waiting.

I mean, seriously, some public housing after a fire instead of letting the free market handle it means that it's "heavily regulated capitalism", who are you trying to fool? This happens all the time, government reacting to a catastrophy. Good thing government was in control of the levees before hurricane Katrina in 2005, and it was a public good. Oh wait!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_l...er_New_Orleans

LOL... another strawman. You're so cute when you're desperate.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...26490115001458



Ouch! That's gotta hurt! When did the Brits leave again? hahahaha

Dude, you actually provided one of the best examples of why free health care WORKS!

1. Why would it "hurt"? I don't understand/appreciate your high school mentality. I am more interested in something more resembling a formal debate w/ evidence, etc.
2. 1993 is much later than the 50s. If your point is that there was universal health care before the British left, then sure, but nobody was arguing that. The discussion has been how much of a free-market example is/was HK over the years. You seem to think it's binary (because you try to score points on a jocky scoreboard, 7-0), either 100% ACist or your murky stance on heavily regulated capitalism, and there's no area inbetween.

Pretty much any historical example shows a trend towards more government over the years.

You really have to wrap yourself in knots to say that the New Orleans levies are not a good example, and some 50 years later health care in HK is an example of "heavily regulated capitalism". I do not envy you going through all these mental gymnastics.

I don't think you know what strawman is as your exact words were "heavily regulated capitalism". I mean according to you, government is necessary for public goods like levees otherwise there would be tragedies. There are plenty of examples of "heavily regulated capitalism" that are not all that good. The US housing market before the housing boom/bust is another example. But, you had nothing to say about that other than to cry "greed" as though there is this intangible force called "greed" that is inflicted everywhere, and is at the same time chimerical.

How different would you say "public housing" in Hong Kong is from the "public levees" in New Orleans in terms of public goods? It seems to me you are entirely hell-bent on seeing only one side of the argument.

Also to be clear, the first "strawman" was me quoting you "verbatim".

You brought up HK as a beacon of free capitalism. But you didn't know that they have universal health care and low-rent housing. Now you're trying every desperate strawman you can think of to avoid admitting that you love free health care and taxpayer-funded housing. LOL

Holy non sequitor batman.

Repeat.

Repeat.

Even w/ the housing and health care, I can't really think of many better examples of free market capitalism than Hong Kong. Taxes were very low, and it was not hard to set-up a business relatively free from regulation. Though I do admit I am speaking in relative terms, I never pretended not to.

Got this from SMP. Emphasis added is mine.

See, you basically want to confide me to using examples that don't exist before talking about free market capitalism. Nobody thinks that's reasonable.

TCOT memes are the best

+1

Mod, please remove the "?" in the title.

BTW, that meme is great.

Definitely need to get rid of that "?".

chomsky speaks about "enterpreneur" and "consumers-choice" respecting IT. He confirms what one poster said, that it was all statefunded and capitalism didnt help developing those technologys.

no hippies either though. maybe i was a bit too optimistic concerning that.