3 ms·
//In a country where the GDP per capita is around $1300? You can play up the "market will solve all ills" all you like..........governments have a larger and mo
by padmanabhan01 15y ago
//In a country where the GDP per capita is around $1300? You can play up the "market will solve all ills" all you like..........governments have a larger and more important mission than ....
GDP per capita is around $1300 precisely because the governmnet always felt it had a LARGER and MORE important mission than (simply doing their job with no corruption). And these larger and more important missions almost always end up channeling tax payer's money into politicians via some crazy project like this
- dimmuborgir 15y agoYou're mixing up two different issues, corruption and socialist tendencies. While corruption in socialism is bad, corruption in capitalism is just as bad. Even the most developed capitalist countries have failed to remove corruption. (hence the 2008 subprime crisis) To India's credit, its socialist tendencies kept the country unaffected from 2008 subprime crisis.
- anamax 15y ago> To India's credit, its socialist tendencies kept the country unaffected from 2008 subprime crisis. No boom, no bust.... > While corruption in socialism is bad, corruption in capitalism is just as bad. Even the most developed capitalist countries have failed to remove corruption. (hence the 2008 subprime crisis) The 2008 "subprime crisis" wasn't capitalist corruption, it was govt corruption. The US govt decided to subsidize home ownership via various means, which created a property bubble. Bubbles eventually pop, and the govt then decided to "socialize" the losses and try to restore the bubble. The Irish govt went one step further - it decided to guarantee all bank losses. That's not capitalism.
- ramchip 15y agoThat looks a lot like an instance of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
- drzaiusapelord 15y agoOr as I like to call these posts YALK, yet another libertarian kiddie.
- doyoulikeworms 15y agoAt first glance, you're right. The problem is, though, that the word "capitalism" has different meanings for different people, and has also undergone a general shifting of the meaning of the word. This is not unlike the word "liberal" (as in politically liberal), which has changed in a similar fashion. This snippet from the Wikipedia entry for capitalism synthesizes it pretty well: "Classical liberals such as Mises, Rand, and Rothbard define capitalism as a market system with no interference by States (laissez faire). Some define capitalism as a system governed by capital accumulation regardless of the legal ownership titles." anamax is referring to what could be referred to "classical capitalism," while you, ramchip, seem to be referring to "state capitalism".
- dimmuborgir 15y ago"No boom, no bust..." I meant to say India was unaffected from 'global recession'. Obviously there was no housing bubble in India. "...it was govt corruption." You mean in a crony-capitalism govt alone is guilty? How?
- crag 15y agoNo GDP per capita is around $1300 cause there are over 1.2 billion people. There are just too many people living on the land. It's grossly unsustainable. Things are bad enough for the vast majority. If left to the "market" 3/4 of the population would be starving. By the way, there is no such thing as government without corruption. There is always corruption. Always.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]