LOL ABC news

[thesapien]

There is a difference (with a distinction' date=' though perhaps not forever) between control and regulation. The government in the US exerts no direct controlling power over the markets beyond adjusting the prime rate. All other effects come secondarily as side effects (intentional and not) of regulation, notwithstanding attempts at direct intervention like bailouts and subsidies.

 

China exerts much more controlling influence directly on the economy and market sectors, including state run corporations that constitute large sections of some markets -- look at their defense and energy industries for large examples.

 

It may feel nice to sit around looking for similarities rather than differences in some attempt at magnanimity, looking for a common ground, or simply to feel somehow superior to those that see vast (sometimes superficial) differences. There are however fundamental differences that are very real.

 

Of course, the system is human, and despite the best intentions of their founders (if they had them), greed always wins -- which is why capitalism always wins. It's no surprise that China has an ever growing set of capitalist characteristics; centrally planned economies are still subject to market forces that may be at odds with the planned direction.

 

China has been moving away from central economic planning for the past 50 years, but they are still mostly planned, and have a long way to go.

[/quote']

 

Ah, yes, keep telling yourself that. We merely regulate while China controls!

 

Move along, people. Nothing to see here.

[Fyrecontroll]

Only if you throw out The Federalist definition of regulation (to make regular). Regulation today == control.

[prideslayer]

Ah' date=' yes, keep telling yourself that. We merely regulate while China controls!

 

Move along, people. Nothing to see here.

[/quote']

 

We both do both. They do more control than regulation. The reverse is true here. Your argument, if you're trying to make one at all, is unclear.

[thesapien]

Of course' date=' in the US women don't have forced abortions 9 months into a pregnancy for having one kid to many.

 

And political prisoners don't have their organs harvested to be sold for transplants......

[/quote']

 

We all have our headline horror stories about how crazy the rest of the world is compared to our beautifully perfect ideal utopia, USA, Heaven On Earth. And they only hate us because we're so beautiful.

 

Why is it that whenever I try to point out that China isn't an enemy state or an evil nation, people think I'm saying they are perfect and feel the need to dig up horror stories? Is that some sort of defense mechanism kicking in?

 

Only if you throw out The Federalist definition of regulation (to make regular). Regulation today == control.

 

Yes' date=' "regulation" was originally meant "to make regular" or just normalize trade rules. Today, it means thuggery, fascist control, and manipulation of all markets.

 

Ah' date=' yes, keep telling yourself that. We merely regulate while China controls!

 

Move along, people. Nothing to see here.

[/quote']

 

We both do both. They do more control than regulation. The reverse is true here. Your argument, if you're trying to make one at all, is unclear.

 

I'm not really making an argument. I'm just pointing out what should be obvious to the unbiased observer, namely; the US and China are about the same under these terms. The only significant difference really is in the perceptions where as Americans are mostly in denial while Chinese openly acknowledge it. We like to think we have more free market capitalism, telling ourselves we are America, the land of the free! But it doesn't make it so.

[prideslayer]

I'm not really making an argument. I'm just pointing out what should be obvious to the unbiased observer' date=' namely; the US and China are about the same under these terms. The only significant difference really is in the perceptions where as Americans are mostly in denial while Chinese openly acknowledge it. We like to think we have more free market capitalism, telling ourselves we are America, the land of the free! But it doesn't make it so.

[/quote']

 

No, but there are many shades of grey between full blown free market capitalism and full blown communist market control. To try and claim that because both countries markets are somewhere in the middle, that they are identical, is a logical fallacy. If you can't see the differences, you need to relax your own anti-"team america" prejudices a bit and take a closer look. That sword cuts both ways, and those who think the country is perfect and can do no wrong are no more deluded than those who think that there is no practical difference between the two.

 

Day by day we slip a little closer to their system and they slip a little closer to ours. The two are not yet identical, in theory or in practice, however.

[thesapien]

I'm not really making an argument. I'm just pointing out what should be obvious to the unbiased observer' date=' namely; the US and China are about the same under these terms. The only significant difference really is in the perceptions where as Americans are mostly in denial while Chinese openly acknowledge it. We like to think we have more free market capitalism, telling ourselves we are America, the land of the free! But it doesn't make it so.

[/quote']

 

No, but there are many shades of grey between full blown free market capitalism and full blown communist market control. To try and claim that because both countries markets are somewhere in the middle, that they are identical, is a logical fallacy. If you can't see the differences, you need to relax your own anti-"team america" prejudices a bit and take a closer look. That sword cuts both ways, and those who think the country is perfect and can do no wrong are no more deluded than those who think that there is no practical difference between the two.

 

Day by day we slip a little closer to their system and they slip a little closer to ours. The two are not yet identical, in theory or in practice, however.

 

Funny, I specifically said I wasn't making an argument, so you created a strawman argument to blow over!

 

What we're really disagreeing on here are the observations or our selection sets of data. Oh, we might have different sentiments, as well, but mine are so inconsistent. Dulp, just changed one again...

 

So what's your measuring stick?

[prideslayer]

I'm not really making an argument. I'm just pointing out what should be obvious to the unbiased observer' date=' namely; the US and China are about the same under these terms. The only significant difference really is in the perceptions where as Americans are mostly in denial while Chinese openly acknowledge it. We like to think we have more free market capitalism, telling ourselves we are America, the land of the free! But it doesn't make it so.

[/quote']

 

No, but there are many shades of grey between full blown free market capitalism and full blown communist market control. To try and claim that because both countries markets are somewhere in the middle, that they are identical, is a logical fallacy. If you can't see the differences, you need to relax your own anti-"team america" prejudices a bit and take a closer look. That sword cuts both ways, and those who think the country is perfect and can do no wrong are no more deluded than those who think that there is no practical difference between the two.

 

Day by day we slip a little closer to their system and they slip a little closer to ours. The two are not yet identical, in theory or in practice, however.

 

Funny, I specifically said I wasn't making an argument, so you created a strawman argument to blow over!

 

It really makes no sense for you to claim to not be making an argument while you're in the middle of making one...

 

If we ignore labels for a moment and just compare apples to apples, say looking at business and economics, the US and China are quite similar. Both have command economies with central planners controlling and regulating central banks and exchanges.

 

And

the US and China are about the same under these terms

 

That is your argument, and you've yet to substantiate it with anything but hyperbole and deflections like "move along.."

 

What we're really disagreeing on here are the observations or our selection sets of data.

 

What I disagree with is your assertion that the two systems are no different from one another. They aren't polar opposites as some like to claim, but there are vast and important difference, especially when it comes to market interference by the state.

[thesapien]

I'm not really making an argument. I'm just pointing out what should be obvious to the unbiased observer' date=' namely; the US and China are about the same under these terms. The only significant difference really is in the perceptions where as Americans are mostly in denial while Chinese openly acknowledge it. We like to think we have more free market capitalism, telling ourselves we are America, the land of the free! But it doesn't make it so.

[/quote']

 

No, but there are many shades of grey between full blown free market capitalism and full blown communist market control. To try and claim that because both countries markets are somewhere in the middle, that they are identical, is a logical fallacy. If you can't see the differences, you need to relax your own anti-"team america" prejudices a bit and take a closer look. That sword cuts both ways, and those who think the country is perfect and can do no wrong are no more deluded than those who think that there is no practical difference between the two.

 

Day by day we slip a little closer to their system and they slip a little closer to ours. The two are not yet identical, in theory or in practice, however.

 

Funny, I specifically said I wasn't making an argument, so you created a strawman argument to blow over!

 

It really makes no sense for you to claim to not be making an argument while you're in the middle of making one...

 

 

Well, if you're going to construct an argument to then attack, at least try to make it as strong as possible before attacking. Why attempt to build a weak version that is too easily dismissed? Where's the gain in that?

 

If we ignore labels for a moment and just compare apples to apples' date=' say looking at business and economics, the US and China are quite similar. Both have command economies with central planners controlling and regulating central banks and exchanges.

[/quote']

 

And

the US and China are about the same under these terms

 

That is your argument, and you've yet to substantiate it with anything but hyperbole and deflections like "move along.."

 

No, that's just your user friendly version. See my version below.

 

What we're really disagreeing on here are the observations or our selection sets of data.

 

What I disagree with is your assertion that the two systems are no different from one another. They aren't polar opposites as some like to claim' date=' but there are vast and important difference, especially when it comes to market interference by the state.

[/quote']

 

See? You're not even trying to understand. You keep trying to turn my claim into an identity. "No difference"? Oh, I see some big differences between the world's largest nation of debt and its creditor nation.

 

 

Seriously? I suppose the forums have been without any good debates lately. Okay. But, first, let's tidy this up.

 

Also, I don't do anything with animals or young children and I don't get caught up in arguments over arguments, like arguing over whether or not every claim is itself an argument or the reverse. Well, at least, not in public.

 

 

Now, to play seriously, my original comment on this was in response to

 

That said I still could see China sending troops over' date=' the ChiComs are itching for a war currently, if you keep up with events.

[/quote']

 

"ChiComs" is a dated and already archaic derogatory term used by English speakers in reference to Chinese. It demonstrates a lack of appreciation for definitions and comes packed with inherently trashed connotations. A person who uses such biased terminology will wrongly smear anything that looks like a "commie" plan in their own country or another. They'll deny any active commie elements within their borders (or as a battle cry to fight it) and advertise blame arrows for problems obviously the result of commies within other borders.

 

There are many misconceptions about China. We've forgotten that China is an old nation that has cycled through all forms of government. We wrongly see things like capitalism and banking as imported Western constructs. Are they beating us at our game? LOL! Are we losing to them at their own commie game? We don't even seem to have a clue as to why China is beating the US when it comes to financial accounting.

 

In turn, we have misconceptions about our own nation, unable to see our own programs as communists, socialists, or anything related to Marxism or Maoism. Thus, we fabricate two distinct interpretations for a bank in one country controlling market rates and for another bank in another country merely regulating rates, even though the banks are behaving in the same way. I would go further to say that Americans are so anti recognition toward market control that they unnecessarily deem it "manipulation" to deny its existence, given that such market manipulation couldn't possibly exist in a free market that is America. All the while, markets are actually quite closely monitored and controlled in the US.

 

But I'm not saying China is less communistic than the US or so much better or identical. Personally, I'm not sure exactly how I'd rate the two countries in this regard. However, I do see many similarities going unnoticed. Thus, the gist of my post is in merely pointing out the hypocrisy when crude Americans use the slang "ChiComs" because it's embarrassing. It also sounds a lot like poor sportsmanship from the losing team that is unable to own up to its own mistakes nor get back into a good game.

 

A little advice: In reconstructing my argument, don't forget to mention "ChiComs" at least twice, once somewhere in the beginning and most certainly in the conclusion, perhaps just a simple ~CC (not ChiComs).

[prideslayer]

"ChiComs" is a dated and already archaic derogatory term used by English speakers in reference to Chinese. It demonstrates a lack of appreciation for definitions and comes packed with inherently trashed connotations. A person who uses such biased terminology will wrongly smear anything that looks like a "commie" plan in their own country or another. They'll deny any active commie elements within their borders (or as a battle cry to fight it) and advertise blame arrows for problems obviously the result of commies within other borders.

 

Maybe. Maybe you're painting "them" (people using that term) with as broad and biased a brush as you're accusing them of painting the Chinese with.

 

There are many misconceptions about China. We've forgotten that China is an old nation that has cycled through all forms of government. We wrongly see things like capitalism and banking as imported Western constructs. Are they beating us at our game? LOL! Are we losing to them at their own commie game? We don't even seem to have a clue as to why China is beating the US when it comes to financial accounting.

 

You're going to have to define 'beating' and also admit to your own hyperbole here' date=' they have not tried "all forms of government." In fact they've only actually tried two forms: Communism (their version of it since 1950) and Dictatorship. The vast majority of their history has been under a dynastic emperor. The PRC, a single party communist "democratic republic" has barely existed for 50 years, and is the only form of national government they've ever had other than a dynastic empire.

 

In turn, we have misconceptions about our own nation, unable to see our own programs as communists, socialists, or anything related to Marxism or Maoism. Thus, we fabricate two distinct interpretations for a bank in one country controlling market rates and for another bank in another country merely regulating rates, even though the banks are behaving in the same way.

 

The interest rates banks set in this country (other than the prime rate) are the direct result of market forces, each bank deciding the rate it wants to charge, the profit it wants to make, and the risk it is willing to assume to attempt to make that profit. This system has next to nothing in common with the Chinese system from 20+ years ago, whereby the government sets the interest rate of the national bank with an eye only to strengthening the national economy.

 

I would go further to say that Americans are so anti recognition toward market control that they unnecessarily deem it "manipulation" to deny its existence, given that such market manipulation couldn't possibly exist in a free market that is America. All the while, markets are actually quite closely monitored and controlled in the US.

 

You will need to begin backing up your claims if you're going to continue to make them. You want me to debate what you're actually saying, which is fair, but when you're not saying anything substantive and instead just throwing around accusations, there isn't anything there to debate other than what I assume you mean.

 

You can start by defining what you mean by market control, and specifically, how the state engages in it.

 

But I'm not saying China is less communistic than the US or so much better or identical. Personally, I'm not sure exactly how I'd rate the two countries in this regard. However, I do see many similarities going unnoticed. Thus, the gist of my post is in merely pointing out the hypocrisy when crude Americans use the slang "ChiComs" because it's embarrassing. It also sounds a lot like poor sportsmanship from the losing team that is unable to own up to its own mistakes nor get back into a good game.

 

Derogatory terms are meant to be insulting. Just because people use them does not mean their position is invalid, though it does weaken their stature. The hypocrisy you claim to be pointing out, you haven't actually pointed out. If there is a difference between the two systems at all, then pointing out those differences is not hypocritical, no matter how many similarities there may also be.

 

A little advice: In reconstructing my argument, don't forget to mention "ChiComs" at least twice, once somewhere in the beginning and most certainly in the conclusion, perhaps just a simple ~CC (not ChiComs).

 

I've never used the word/term. You are only showing your own bias here, while still failing to substantiate any of your claims. If you don't want people "reconstructing" your argument, you need to actually make one, which one does by presenting a position and then backing it up with empirical facts. Throwing out unsubstantiated claims and accusations is what one does when they cannot make a cogent argument.

[thesapien]

"ChiComs" is a dated and already archaic derogatory term used by English speakers in reference to Chinese. It demonstrates a lack of appreciation for definitions and comes packed with inherently trashed connotations. A person who uses such biased terminology will wrongly smear anything that looks like a "commie" plan in their own country or another. They'll deny any active commie elements within their borders (or as a battle cry to fight it) and advertise blame arrows for problems obviously the result of commies within other borders.

 

Maybe. Maybe you're painting "them" (people using that term) with as broad and biased a brush as you're accusing them of painting the Chinese with.

 

Maybe. Maybe this' date=' or maybe that. Maybe I'm just a nigger lover wanting to tap that bitch ho, yo.

 

Yeah, it's hard to be the sole person in a forum offended by "ChiComs" without coming across as the one who is actually perverted or been contaminated or, worse, converted!

 

There are many misconceptions about China. We've forgotten that China is an old nation that has cycled through all forms of government. We wrongly see things like capitalism and banking as imported Western constructs. Are they beating us at our game? LOL! Are we losing to them at their own commie game? We don't even seem to have a clue as to why China is beating the US when it comes to financial accounting.

 

You're going to have to define 'beating' and also admit to your own hyperbole here, they have not tried "all forms of government." In fact they've only actually tried two forms: Communism (their version of it since 1950) and Dictatorship. The vast majority of their history has been under a dynastic emperor. The PRC, a single party communist "democratic republic" has barely existed for 50 years, and is the only form of national government they've ever had other than a dynastic empire.

No, I actually meant that they have cycled through all of forms of government. You're incorrectly just looking at their history of dynasties. That would be like ignoring England's similar history with other forms of government while still having a royal family, like today. There were times when China's emperors were impotent figure heads. Over 2 thousands years ago, during China's Spring and Autumn Period and more so during their Warring States Period, China experienced an age of reason and enlightenment with "100 schools of thought" in their biggest open teaching academies. Distinct states and regions of China competed and experimented a lot during those times on how states were best governed.

 

Define "beating"? I won't redefine it. But maybe you're asking for a clarification of what is being measured. I would go with basic accounting principles, looking at balance sheets and such. Just look at the books of both countries, and the winner is clear.

 

In turn' date=' we have misconceptions about our own nation, unable to see our own programs as communists, socialists, or anything related to Marxism or Maoism. Thus, we fabricate two distinct interpretations for a bank in one country controlling market rates and for another bank in another country merely regulating rates, even though the banks are behaving in the same way.

[/quote']

 

The interest rates banks set in this country (other than the prime rate) are the direct result of market forces, each bank deciding the rate it wants to charge, the profit it wants to make, and the risk it is willing to assume to attempt to make that profit. This system has next to nothing in common with the Chinese system from 20+ years ago, whereby the government sets the interest rate of the national bank with an eye only to strengthening the national economy.

 

The US and China both have very similar banking systems. We both have a central bank divided into branches with similar structuring. The heads are appointed the same, via the Presidents of the countries. The central banks in both countries exercise the same command over their nation's currency via the primary rate. The biggest difference is mostly in what we call these banks and how we describe the power structure.

 

Both countries have secondary banks and so on which set others rates relative to the primary rates as well as relative to other types of rates such as shorter term rates for derivatives using LIBOR, which are international rates and not under the government of either country. And with the recent LIBOR scandal, we can see how these rates are often decided not by markets but by individuals in the power structure.

 

I would go further to say that Americans are so anti recognition toward market control that they unnecessarily deem it "manipulation" to deny its existence' date=' given that such market manipulation couldn't possibly exist in a free market that is America. All the while, markets are actually quite closely monitored and controlled in the US.

[/quote']

 

You will need to begin backing up your claims if you're going to continue to make them. You want me to debate what you're actually saying, which is fair, but when you're not saying anything substantive and instead just throwing around accusations, there isn't anything there to debate other than what I assume you mean.

 

Then why are you debating???

 

I can be as specific as you like. But remember that I'm speaking against a type of slang and general ignorance that was very unspecific originally.

 

You can start by defining what you mean by market control' date=' and specifically, how the state engages in it.

[/quote']

When people look to the President for creating jobs, how is it that the White House has power over job numbers? What buttons can and do they push? What about in real-estate? Stocks?

 

Also, much of the power structure in the US is not formally deemed state power. Thus, many analogs may behave similarly yet be called fascist, for example, and not necessarily exclude non-state entities.

 

I don't think it's clearly a problem of defining "market control". Perhaps, it's more about a gradient and thus a tolerance or threshold for what amount of determination constitutes control? Perhaps not, and instead this is just an academic distraction. Test: I'll call setting a primary interest rate on a nation's currency an example of "market control" in both counties.

 

But I'm not saying China is less communistic than the US or so much better or identical. Personally' date=' I'm not sure exactly how I'd rate the two countries in this regard. However, I do see many similarities going unnoticed. Thus, the gist of my post is in merely pointing out the hypocrisy when crude Americans use the slang "ChiComs" because it's embarrassing. It also sounds a lot like poor sportsmanship from the losing team that is unable to own up to its own mistakes nor get back into a good game.

[/quote']

 

Derogatory terms are meant to be insulting. Just because people use them does not mean their position is invalid, though it does weaken their stature. The hypocrisy you claim to be pointing out, you haven't actually pointed out. If there is a difference between the two systems at all, then pointing out those differences is not hypocritical, no matter how many similarities there may also be.

 

Okay.

 

A little advice: In reconstructing my argument' date=' don't forget to mention "ChiComs" at least twice, once somewhere in the beginning and most certainly in the conclusion, perhaps just a simple ~CC (not ChiComs).

[/quote']

 

I've never used the word/term. You are only showing your own bias here, while still failing to substantiate any of your claims. If you don't want people "reconstructing" your argument, you need to actually make one, which one does by presenting a position and then backing it up with empirical facts. Throwing out unsubstantiated claims and accusations is what one does when they cannot make a cogent argument.

 

Dido.

[xartom]

Internet and certain foreign news sources > major TV network news.

[Kashiwaba Tomoe]

Internet and certain foreign news sources > major TV network news.

 

 

Agreed, the 'mainstream' media tends to be focused on ratings and/or politics, rather than actual news, rather than just being good journalists and being able to smugly laugh at beating the 'sensationalist' news agencies

[thesapien]

Mainstream media has self fabricated this aura of professional journalism where the reporter is seen as wise by when having the personality of a stone. Anyone who speaks passionately about politics or shows disturbing images is labeled the provoker and wacko, and they often are crazy too!

 

But let's not expect too much from journalism. It seems like many people just expect to be spoon fed important and relevant news while sitting passively in front of a news feed.

[prideslayer]

No' date=' I actually meant that they have cycled through all of forms of government. You're incorrectly just looking at their history of dynasties. That would be like ignoring England's similar history with other forms of government while still having a royal family, like today. There were times when China's emperors were impotent figure heads. Over 2 thousands years ago, during China's Spring and Autumn Period and more so during their Warring States Period, China experienced an age of reason and enlightenment with "100 schools of thought" in their biggest open teaching academies. Distinct states and regions of China competed and experimented a lot during those times on how states were best governed.

[/quote']

 

I haven't heard of nor read about any period in their history where they had what we define in modern terms as a democracy, be it a federal system, direct democracy, or anything else. During the Spring and Autumn era, the monarchs were basically figureheads, but the country was still ruled by decree -- just from more local singular authority figures rather than an national dictator. Those rulers were often warlords, family heads (and thus still dynastic), or members of an imperial line (again, dynastic).

 

England today has a democratic government, or at least a democratic house (commons). As far as I can tell, there has never been even a 'halfway' approach like this in China. Ever. The practice of giving common citizens a voice in the government that goes beyond a simple ombudsman with no real power is a very recent one.

 

As an aside, our system is "supposed" to be (designed to be) more like the English system than it actually is. Senators are chosen by the states, not by the people. The fact that all states today choose their senators by popular vote is an implementation that isn't actually constitutionally mandated, and is not how the system was intended to work.

 

Can you provide any historical accounts of multi-party representative democracy (or perhaps proto-democratic) actually being practiced in China, or are you just assuming that it is among the "100"?

 

Simply having democratic in the name isn't enough obviously, as you've already pointed out in the other direction.

 

Define "beating"? I won't redefine it. But maybe you're asking for a clarification of what is being measured. I would go with basic accounting principles' date=' looking at balance sheets and such. Just look at the books of both countries, and the winner is clear.

[/quote']

 

Sure. When your government directly controls large market sectors, or even owns them, it's easy to make your balance sheet look good. Their per-capita GDP on the other hand is abysmal, ranking somewhere around the level of Cuba, as are other economic indicators of quality of life.

 

The US and China both have very similar banking systems. We both have a central bank divided into branches with similar structuring. The heads are appointed the same' date=' via the Presidents of the countries. The central banks in both countries exercise the same command over their nation's currency via the primary rate. The biggest difference is mostly in what we call these banks and how we describe the power structure.

[/quote']

 

The heads of the reserve banks in the US are not appointed by the President, the governors on the board are. The ultimate authority at each bank is still the president/CEO of that bank, the board of directors, and ultimately the shareholders. The governors operate in an oversight role over the banks, and an advisory role to the chairman. The president of each bank is nominated by the board at that bank, though the nomination must be approved by the governors board.

 

Each federal reserve banks board has six of its nine members chosen by the bank itself. The remaining three are chosen by the board of governors.

 

All federal reserve banks are private institutions.

 

When you talk about "describing their power structure" you make it sound, again, as if it is a distinction without a difference. It isn't. There are similarities between the systems in the US and China, but there are also important differences. The federal reserve banks are not governed from the top down by decree, and even the government appointed board members do not govern at the whim of the government that appointed them -- they are not 'commanded' by the president or any government agency or body, and the members cannot be removed from their positions simply because the government disagrees with their actions.

 

Contrast all of this with the Chinese system and you'll see the difference between control and the lack thereof.

 

 

You will need to begin backing up your claims if you're going to continue to make them. You want me to debate what you're actually saying' date=' which is fair, but when you're not saying anything substantive and instead just throwing around accusations, there isn't anything there to debate other than what I assume you mean.

[/quote']

 

Then why are you debating???

 

Because you're making broad, inaccurate claims, and spreading misconceptions. You seem to have an agenda I can't put my finger on that boils down to "We're no better than them, enjoy your brainwashing."

 

When people look to the President for creating jobs' date=' how is it that the White House has power over job numbers? What buttons can and do they push? What about in real-estate? Stocks?

[/quote']

 

Wait. The government is in control because people assume that it is? People looking to the president to create jobs means that he can actually do it?

 

The only control the president has over creating jobs is to adjust tax rates and penalties, initiate government projects to be fulfilled by the private sector, or to create more busy work agencies to hire people. All of these are contingent upon congressional approval except agencies/offices created by EO.

 

Also, much of the power structure in the US is not formally deemed state power. Thus, many analogs may behave similarly yet be called fascist, for example, and not necessarily exclude non-state entities.

 

Now it sounds like you're going down some nutty conspiracy theory road. Of course having government control and then calling it something else doesn't change it's nature, but the reverse is also true -- a power structure that isn't part of the government, isn't part of the government, no matter how tangled a web of influence you can draw up.

 

I don't think it's clearly a problem of defining "market control". Perhaps' date=' it's more about a gradient and thus a tolerance or threshold for what amount of determination constitutes control?

[/quote']

 

Indeed, this sums up my entire point. There is a gradient, and the position of the two governments are at very different points along it, though moving closer together all the time.

 

Perhaps not' date=' and instead this is just an academic distraction. Test: I'll call setting a primary interest rate on a nation's currency an example of "market control" in both counties.

[/quote']

 

Look at how this is actually done in both countries and you will see a large difference. How often is the prime rate adjusted in China in opposition to the governments desires? How often does the government desire it to be adjusted but the central bank goes against that desire? Contrast to what happens here, regularly.

[thesapien]

what the heck? "ChiComs" is a dated and already archaic derogatory term? No it isn't' date=' I could think of at least 5 terms that really are derogatory. ChiComs is a slang or shortening of Chinese Communists for the sake of not having to type Chinese Communists over and over again. Last I've read China was still a communist state, where is the slur in that? Thinned skinned comes to mind. Go ahead and feel superior, I know that is important to you. I am an American and we have been called all kinds of derogatory things for a long time by a lot of the rest of the world and we just keep doing it our way, which we will for a lot longer than you seem to be hoping. Republicanism is here, it isn't going away and it has a way of prevailing over all the "superior" ideologies that have prematurely declared victory.

[/quote']

"ChiComs" is a relic, but obviously not to grunts still using the old wartime slang.

 

"China" is shorter and already works in reference to the government (People's Republic of China) and "Chinese" is the same number of letters and works for referencing the people. If you want to be specific in referencing the Communist Party of China, "ChiComs" doesn't work because it's not that specific.

 

So there's no reason to use it, unless you want to be crass or mean or just sound stupid.

[thesapien]

Hey, I resemble that statement!

[thesapien]

The US and China both have very similar banking systems. We both have a central bank divided into branches with similar structuring. The heads are appointed the same' date=' via the Presidents of the countries...

[/quote']

The heads of the reserve banks in the US are not appointed by the President, the governors on the board are.

 

Fed Chairman is nominated by the President of the US. Ben Bernanke was nominated by Bush and again by Obama.

 

 

Because you're making broad' date=' inaccurate claims, and spreading misconceptions. You seem to have an agenda I can't put my finger on that boils down to "We're no better than them, enjoy your brainwashing."

[/quote']

 

Except for the brainwashing part, well, yes. If "ChiCom" incorrectly makes the speaker out to be better than Chinese, then challenging it challenges the superiority mindset. But "brainwashing" implies intent or those who do the brainwashing. I presume such psychologies are naturally the default, like in sports; how teams and fans of teams polarize and unfairly characterize each other.

 

 

When people look to the President for creating jobs' date=' how is it that the White House has power over job numbers? What buttons can and do they push? What about in real-estate? Stocks?

[/quote']

 

Wait. The government is in control because people assume that it is? People looking to the president to create jobs means that he can actually do it?

 

Funny, my point here was really in emphasizing how Americans do want and ask for "commie" elements within their own system.

 

Also' date=' much of the power structure in the US is not formally deemed state power. Thus, many analogs may behave similarly yet be called fascist, for example, and not necessarily exclude non-state entities.

[/quote']

Now it sounds like you're going down some nutty conspiracy theory road. Of course having government control and then calling it something else doesn't change it's nature, but the reverse is also true -- a power structure that isn't part of the government, isn't part of the government, no matter how tangled a web of influence you can draw up.

 

There's nuttin nutty about including the Federal Reserve Bank of New York within the power structure. It plays a central role, yet has private ownership, thus my term "fascism" and reference to non-state entities.

[prideslayer]

Fed Chairman is nominated by the President of the US. Ben Bernanke was nominated by Bush and again by Obama.

 

Yes' date=' and? He doesn't run any of the banks, not a single one. He's the chairman of the board, the structure of which I explained.

 

Except for the brainwashing part, well, yes. If "ChiCom" incorrectly makes the speaker out to be better than Chinese, then challenging it challenges the superiority mindset. But "brainwashing" implies intent or those who do the brainwashing. I presume such psychologies are naturally the default, like in sports; how teams and fans of teams polarize and unfairly characterize each other.

 

Nations, much like those sports teams, can also be fairly compared. Those comparisons can result in objective measures of superiority in many fields. I don't subscribe to the post-modern touchy-feely "nobody is better or worse, just different" mindset that has infested the western world.

 

 

When people look to the President for creating jobs' date=' how is it that the White House has power over job numbers? What buttons can and do they push? What about in real-estate? Stocks?

[/quote']

 

Wait. The government is in control because people assume that it is? People looking to the president to create jobs means that he can actually do it?

 

Funny, my point here was really in emphasizing how Americans do want and ask for "commie" elements within their own system.

 

Some do. Obviously not those using the term 'ChiComs', so why bring it up in this context?

 

 

Also' date=' much of the power structure in the US is not formally deemed state power. Thus, many analogs may behave similarly yet be called fascist, for example, and not necessarily exclude non-state entities.

[/quote']

Now it sounds like you're going down some nutty conspiracy theory road. Of course having government control and then calling it something else doesn't change it's nature, but the reverse is also true -- a power structure that isn't part of the government, isn't part of the government, no matter how tangled a web of influence you can draw up.

 

There's nuttin nutty about including the Federal Reserve Bank of New York within the power structure. It plays a central role, yet has private ownership, thus my term "fascism" and reference to non-state entities.

 

There's a lot more to fascism than having private corporations play "a central role", whatever you mean by that. Calling the fed fascist is more intellectually dishonest than the most loaded use of the the "ChiCom" portmanteau.

[thesapien]

Nations' date=' much like those sports teams, can also be [i']fairly[/i] compared. Those comparisons can result in objective measures of superiority in many fields. I don't subscribe to the post-modern touchy-feely "nobody is better or worse, just different" mindset that has infested the western world.

Postmodern relativists annoy me, as well. It's like a bunch of wordy French philosophers woke up to see things were relative and were so surprised that they then immediately forgot that "relativity" does not mean all is equal.

 

Also' date=' much of the power structure in the US is not formally deemed state power. Thus, many analogs may behave similarly yet be called fascist, for example, and not necessarily exclude non-state entities.

[/quote']

Now it sounds like you're going down some nutty conspiracy theory road. Of course having government control and then calling it something else doesn't change it's nature, but the reverse is also true -- a power structure that isn't part of the government, isn't part of the government, no matter how tangled a web of influence you can draw up.

There's nuttin nutty about including the Federal Reserve Bank of New York within the power structure. It plays a central role, yet has private ownership, thus my term "fascism" and reference to non-state entities.

There's a lot more to fascism than having private corporations play "a central role", whatever you mean by that. Calling the fed fascist is more intellectually dishonest than the most loaded use of the the "ChiCom" portmanteau.

 

I think I'm using "fascism" correctly. It's not slang, though even its formal usage has negative connotations which seem unavoidable. I wish it was a more neutral term. But, look, fascism in a nutshell is the merging of state and corporate power, and some of the best historical examples we have are right here in the USA, today. What better example than a privately owned "federal" bank issuing the nation's fiat currency? It doesn't get any better. Would you be offended if your country were to be seen as fascist?

[prideslayer]

I think I'm using "fascism" correctly. It's not slang' date=' though even its formal usage has negative connotations which seem unavoidable. I wish it was a more neutral term. But, look, fascism in a nutshell is the merging of state and corporate power,

[/quote']

 

That simply isn't correct. Fascist governments are autocracies, and fascism (as a form of government rather than a slur tossed around by the ignorant) is a system where social, political, economic, and often even racial bias is sanctioned and enforced by the government.

 

Fascism "in a nutshell" is simply a dictatorship, with all that entails in all aspects of the society. The economic facets of fascism are simply a side effect of the autocratic system as a whole, as centrally planned economies are in all dictatorships.

 

and some of the best historical examples we have are right here in the USA, today. What better example than a privately owned "federal" bank issuing the nation's fiat currency? It doesn't get any better.

 

That, again, is not fascism any more than it communism, socialism, imperialism, or any other -ism involving a dictator with absolute power. Despite what Mr. Russo claims, there is nothing fascist about the fed. It has a mountain of problems. Painting it with a politically charged term that doesn't even accurately describe any of the problems it does have only discredits your cause, whatever that is.

 

Again, no better than "ChiComs." Worse in fact. One is a (admittedly offsenive to some) simple portmanteau. The other is completely incorrect, either intentionally so or out of simple ignorance.

 

Would you be offended if your country were to be seen as fascist?

 

"Seen as?" No. I don't care what the ignorant think. If it actually were fascist, I would be too busy trying to get the hell out to be offended.

[Symon]

Fascism is one of those words thrown about that is difficult to describe.

One of the best short descriptions I've come across is "A radical, authoritarian, nationalist, political ideology".

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism but this bears posting:

 

"Fascism advocates a state-controlled and regulated mixed economy; the principal economic goal of fascism is to achieve national autarky to secure national independence, through protectionist and interventionist economic policies. It promotes regulated private enterprise and private property contingent whenever beneficial to the nation and state enterprise and state property whenever necessary to protect its interests. At the same time, fascists are hostile to financial capital, plutocracy, and "the power of money". It supports criminalization of strikes by employees and lockouts by employers because it deems these acts as prejudicial and detrimental to the national community and therefore to society as an entirety."

[prideslayer]

There is more to it, and important things in that paragraph that also deserve to be bolded, like the opposition to capital itself, competition, and the fact that all economic sectors under a fascist government are required to operate wholly within the "national interest."

 

There is no functional difference between a socialist economy (or any centrally planned economy) and a fascist one. It doesn't matter if it's the government, "the people", or private individuals that nominally "own" the business, if all the business decisions are made by the government.

 

EconLib: fascism

[DoctaSax]

There is no functional difference between a socialist economy (or any centrally planned economy) and a fascist one. It doesn't matter if it's the government' date=' "the people", or private individuals that nominally "own" the business, if all the business decisions are made by the government.

[/quote']

 

True enough: not fascist, economically speaking. Instead of business decisions being made by government, our government decisions are made by businesses.

[prideslayer]

There is no functional difference between a socialist economy (or any centrally planned economy) and a fascist one. It doesn't matter if it's the government' date=' "the people", or private individuals that nominally "own" the business, if all the business decisions are made by the government.

[/quote']

 

True enough: not fascist, economically speaking. Instead of business decisions being made by government, our government decisions are made by businesses.

 

True enough. We're a lot closer to some kind of corporate oligarchy than to any of these -isms. Just as disturbing for different reasons.. heh.

 

The sad part about that is that it isn't designed into the system, it's just due to human failing. If politicians are going to do take bribes, then people and corporations are going to keep offering them. Note I'm talking about 'real' bribes here, not the donation numbers whichever side is losing gets up in arms about. You can't *actually* buy an election with advertising, but you can certainly buy whatever corrupt jackass wins.

[mojodajojo]

Though I lean more toward socialism. (Socialism not communism.) It really makes little difference.

 

Big business is a total disaster if given too much freedom. Health care (or lack thereof) in the U.S. is a good example of this. However, governments are no better. Any government that hasn't been recently overthrown doesn't care anything about anything except lining the pockets of those that are cogs in it's machinery. And often in underdeveloped cesspits, being recently overthrown doesn't help due to a total lack of infrastructure.

 

People are assholes. If we were all governed by roving bands of dolphin rapists, things would probably improve vastly.