Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : ahhaha's ahs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rich evans who wrote (7942)	4/7/2006 10:59:14 PM
From: ahhaha	Respond to of 24758

Central/South America is a great illustration where poor arbitrary property law has hindered capitalism and wealth creation. I think this claim is false. Can you give an example of what you mean? Plantations? They're part of property law. I think Ahhaha's analysis is too puristic. Too puristic(sic)? I provided no analysis. I made a trivially true claim: China is more capitalist. Policies of pure capitalism create political problems. This bad view comes from your John Dewey post Vietnam War educational indoctrination all of which is based on the assumption that capitalism brings about monopoly and robber barons. You have never made the effort to question this indoctrination. If you did, you'd find you were brainwashed. A post on another thread showed that at least 33% of population adhere to socialist ideas. I'd put it at 90%. You can't help but believe that a big government with lots of money does good. This kind of thinking comes from extrapolating circumstances of individuals to those presumably applicable to populations. So there will always be a tug of war between wealth creation economics and wealth distribution. Just how does this socialist concept follow from the claim that 33% of people are socialist? Do you see what I mean about extrapolation? It reminds me of the tax debate of the early '80s. Various 'crats claimed it was a bad idea because it couldn't pass Congress. We have to figure out how to keep the wealth creation policies in the forefront and this is difficult as even Republicans are easily seduced to win elections. More closet socialism. You've already lost Maine to Al Qaida. What will you concede next? Specifically, if you want wealth creation, you can't put social constraints on it, because doing so undermines wealth creation. On the other hand electing wealth creation without constraint brings about more social good than any plan to artificially provide social good. They never told you about eleemosynary acts, from where they proceed, nor about their scale and efficacy.