Mexico

[bilby]

The only countries that seem to 'have it together' are those where the glory of God isn't a good enough outcome. Basically a nation, to be successful, needs to be out from under the sway of religion - at least since the advent of mechanisation from the eighteenth century onwards.

In the most part, at least to begin with, this meant protestantism - the idea that a person or congregation need not consider the church hierarchy when deciding what to do with their lives. And that's small 'p' protestantism; the less dependent Islamic congregations in the Middle Ages were far more successful in developing science and culture than their contemporaries in medieval Christendom, or than their successors under today's more proscriptivist Sunni or Shia schools of thought.

Of course, since the middle part of the twentieth century, many of the European Protestant powers have become secular nations, and as a result, even more effective at getting their shit together.

The Catholic powers, and their colonies and exist-colonies remain corrupt shit holes.

Viable engineering is done by people who don't trust in the benevolence of the gods.

 

[untermensche]

Everybody but you calls it capitalism.

But sure.

The word really has no definition. It is a political term, not an economic term.

Oh it has a definition, and that definition is different from that of corporatism with which you always confuse it. You insist it has no definition because I don't let you confuse it with corporatism.

Whining that it is not corporatism, when it clearly is, shows how elusive this mythical creature is.

But again, it is a political term, not a term that refers to something specific in the world, or something that could ever really exist.

What exists are corporations, intermingled with the governments that support them. A symbiosis destroying the planet as quickly as possible.

 

[SimpleDon]

Mexico has been an independent country for over 200 years now. Historically speaking, why can't it ever get itself together? Also, why does it seem it has always had a history of grave and serious corruption?

Mexico is a plutocracy. They have income inequality slightly worse than the US's. They are mired in corruption, where money speaks and the government is for sale to the highest bidder. These are conditions that tend to spiral out of control, that oppress the vast majority of its citizens, that suppress economic growth, and that destabilizes the economy, producing a never ending string of financial crises.

They are the model of how to run an economy, a government and a society for the Republicans in the US.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Oh it has a definition, and that definition is different from that of corporatism with which you always confuse it. You insist it has no definition because I don't let you confuse it with corporatism.

Whining that it is not corporatism, when it clearly is, shows how elusive this mythical creature is.

But again, it is a political term, not a term that refers to something specific in the world, or something that could ever really exist.

What exists are corporations, intermingled with the governments that support them. A symbiosis destroying the planet as quickly as possible.

I'm not saying that what we have now is not corporatism. I'm pointing out that you are laying the crimes of corporatism at the feet of capitalism.

So apparently everyone everywhere is a Scotsman. According to Tom there is nobody and nothing that isn't a Scotsman. And you can't tell the difference in the first place since the one common element between corporatism and capitalism is that they are simultaneously not socialism. Everyone's a Scotsman, which means you are actually secretly a capitalist.

 

[laughing dog]

There is no point arguing what "Capitalism" means with Jason Harvestdancer. Just let him play alone in his "Capitalism" sandbox with his idiosyncratic definitions of "isms" while the adults discuss reality.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Don't get so smug. By their definition you're also a capitalist.

 

[laughing dog]

Don't get so smug. By their definition you're also a capitalist.

I live in a capitalist country and I support our economic system. So, that would make me a capitalist. So what?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Exactly. If capitalism fails, it means that it wasn't real capitalism.

What's actually going on is that there are really three factors, not two. Governments are a mix of capitalist/communist/corrupt.

The communists point to nations that aren't communist and claim the problems are the fault of capitalism when they're far more likely due to the corruption. In the other direction there aren't really examples of communist/non-corrupt nations so we can't really tell how true communism fares.

 

[Horatio Parker]

"Now, the cross is Mexico. Mexico is the walnut. The hazelnut. The acorn. Mexico is the rainbow. The rainbow is wooden. Mexico is wooden."

 

[untermensche]

Whining that it is not corporatism, when it clearly is, shows how elusive this mythical creature is.

But again, it is a political term, not a term that refers to something specific in the world, or something that could ever really exist.

What exists are corporations, intermingled with the governments that support them. A symbiosis destroying the planet as quickly as possible.

I'm not saying that what we have now is not corporatism. I'm pointing out that you are laying the crimes of corporatism at the feet of capitalism.

So apparently everyone everywhere is a Scotsman. According to Tom there is nobody and nothing that isn't a Scotsman. And you can't tell the difference in the first place since the one common element between corporatism and capitalism is that they are simultaneously not socialism. Everyone's a Scotsman, which means you are actually secretly a capitalist.

You can claim that capitalism is not corporatism but you can't point to a real world example where this is the case.

And you have not moved me from the position that "capitalism" is just a political term with no real economic definition.

So-called leaders in the US claim the economy is capitalism, no matter what the system is.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

And you have not moved me from the position that "capitalism" is just a political term with no real economic definition.

There is no way to move you, I agree.

So-called leaders in the US claim the economy is capitalism, no matter what the system is.

They used to claim it was a mixed economy. Then they stopped making that claim. Why do you think they stopped making that claim?

Is it because pretending the US economy was capitalist helped both the corporatists and the socialists? And you fell for it and are playing their game by their rules? And because if you don't have the sins of corporatism to lay at the feet of capitalism, then you don't have any sins to lay at the feet of capitalism?

Nah, it can't be that the world is bigger than your understanding. Just like creationists insist God can't use methods they can't imagine, you insist there is no economics beyond your understanding.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Don't get so smug. By their definition you're also a capitalist.

I live in a capitalist country and I support our economic system. So, that would make me a capitalist. So what?

What an equivocation. Of course that isn't what was meant until you switched meanings just now, and you know that as well as everyone else, but it saves you from having to deal with the substance of my point - by Tom's definition you are a capitalist. By Tom's definition you are a free marketer. By Tom's definition you oppose government intervention in the economy as much as I do. Because there are no false Scotsmen.

 

[Harry Bosch]

There is no way to move you, I agree.

So-called leaders in the US claim the economy is capitalism, no matter what the system is.

They used to claim it was a mixed economy. Then they stopped making that claim. Why do you think they stopped making that claim?

Is it because pretending the US economy was capitalist helped both the corporatists and the socialists? And you fell for it and are playing their game by their rules? And because if you don't have the sins of corporatism to lay at the feet of capitalism, then you don't have any sins to lay at the feet of capitalism?

Nah, it can't be that the world is bigger than your understanding. Just like creationists insist God can't use methods they can't imagine, you insist there is no economics beyond your understanding.

A capitalist system (or mixed capitalism system) is one where a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners who are driven by profit, rather than the state (or the collective). Do you agree with my definition? If so, how can you say that the US isn't a capitalist state?

 

[barbos]

Mexico has been an independent country for over 200 years now. Historically speaking, why can't it ever get itself together? Also, why does it seem it has always had a history of grave and serious corruption?

Mexico is a plutocracy. They have income inequality slightly worse than the US's. They are mired in corruption, where money speaks and the government is for sale to the highest bidder. These are conditions that tend to spiral out of control, that oppress the vast majority of its citizens, that suppress economic growth, and that destabilizes the economy, producing a never ending string of financial crises.

They are the model of how to run an economy, a government and a society for the Republicans in the US.

You are just restating the obvious fact from the OP. Yes, Mexico is a stable plutocracy. The question is why?

 

[laughing dog]

I live in a capitalist country and I support our economic system. So, that would make me a capitalist. So what?

What an equivocation. Of course that isn't what was meant until you switched meanings just now, and you know that as well as everyone else, but it saves you from having to deal with the substance of my point - by Tom's definition you are a capitalist. By Tom's definition you are a free marketer. By Tom's definition you oppose government intervention in the economy as much as I do. Because there are no false Scotsmen.

As usual, you are wrong. Tom was clearly making fun of your habit of using your idiosyncratic definition of capitalism to deny the realities of capitalism (as recognized by almost everyone else on this planet). Of course, you continue on your boring and pointless tirades, but virtually no one but you gives a rats ass.

 

[fromderinside]

 Capitalism and where is the unreasoned attempt to make it  No true Scotsman

 

[untermensche]

There is no way to move you, I agree.

Yeah well fuck you too.

A reasonable argument moves me a great deal.

I don't run into many here.

So-called leaders in the US claim the economy is capitalism, no matter what the system is.

They used to claim it was a mixed economy. Then they stopped making that claim. Why do you think they stopped making that claim?

They have never for one day stopped calling it capitalism. Because capitalism is not an economic term.

You have no arguments I need to consider.

Either define capitalism or not, but your long running game of "no true capitalism" is for the birds.

 

[angelo]

Capitalism for dummies.
An economic system that features private ownership of the means of production (such as factories, offices, and shipping enterprises) and in which market forces determine the way in which goods are produced and the means by which income and profit are distributed is called capitalism.

 

[Deepak]

This thread almost has me convinced that there exist things called proper subsets and Venn diagrams...

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Whining that it is not corporatism, when it clearly is, shows how elusive this mythical creature is.

But again, it is a political term, not a term that refers to something specific in the world, or something that could ever really exist.

What exists are corporations, intermingled with the governments that support them. A symbiosis destroying the planet as quickly as possible.

I'm not saying that what we have now is not corporatism. I'm pointing out that you are laying the crimes of corporatism at the feet of capitalism.

As one should. Not doing so is the same as not laying the crimes of repressive and authoritative communist regimes at the feet of communism simply because communist ideology doesn't include these. They are the natural byproduct of the flaws in that philosophy crashing headfirst into the brick wall of reality when one attempts to implement it on a large scale level, so communism is to blame when these attempts end up at that result, despite there being no intention by those implementing it to have this occur.

It's the same with corporatism. Power getting concentrated in the hands of a few who use their power and influence to rig the system to give them more advantages is a natural byproduct of the flaws of capitalist philosophy crashing headfirst into the brick wall of reality when one attempts to implement it on a large scale level. That makes capitalism to blame for the result, even though capitalist philosophy doesn't directly aim for this result.