Adam Smith's idea was that a society of competitive, profit-seeking, private-property-owning, free individuals can assure the provisioning of society through a self-regulating market mechanism that accumulates capital, productivity and wealth. He was right. In the seven generations since 1820, that idea has multiplied the human population by six times, the incomes of the developing countries by 5.4 times and the incomes of the developed countries by 19 times. Chavez thinks this astonishing success story is a dismal failure. To correct it, he wants to return to monopoly capitalism of the 18th century colonialists. For competition by free individuals, he substitutes monopoly by the state. For the self-regulating market mechanism, he substitutes a dictatorship of prices, wages, exchange rates and corrupt state enterprises. For private property he substitutes state property via expropriation, confiscation, taxation or regulation, and a "right to use" state property but not own it Comments?
2006-06-29 13:42:35 · 3 answers · asked by Armerys 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Chavez is a kook, but the world is shrinking and it will come to a place where their will be limits on individual ownership!
however, if more people were philanthropic like warren buffet than the problems would decrease!
2006-07-06 11:04:53 · answer #1 · answered by happymrzot 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wow, a charming female with a real head on her shoulders. Sorry, i do not see that many. Socialism as in step with Karl Marx is a perfect which will be very confusing, if no longer no longer obtainable to create; given it really is guy's tendency to stay as an ape does ie there is alpha men and then there is anybody else attempting to do their perfect. Chavez is only somebody else in the gadget of issues, and that i'm optimistic Karl does no longer be happy with the music list left in his call...only as i'm optimistic Christ does no longer be at liberty about all those whom killed in his call. finally the conflict is to determine a gadget that's useful and moral. it really is a demanding procedure, given the subjective perspectives of guy, and the very actuality 'means' will continually exist in human kin. So in fact i trust that the perfect gadget limits means, atleast to the point the position it would change into risky...and that i imagine this continues to be a debate on the table. For that matter, i trust it is going to continually evolve, and it really is a legitamate difficulty of the overall welfare of society. in my opinion, I lean-libertarian, as i come around the fellow as inseparable from the unit (or collective) and consequently the defines the starting up of rights. besides the undeniable fact that i does no longer ignore Karl's perspectives, nor widely used emotions in the left hemisphere, as there are a range of occurence and stipulations the position the fellow should not be held above the collective e.g warfare or enviromental concerns. We ought to stride no longer to anticipate the finest of one idealogy, yet look in certain at each and each condition and derive a logical debate to verify what's the perfect technique to bypass ahead. in this type, we go away room for corrections, and info. The technology of politics is something yet to evolve, besides the very undeniable actuality that interior of time i trust it is going to grace this international.
2016-11-15 10:55:33 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with every word. Now, what should we do?
2006-07-06 11:02:00 · answer #3 · answered by more_evil_then_santa 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋