0 sats \ 8 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 18 Sep \ parent \ on: Smashing the Western Illusion of Democracy Politics_And_Law
I’m not expecting to change your mind, but I’ve told you what mistake you’re making, why it’s a mistake, and why I believe you’re making it. Disregard all of that if you like. I really don’t care.
You have not refuted any of the facts and issues I have raised.
I have regarded everything you have written and none of it refutes what I have written.
If you can refute anything I have posted here please explain what.
Again I predict you cannot, as I have successfully predicted previously.
When challenged to substantiate your claims you have failed on each and every occasion in this contest of ideas.
You might feign not caring but the truth is any neutral observer can read through the dialogue and see you have not succeeded in refuting anything and that your assertions have been either baseless (ie you do not understand economics- but you cannot demonstrate a single example of this assertion) or have been disproved by my responses.
China is rising- never before has a nation state advanced its power and wealth more swiftly - and this is demonstrably due to the combination of free enterprise markets and determined co-ordinated strategic direction of capital by the CCP Poliburo.
reply
I’m not a historicist, so bombarding me with your interpretations of economic history isn’t going to accomplish anything.
History is too multicausal to draw clear conclusions. That’s why we develop and test theory.
reply
I have not only referred to history, but have pointed to history to support my reasoning - and history does provide that support.
Ignore history at your peril.
I note your ongoing inability to respond to any of my challenges for supporting evidence of your views.
reply
Get any Econ 101 textbook if you want to read about deadweight loss.
If you’re just going to pretend that I didn’t give my reasons, why should I continue talking to you?
reply
What reasons have you given that have not been refuted?
In referring to deadweight loss you confirm you have not understood the argument that any economy must assert its will in competition with other competing economies/nation states and that the ultimate expression of that struggle is war- while all the sub war levels of that assertion rely heavily upon the nation state and its ability to marshall resources to assert its will.
War and its more subtle derivatives which always continue during
peaceful' eras rather sidelines the usual logic of market forces.
How exactly you minimise the wastage due to 'deadweight' loss in this context is closely linked to the quality of government you have.
I have compared the relevant governments- the USAs one where rentseeking corporates own the government vs the Chinese government where it is composed of a politburo over 80% of whom are trained engineers.
reply
Good night
reply
reply
reply