Socialism vs capitalism

[nkt]

I was listening to the news discussion last night, and a few of the countries aren't too happy about giving away such a huge income. However, it's a bit strange, since there are several weird things.

 

It seems that there are no conditions on the debt relief, because every time this has been tried before with conditions, there has been almost no debt relief given. Usually the relief was connected to some kind of reform, and so failed to get anywhere.

 

Also, the debt being relieved is multi-lateral only, not any bi-lateral debt. The program failed to explain this term, so I looked online.

 

From http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol5/v5n04debt.html

Multilateral debt is that portion of a country’s external debt burden owed to international financial institutions (IFIs) such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. For most of the world’s most impoverished countries, multilateral debt looms larger than other debts because the IFIs provide low-interest balance-of-payments loans, giving them “preferred creditor” status. This status means that payments to them must be given the highest priority, over private and bilateral (government-to-government) debt. These institutions also maintain that their bylaws prohibit them from granting debt relief or writing off debts, as governmental and private creditors often do. Debtor governments have a special incentive to stay current with their multilateral debts, since IFIs determine the creditworthiness of countries: Until the IMF gives its stamp of approval, which requires adherence to the economic policies it stipulates, impoverished countries generally cannot get credit or capital from other sources. Until a country has signed onto an IMF program, it cannot apply for bilateral debt relief from the “Paris Club” of creditor countries.

 

Rather interesting. Also, " In 1996, sub-Saharan Africa paid $2.5 billion more in debt servicing than it received in new long-term loans and credits."

 

This means that the net flow of money out of Africa was $2.5 billion that year. We could argue that this was a good sign, since they were getting themselves out of debt more effectively, or reducing what they borrowed, or whatever. We could argue that this was a bad sign, because they shouldn't have to pay so much interest, etc.

 

Ignoring all the arguements over what portion of what was interest, whether we were giving money by debt relief, etc. I think it is clear that the "borrow to pay off the loan" cycle that is/was going on was totally stupid. It's like paying your Visa with your Mastercard, then paying your Mastercard off with your Amex, then clearing that with your Visa again... Works for a short while, then you go bust. Or the lenders twig, and stop you.

 

What annoys me the most is that most of this debt should never have been loaned in the first place. Writing off the first loan for $100 million would have been better than letting them get to the $1 billion, etc. as there would have been less tampering, more growth, and a lot less money pumped out of the country.

 

Of course, by pumping it into our countries, we got a lot richer. Capitalism didn't help the poor, as it never does. Now a bit of socialism comes along to help out. Will it improve things at all? I doubt it. After all, countries that can waste/steal/hide away $ billions and normally don't have the interests of those who live there even on the list of things to improve, are hardly going to get very far unless they change their ideas.

 

Now we have written off this money, we should stop lending to Africa. It may sound harsh, but it needs to be done. Otherwise they will just get themselves into the same mess again.

 

Socialism only works with an educated population, almost the same as capitalism.

 

Thoughts?

[Biochemist]

I was listening to the news discussion last night, and a few of the countries aren't too happy about giving away such a huge income.

I doubt it has much to do with the income. It is loss of the asset that is painful, particularly when the income was so small

Also, the debt being relieved is multi-lateral only, not any bi-lateral debt.

That is good news. I had not heard that. Monies that are funded to the IMF are essentiall "lost" anyway. As long as the funding nations don't replenish the IMF, this is not really a cost. The IMF should probably be abandoned anyway. Their track record in "helping" countries is absolutely abysmal.

... " In 1996, sub-Saharan Africa paid $2.5 billion more in debt servicing than it received in new long-term loans and credits."

This is great, that they paid down debt one year.

...Capitalism didn't help the poor, as it never does.

It does in the US.

Socialism only works with an educated population, almost the same as capitalism.

Improved education helps any economic system. More educated populations always outperform the peers (i.e., countries with similar economic systems)

[nkt]

Improved education helps any economic system. More educated populations always outperform the peers (i.e., countries with similar economic systems)

I'm not sure that's true. You only need a few educated people to lead, generally. Better educated consumers in a capital society are harder to please, since they ask nasty questions and demand the best buy. Dumb consumers just quietly consume, not even realising they are being herded, then fleeced.

 

A very intelligent person in a country will almost always outperform a stupid person in the long run, and generally from the start. However, some countries are stupid en mass, and so fail to realise what is happening.

 

Remember, most of the people who ran Africa into the ground were educated at Eton and Harrow, and went to Oxford or Cambridge, they were very smart for themselves, but very, very bad for the country they led.

[bartock]

I'm not sure that's true. You only need a few educated people to lead, generally. Better educated consumers in a capital society are harder to please, since they ask nasty questions and demand the best buy. Dumb consumers just quietly consume, not even realising they are being herded, then fleeced.

 

A very intelligent person in a country will almost always outperform a stupid person in the long run, and generally from the start. However, some countries are stupid en mass, and so fail to realise what is happening.

 

Remember, most of the people who ran Africa into the ground were educated at Eton and Harrow, and went to Oxford or Cambridge, they were very smart for themselves, but very, very bad for the country they led.

looks to me u r describing that this is what a capitalist system would give us i.e.money and power hungry people(less than 1%) would get the best of every thing at the expense of others(masses). Every where in the capitilist system u can see this pattern i.e a hand full of people controling and manipulating the masses.And these few people make policies that enable them to maintain their control .

Is that fair?

[Queso]

nothing is ever fair for everybody.

[bartock]

nothing is ever fair for everybody.

is genocide fair? is cheating fair?

where do we draw the line?

how do we define what is fair?

if every one comes up with their own defination of things then that spells disaster for all?

[Southtown]

Capitalism would work if the governments wouldn't accept bribes from corporations. Capitalist governments should only be funded by people and therefore remain in control of the people. When self-maintained, the government could more easily restrict unethical business practices.

[Biochemist]

I'm not sure that's true. You only need a few educated people to lead, generally. ...

Do you have any counterexamples where two countries with similar economic systems are compared? The one with the highest median education almost always does best.

[Biochemist]

..When self-maintained, the government could more easily restrict unethical business practices.

The government has a hard time defining ethical business practices, much less enforcing them. Non capitalist societies are proably worse at this than capicalistic ones.

 

The government can't even define "income". How in the world can they define "ethics"?

[nkt]

Do you have any counterexamples where two countries with similar economic systems are compared? The one with the highest median education almost always does best.

I think you will find that, for individuals, having a high differential of education, I could easily run rings around the entire town of wherever, thingie. If not one of them has ever heard of a shell game, or game theory, or a 419 scam, or compound interest, or gunpowder, or counter intelligence, or casinos, or hundreds of other things.

 

Unless they decide to get violent, and assuming I don't have a cunning plan for them, I can fleece each of them one at a time with a different system.

 

Now, an entire country with a million people in it, and I can all to easily take just ten pounds from each of them. Once I've done that, I can afford bodyguards, and I can take £100 from them the next year. If I am really clever, I can call it a tax, or a service, or a loan, or an investment, and get away with it. Perhaps forever.

 

If you have other countires with higher education levels, you will, obviously, get some people who will travel, and do just this. It would be harder for them to do it in a place where the general education level was higher, and, indeed, they might not be very wise compared to the majority of those in the country of origin. But it doesn't matter, because they have gone somewhere else.

 

As to whether the individuals at the top understand every nuance, every subtle facet of the the world, well, I doubt it. Time has proven, again and again, that they often choose the path that is most right for them, and damn the consequences. Coups, assassinations, votes, and even just the timing of press releases.

[Biochemist]

I think you will find that, for individuals, having a high differential of education, I could easily run rings around the entire town of wherever..

I expect that you are educated. I did not understand your response. I was talking about the performance of a country where the median of the population is educated. Did I miss your response to that"?

[Biochemist]

...Now, an entire country with a million people in it, and I can all to easily take just ten pounds from each of them. ...

That would make you as good as Bill Gates. How might you accrue this ten million pounds?

[Southtown]

The government has a hard time defining ethical business practices, much less enforcing them. Non capitalist societies are proably worse at this than capicalistic ones.

 

The government can't even define "income". How in the world can they define "ethics"?

... enter the "control of the people." LOL The majority should decide by vote what is ethical, and the government should therefore comply since it is not in the pockets of corporations.

[nkt]

I expect that you are educated. I did not understand your response. I was talking about the performance of a country where the median of the population is educated. Did I miss your response to that"?

I can quote you several European countries where the average level of education is higher than the USA, but the GDP of the USA is higher (per head).

 

The USA has a literacy rate of 97%, and a per capita GDP of $40,100. Norway is 100%, and a per capita GDP of $40,000. The UK, 99% and $29,600 (CIA Factbook)

 

I'm pretty sure that a higher percentage of UK students go on to graduate from University, too, than in the States, though I can't find the figures anywhere.

 

For a more accurate response, you will have to define some way of measuring "intelligence" though. From a pure capitalist view, the USA has the smartest people, since they earn more, but since many Americans can't find America on a globe, invade countires based on faulty logic, eat themselves to vast size then sue because they "didn't know 15,000 calories a day would make me fat", appear on Jerry Springer expecting a nice suprise, shoot themselves by using a live cartridge as a fuse...

[nkt]

That would make you as good as Bill Gates. How might you accrue this ten million pounds?

Much like Bill Gates? Corner a market that doesn't really yet exist.

 

Or like George Soros, by lending money and getting a huge return.

 

Or like the Shah of Iran, who knew oil was worth money, though the people of his country mostly had no idea.

 

Or the Founding Fathers, who bought land that couldn't be owned (by the Indian way of thinking) for a handful of beads.

 

OR the US government, who bought Alaska from the Russians for $10 million.

 

Or I do like people in the ex-Communist block did, and start a pyramid scheme, and pump so much money out of the country inside of two months that there are riots and the economy collapses.

 

Those got a lot more than a mere $10 million!

[Qfwfq]

Wasn't Alaska bought from Canada????

[nkt]

Wasn't Alaska bought from Canada????

Nope. I was, however, wrong about the price - it was $7.2 million.

 

http://www.everythingalaska.com/eta.sfy.html or Google.