Communism: Persuade Me

[Mongolian Khanate]

This would be about the point that I'd invoke party discipline and either shuffle Hashtag out of the limelight, or require him to repudiate his statements.

*sigh*

You made me lol

[The Merchant Republics]

An economy needs foreign investment to function, especially in China's case. But you are all acting like this money just magically caused whole cities to spring up out of basically nothing, because you just can't take off your ideological spectacles. The state provided incentives for foreign investment. The state created the special economic zones that employed millions of Chinese and lifted them out of peasanthood. The state made China the workshop of the world. The state maintains China's current growth rate. Because of the state, China will probably overtake the US in GDP by 2025. China's growing middle class, which did not exist on the scale it did before this decade, is making domestic spending go up.

What the f*ck is so hard to comprehend?

The US budget deficit has alot to do with the government being owned by corporations, and the fact that more and more people are going on welfare. I don't have to go into how as you can probably figure it out yourself.

Please remove the log from your eye before you point out the splinter in ours. Ideological spectacles? Talk about ideological spectacles.

The "Special Economic Zones" did indeed fuel China's growth, don't you think if all of China had been declared a "Special Economic Zone" China would have been far better off? Indeed that is where you will find the concentration of wealthy, around these clusters of market economies. That certainly doesn't amount to a success of the state, it's "success" was only a recognition of their inability to succeed. They didn't create wealth; foreign investment did, they just opened themselves up to it.

I mean my goodness, the time it took for China to become the workshop of the world was but a few years longer then it took for Britain, despite the fact that Britain did so entirely with internal investment with far less people and far less technology, even then worker conditions by the end of the first revolution for Britain were probably comparably to China's now. That's incredibly poor progress if you ask me.

[Trotskyist Hashtag]

An economy needs foreign investment to function, especially in China's case. But you are all acting like this money just magically caused whole cities to spring up out of basically nothing, because you just can't take off your ideological spectacles. The state provided incentives for foreign investment. The state created the special economic zones that employed millions of Chinese and lifted them out of peasanthood. The state made China the workshop of the world. The state maintains China's current growth rate. Because of the state, China will probably overtake the US in GDP by 2025. China's growing middle class, which did not exist on the scale it did before this decade, is making domestic spending go up.

What the f*ck is so hard to comprehend?

The US budget deficit has alot to do with the government being owned by corporations, and the fact that more and more people are going on welfare. I don't have to go into how as you can probably figure it out yourself.

Why did the chinese government need to set up "Special economic zones" to allow foreign investement? It wasn't an "incentive" as much as little spots freed from the Sky-high protectionism and economic restrictions that kept the rest of China isolated. They didn't fucking subsidy foreign investment: they allowed it to take place. It's like telling me Kwansong in fucking North Korea is creating jobs. Sure it does; why isn't the whole country made an special economic zone then? The very State was preventing investment elsewhere in the country.

You congratulate the State on creating jobs, I hate it for preventing it for so long.

And why were they freed? As an incentive.

God...

[Trotskyist Hashtag]

An economy needs foreign investment to function, especially in China's case. But you are all acting like this money just magically caused whole cities to spring up out of basically nothing, because you just can't take off your ideological spectacles. The state provided incentives for foreign investment. The state created the special economic zones that employed millions of Chinese and lifted them out of peasanthood. The state made China the workshop of the world. The state maintains China's current growth rate. Because of the state, China will probably overtake the US in GDP by 2025. China's growing middle class, which did not exist on the scale it did before this decade, is making domestic spending go up.

What the f*ck is so hard to comprehend?

The US budget deficit has alot to do with the government being owned by corporations, and the fact that more and more people are going on welfare. I don't have to go into how as you can probably figure it out yourself.

Please remove the log from your eye before you point out the splinter in ours. Ideological spectacles? Talk about ideological spectacles.

The "Special Economic Zones" did indeed fuel China's growth, don't you think if all of China had been declared a "Special Economic Zone" China would have been far better off? Indeed that is where you will find the concentration of wealthy, around these clusters of market economies. That certainly doesn't amount to a success of the state, it's "success" was only a recognition of their inability to succeed. They didn't create wealth; foreign investment did, they just opened themselves up to it.

I mean my goodness, the time it took for China to become the workshop of the world was but a few years longer then it took for Britain, despite the fact that Britain did so entirely with internal investment with far less people and far less technology, even then worker conditions by the end of the first revolution for Britain were probably comparably to China's now. That's incredibly poor progress if you ask me.

Britain also got free raw materials from African forced labor.

More to the point, how do you think foreign investment is spent? Where does the money actually go and how is it used? Tell me. Please.

[Mongolian Khanate]

Why did the chinese government need to set up "Special economic zones" to allow foreign investement? It wasn't an "incentive" as much as little spots freed from the Sky-high protectionism and economic restrictions that kept the rest of China isolated. They didn't fucking subsidy foreign investment: they allowed it to take place. It's like telling me Kwansong in fucking North Korea is creating jobs. Sure it does; why isn't the whole country made an special economic zone then? The very State was preventing investment elsewhere in the country.

You congratulate the State on creating jobs, I hate it for preventing it for so long.

And why were they freed? As an incentive.

God...

Why was it necessary to free them in the first place? Here, I'll spoon-feed the conclusion again:

Your precious Communist Party was busy banning private ownership and trying to push it's planned economy throught the throats of the workers. It decided to liberalize because they found out planned economies suck big fucking time.

[Orwellian Huxly]

An economy needs foreign investment to function, especially in China's case. But you are all acting like this money just magically caused whole cities to spring up out of basically nothing, because you just can't take off your ideological spectacles. The state provided incentives for foreign investment. The state created the special economic zones that employed millions of Chinese and lifted them out of peasanthood. The state made China the workshop of the world. The state maintains China's current growth rate. Because of the state, China will probably overtake the US in GDP by 2025. China's growing middle class, which did not exist on the scale it did before this decade, is making domestic spending go up.

What the f*ck is so hard to comprehend?

The US budget deficit has alot to do with the government being owned by corporations, and the fact that more and more people are going on welfare. I don't have to go into how as you can probably figure it out yourself.

Please remove the log from your eye before you point out the splinter in ours. Ideological spectacles? Talk about ideological spectacles.

The "Special Economic Zones" did indeed fuel China's growth, don't you think if all of China had been declared a "Special Economic Zone" China would have been far better off? Indeed that is where you will find the concentration of wealthy, around these clusters of market economies. That certainly doesn't amount to a success of the state, it's "success" was only a recognition of their inability to succeed. They didn't create wealth; foreign investment did, they just opened themselves up to it.

I mean my goodness, the time it took for China to become the workshop of the world was but a few years longer then it took for Britain, despite the fact that Britain did so entirely with internal investment with far less people and far less technology, even then worker conditions by the end of the first revolution for Britain were probably comparably to China's now. That's incredibly poor progress if you ask me.

Again I am going to make the point that I find it ridiculous to compare two countries' economies, especially developing at different times. First of all the UK did not need foreign investment because it had a shit ton of colonies it could plunder for wealth. Second of all the different conditions under which the two nations developed would seem to explain differences in growth and rate of development.

[Orwellian Huxly]

And why were they freed? As an incentive.

God...

Why was it necessary to free them in the first place? Here, I'll spoon-feed the conclusion again:

Your precious Communist Party was busy banning private ownership and trying to push it's planned economy throught the throats of the workers. It decided to liberalize because they found out planned economies suck big fucking time.

No. They found out that isolated economies suck big time. China is still a planned economy. And still being a planned economy they are doing pretty damn well.

[Trotskyist Hashtag]

well said.

[The Merchant Republics]

Please remove the log from your eye before you point out the splinter in ours. Ideological spectacles? Talk about ideological spectacles.

The "Special Economic Zones" did indeed fuel China's growth, don't you think if all of China had been declared a "Special Economic Zone" China would have been far better off? Indeed that is where you will find the concentration of wealthy, around these clusters of market economies. That certainly doesn't amount to a success of the state, it's "success" was only a recognition of their inability to succeed. They didn't create wealth; foreign investment did, they just opened themselves up to it.

I mean my goodness, the time it took for China to become the workshop of the world was but a few years longer then it took for Britain, despite the fact that Britain did so entirely with internal investment with far less people and far less technology, even then worker conditions by the end of the first revolution for Britain were probably comparably to China's now. That's incredibly poor progress if you ask me.

Britain also got free raw materials from African forced labor.

More to the point, how do you think foreign investment is spent? Where does the money actually go and how is it used? Tell me. Please.

Not in the late 1700's it didn't, Slavery was banned shortly before the Industrial Revolution.

How do you think foreign investment works? Because if you actually knew, then you wouldn't be asking me this. Foreign investment as it stands is the bringing in of outside capital to finance or create new industries. Taking the form of corporations investing in new manufacturing in the region or buying from preexisting industry. It's a rather difficult task to describe where it goes and how it's used now isn't it? Since the money is directed by many different investing firms.

[Mongolian Khanate]

Why was it necessary to free them in the first place? Here, I'll spoon-feed the conclusion again:

Your precious Communist Party was busy banning private ownership and trying to push it's planned economy throught the throats of the workers. It decided to liberalize because they found out planned economies suck big fucking time.

No. They found out that isolated economies suck big time. China is still a planned economy. And still being a planned economy they are doing pretty damn well.

China? A command-and-control economy? What have you been smoking lately?

[Orwellian Huxly]

Britain also got free raw materials from African forced labor.

More to the point, how do you think foreign investment is spent? Where does the money actually go and how is it used? Tell me. Please.

Not in the late 1700's it didn't, Slavery was banned shortly before the Industrial Revolution.

How do you think foreign investment works? Because if you actually knew, then you wouldn't be asking me this. Foreign investment as it stands is the bringing in of outside capital to finance or create new industries. Taking the form of corporations investing in new manufacturing in the region or buying from preexisting industry. It's a rather difficult task to describe where it goes and how it's used now isn't it? Since the money is directed by many different investing firms.

Actually slavery was banned in Britain in 1805. Just fyi

[Trotskyist Hashtag]

70% state-owned. Again.

[Orwellian Huxly]

No. They found out that isolated economies suck big time. China is still a planned economy. And still being a planned economy they are doing pretty damn well.

China? A command-and-control economy? What have you been smoking lately?

China's economy is still mostly controlled by the government. They own some of the largest most successful companies in China. Did you think they'd turned libertarian or something? lol They are still governed by the Communist Party.

[Trotskylvania]

No. They found out that isolated economies suck big time. China is still a planned economy. And still being a planned economy they are doing pretty damn well.

China? A command-and-control economy? What have you been smoking lately?

I would still consider it a planned economy. The state does exert a considerable amount of control over private actors in the economy, particularly large foreign investors. Though largely, they tend to form joint partnerships with them.

[The Merchant Republics]

Again I am going to make the point that I find it ridiculous to compare two countries' economies, especially developing at different times. First of all the UK did not need foreign investment because it had a shit ton of colonies it could plunder for wealth. Second of all the different conditions under which the two nations developed would seem to explain differences in growth and rate of development.

Colonies which had no where near the wealth or capital that China had access to from foreign investors when it opened up it's markets. Hell, most corporations in the 1980's were richer then the entire nation of Britain and it's colonies in 1800.

Hell yes the conditions are different, China was in a significantly better position, that's why I choose the danged example, because Britain managed to raise itself from nothing with nothing and China took something (the long-time economic superpower) turned it into nothing despite being surrounded by nations whose capabilities to invest in China dwarf anything seen in previous centuries, from not just one nation but half the whole world.

Despite all that, China still barely beat Britain out of their respective Industrial Dark Ages and near third-world poverty.

[Orwellian Huxly]

China? A command-and-control economy? What have you been smoking lately?

I would still consider it a planned economy. The state does exert a considerable amount of control over private actors in the economy, particularly large foreign investors. Though largely, they tend to form joint partnerships with them.

And those companies that the government allows to invest in China are still subject to the decisions and rules of the communist party. Take google for example, falling out with the government over differences about censorship.

[Mongolian Khanate]

70% state-owned. Again.

Good job. You failed economics 101

Are you trying to tell me Sweden's got a planned economy?

Here's a read: The Planned Economies and International Economic Organizations
It'll help you differentiate what is a planned economy and what isn't.

Even the 70% Partially state-owned (from your own words gentleman) do not make for a planned economy, for they are subject to market's forces.

The central planning in the PRC does not set prices of inputs and outputs of everything in the country, even if it is heavily reglemented

[Orwellian Huxly]

Again I am going to make the point that I find it ridiculous to compare two countries' economies, especially developing at different times. First of all the UK did not need foreign investment because it had a shit ton of colonies it could plunder for wealth. Second of all the different conditions under which the two nations developed would seem to explain differences in growth and rate of development.

Colonies which had no where near the wealth or capital that China had access to from foreign investors when it opened up it's markets. Hell, most corporations in the 1980's were richer then the entire nation of Britain and it's colonies in 1800.

Hell yes the conditions are different, China was in a significantly better position, that's why I choose the danged example, because Britain managed to raise itself from nothing with nothing and China took something (the long-time economic superpower) turned it into nothing despite being surrounded by nations whose capabilities to invest in China dwarf anything seen in previous centuries, from not just one nation but half the whole world.

Despite all that, China still barely beat Britain out of their respective Industrial Dark Ages and near third-world poverty.

Of course the colonies didn't have capital. Britain had the capital. The colonies had the cheap labor and commodities for the taking. Britain did not build themselves up from nothing. They built themselves up on slavery, imperialism and the pillaging of their colonies. To say that they brought themselves up by their bootstraps so to speak is an absurd simplification of history.

[Mongolian Khanate]

China? A command-and-control economy? What have you been smoking lately?

I would still consider it a planned economy. The state does exert a considerable amount of control over private actors in the economy, particularly large foreign investors. Though largely, they tend to form joint partnerships with them.

Heavily reglemented, sure, but even the state-owned enterprises are now subject to market competition. We're nowhere near the planned economy of the USSR or that of Saudi Arabia

[The Merchant Republics]

Not in the late 1700's it didn't, Slavery was banned shortly before the Industrial Revolution.

How do you think foreign investment works? Because if you actually knew, then you wouldn't be asking me this. Foreign investment as it stands is the bringing in of outside capital to finance or create new industries. Taking the form of corporations investing in new manufacturing in the region or buying from preexisting industry. It's a rather difficult task to describe where it goes and how it's used now isn't it? Since the money is directed by many different investing firms.

Actually slavery was banned in Britain in 1805. Just fyi

1772 in so far as it made slavery legally impossible, though not outright banned. FYI

[The Merchant Republics]

Colonies which had no where near the wealth or capital that China had access to from foreign investors when it opened up it's markets. Hell, most corporations in the 1980's were richer then the entire nation of Britain and it's colonies in 1800.

Hell yes the conditions are different, China was in a significantly better position, that's why I choose the danged example, because Britain managed to raise itself from nothing with nothing and China took something (the long-time economic superpower) turned it into nothing despite being surrounded by nations whose capabilities to invest in China dwarf anything seen in previous centuries, from not just one nation but half the whole world.

Despite all that, China still barely beat Britain out of their respective Industrial Dark Ages and near third-world poverty.

Of course the colonies didn't have capital. Britain had the capital. The colonies had the cheap labor and commodities for the taking. Britain did not build themselves up from nothing. They built themselves up on slavery, imperialism and the pillaging of their colonies. To say that they brought themselves up by their bootstraps so to speak is an absurd simplification of history.

Of course, but nonetheless the were pillaging and enslaving great big piles of nothing when compared to what China has available to it. The pulled themselves up on their own bootstrings in the sense that they were the only economically powerful nation at the time, they had to operate entirely on domestic capital with modest help from their colonies. For that matter with the Mercantilist policies of the world powers of the time, Britain mostly had to fuel its growth with colonial trade, China was in prime position to not just get investment from all the major world power but to trade with them, and nonetheless performed little better. The only plausible explanation is the state.

China with access to a whole world of capital and a wealth of internal resources and many times more access to technology nonetheless took roughly the same time to reach the same level, that is an atrocious cost to their economic well-being.

[Trotskylvania]

I would still consider it a planned economy. The state does exert a considerable amount of control over private actors in the economy, particularly large foreign investors. Though largely, they tend to form joint partnerships with them.

Heavily reglemented, sure, but even the state-owned enterprises are now subject to market competition. We're nowhere near the planned economy of the USSR or that of Saudi Arabia

I don't think anyone is suggesting that it is.Still, on balance I'd say calling China a planned economy is probably pretty justified. What it is not, however, is a command economy, which the USSR and pre-Deng China were.

[Orwellian Huxly]

I would still consider it a planned economy. The state does exert a considerable amount of control over private actors in the economy, particularly large foreign investors. Though largely, they tend to form joint partnerships with them.

Heavily reglemented, sure, but even the state-owned enterprises are now subject to market competition. We're nowhere near the planned economy of the USSR or that of Saudi Arabia

I don't think a planned economy means that there is absolutely no private commerce at all. It merely means that the government has control over the economy, which the Chinese government does.

[Mongolian Khanate]

Heavily reglemented, sure, but even the state-owned enterprises are now subject to market competition. We're nowhere near the planned economy of the USSR or that of Saudi Arabia

I don't think anyone is suggesting that it is.Still, on balance I'd say calling China a planned economy is probably pretty justified. What it is not, however, is a command economy, which the USSR and pre-Deng China were.

To be honest, in my economics class, command and control and planned economy were seen as synonyms and pretty much all my reads tend to use both terms interchangeably

What is the main difference in your opinion?

[Mongolian Khanate]

Heavily reglemented, sure, but even the state-owned enterprises are now subject to market competition. We're nowhere near the planned economy of the USSR or that of Saudi Arabia

I don't think a planned economy means that there is absolutely no private commerce at all. It merely means that the government has control over the economy, which the Chinese government does.

"Control over the economy"'s too vague a definition. By that, any country would be a planned economy.