It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Stern makes it abundantly clear that in his view, the capitalist economic model that fostered American prosperity over the last two centuries is now obsolete. The "free-market fundamentalist, shareholder-only model," as he calls it, "is being thrown onto the trash heap of history." What has replaced it is the centrally planned economy, with its 5-year plans and state allocation of resources, as practiced in China and other communist states. In particular, Stern lauds the achievements of Chinese communist hard-liner Bo Xilai, mayor of Chongqing and popular spokesman for a resurgent Chinese nationalism. According to Stern, who recently toured China (sponsored by the left-leaning Center for American Progress), Chongqing is a city on the move with "1.5 million square feet" going up daily and "700,000 new units of public housing annually."
link
Stern seems to have swallowed the Chinese communist hype hook, line, and sinker. Not since Edgar Snow's The Long Revolution has there appeared such an unabashedly fawning report on the Red Star rising in the East. Not content to laud the achievements of the state-run economy, Stern seems to go out of his way to diminish the recent accomplishments of American capitalism. He sneeringly refers to "Team USA's results" of high unemployment, stagnant wage growth, trade deficits, and income inequality. All of this, he believes, is the consequence of America's inability to emulate China and other state-planned economies.
Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
Just to point out the American Thinker article is attributing comments made by Andy GROVE to Andy STERN. Stern wrote the op-ed piece in the WSJ that was based much on comments given by Andy Grove. I don't like articles or authors who either purposely or ignorantly munges opinions and comments from multiple sources into one bogeyman that they can conveniently attack.
ETA:
No where does Stern - or Grove, et. al., advocate COMMUNISM.
NO WHERE IN THAT ARTICLE IS THAT STATED.
They are correct however in pointing out just how BROKEN our form of economy is - and especially correct in pointing out that China's economy has turned into a Juggernaut. They are pointing out the things that makes China's economy work.edit on 2-12-2011 by Blackmarketeer because: (no reason given)
Poverty in China is often overshadowed by average annual GDP growth rates of 9% or more. According to the World Bank and UN statistics, approximately 200 million Chinese people live on less than US$1.25/day; Furthermore, 482 million people live on less than US$2/day – a figure that is greater than the populations of the US, Germany and the UK combined.
linkedit on 2-12-2011 by seabag because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by User8911
While communism is far from perfect, we can't really say that capitalism is.
How can capitalism not eventually become a corporation dominated world unless it is controlled...then is it really capitalism?
What's the next "ism" we haven't really tried it yet?edit on 2-12-2011 by User8911 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by User8911
Capitalism works great when it’s properly run. Capitalism is controlled by our government (in theory) through laws, regulations and oversight. When that safety net fails we end up with what we have now….crony capitalism (or corporatism) which is very similar to communism. The government shouldn't have a strong interest on the success of any business...it should be impartial and apply the laws, regulations and oversight equitably.
The government is responsible for the mess we’re in because they allowed this to happen for their own personal gain.
It doesn’t seem logical to think that the only way we can fix the problems created by our government is by MORE GOVERNMENT? We need to separate the power of government from the influence of corporations, not give the government even more power through communist rule!
Capitalism is the furthering of your ego. Get as most resources that you can on either your own work or on the investment you have made. By investing money you can get rent and make money from other peoples work and the better you do your job the higher the price you sell and the lower you pay for the workers. The idee is to get as much for your self and leave everybody else with the bill.
The best markets are monopolies where you can make a fortune. And if you have enought money normal laws don't apply anymore and you can buy laws and power. What you see is not the goverments failure to stand up to corporations. It is the companies success to use their money to change the goverment thru coruption.
If you make laws that companies can only be this big or have to follow law then it is no longer capitalism. It's a form of planned economy or limited capitalism. The pyramid is still there and as long as it is uphold, the corruption will continue in one form or another.
Communism only benefits the few (very few - elites). Look at every communist country in history and you will see the following:
• the disparity between the haves and have not’s is greater,
• the ability to rise to the top is diminished,
• the amount of people living in poverty is greater,
• the amount of people in the “middle class” is far smaller,
• the central government makes all the corporate profits,
• the people own nothing and government owns everything, and
• there is no freedom…people have no recourse to change things!
Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by seabag
Communism only benefits the few (very few - elites). Look at every communist country in history and you will see the following:
• the disparity between the haves and have not’s is greater,
• the ability to rise to the top is diminished,
• the amount of people living in poverty is greater,
• the amount of people in the “middle class” is far smaller,
• the central government makes all the corporate profits,
• the people own nothing and government owns everything, and
• there is no freedom…people have no recourse to change things!
Hmmm.
Sounds familiar.
A little like the "corporatism" we are seeing in many countries.
substitute the word "corporations" in place of "government" above, and we get close.
Originally posted by seabag
Communism only benefits the few (very few - elites). Look at every communist country in history...
Communism is a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of a classless, moneyless, revolutionary and stateless socialist society structured upon common ownership of the means of production.
Yes but this isn't what communism is suppose to be on paper
Classless...this is what communism is on paper.
I know it sounds crazy for people that firmly believe in capitalism, but the honor of working together towards a common goal can actually be more rewarding then personal wealth...say like, curing people, going in space, understanding the universe...
The United States has not been a Free Market Economy for well over a century. Once the first law was placed on the books that limited business in any way it became an economy mixed between a market economy and a planned economy (of which a communist economy is a subset).
A transition from a mixed to a fully planned economy would not be unconstitutional in any way nor would it require the Constitution to be "thrown out", as you so irrationally stated in your OP. However it would be a better idea to keep it a mixed economy but move the slider more towards the "planned" portion of the mix.
Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by SG-17
The United States has not been a Free Market Economy for well over a century. Once the first law was placed on the books that limited business in any way it became an economy mixed between a market economy and a planned economy (of which a communist economy is a subset).
Well you like to play semantics and act smart but the US remains a free market. I can open a business tomorrow in any industry and compete globally. Seems free to me! Try that in China.
A transition from a mixed to a fully planned economy would not be unconstitutional in any way nor would it require the Constitution to be "thrown out", as you so irrationally stated in your OP. However it would be a better idea to keep it a mixed economy but move the slider more towards the "planned" portion of the mix.
There is nothing irrational about what I've stated. The government is like a slow creeping cancer and has no place meddling in the economy. The Federal Reserve act needs to be repealed and the government should have no financial ties to business. "Planned" economy means more government meddling...we don't need that.
Thankfully you aren't in charge of anything.
Originally posted by seabag
Classless? Well that's being dishonest, isn't it?
Originally posted by SG-17
Right, the government has no place in the economy. So lets gather up some children and make them work in dangerous situations for a half-cent a day. Better yet, lets be cheap and use lead-based paint, oh and lets not bother sanitizing our food processing equipment, people will have to buy it anyway since we bought out all of the competition!
Actually you did just that.
Originally posted by seabag
Originally posted by SG-17
Right, the government has no place in the economy. So lets gather up some children and make them work in dangerous situations for a half-cent a day. Better yet, lets be cheap and use lead-based paint, oh and lets not bother sanitizing our food processing equipment, people will have to buy it anyway since we bought out all of the competition!
Nobody is advocating that government not regulate businesses. If that’s what you think conservatives want when I said “the government should have no financial ties to business” then no wonder you dislike conservatives!
The government is like a slow creeping cancer and has no place meddling in the economy.