So, the UN finally admits it's Capitalism not welfare that is ending poverty!

[theVOID]

China, at least, may not be the shining beacon you were hoping for.

Are you genuinely ignorant of my political philosophies or do you really think that pointing out how badly government interference butchers the supply/demand signals is going to be some kind of revelation to a free-market capitalist?

No, I'm just trying to point out what a bad example China is when you are patting your pet economic philosophy on it's head. The rest of your examples stand fine on their own as far as I know.

Are you fucking kidding me? My political philosophy is free market capitalism and social individualism, neither of those are present in China! They range from Democratic capitalism with a good degree of economic but little social freedom in regions like Shanghai to a fiercely controlled and state monopolised socialism with little to no private enterprise in the provinces - It's no damn surprise that in the less controlled regions there is a far higher standard of living compared to the provinces - that is why China is a good case study for looking at different economic systems inside the same culture.

And despite their largely phony GDP figures China is still moving up on the GPI and HDI metrics, that means that despite their tainted market and depressed currency the standard of living is objectively rising and rising faster in the regions with more economic freedom! Look at the USA, their GDP is increasing (mostly due to government spending and printing money) while moving down the GPI and HDI metrics! That is why GDP is a bullshit figure for societal health.

You know Void, I gotta take up issue with your definition of socialism.

Kelly-Moore Paints is a paint manufacturing company in the US. It is currently one of the fastest growing heavy hitters of US manufacturing, and is postulated by many to be a model for revitalizing US manufacturing.

It is also the largest employee owned business in the country.

Is that not socialist?

Not my definition buddy, it's how socialism has been understood for the bulk of it's history.

That company might be a damn good example of why average people should invest capital in the private sector (something that I have been advocating for a long time, especially in regards to the currently mandatory state-run retirement savings) but NO, it is not "socialist" because they are not the state! Socialism and Communism are government mandated and enforced, a socialist nation takes ownership either of the profits for redistribution or by mandating the allocation of shares. A business that gives their employees shares or employees who buy into a business are good examples of capitalists! They are allocating capital rather than consuming their wages to see a return in investment - I am 100% behind that model.

Seriously Syn, how did you even for a second conceive of socialism without a state? Socialism is a political ideology, a company owned by employees, either by paying a percent of wages as shares (something that has largely been outlawed by states around the world) or encouraging employees to buy into the business (which gives them incentive to increase productivity) is not a political organisation!

How would we maintain a system of government like this? How do you keep out the elements of "industrial interest"?

By giving the government absolutely no power over the allocation of capital. If the government simply doesn't have the authority to command taxpayer resources that it can allocate to various industries in the form of subsidies, give tax breaks to preferred industries or impose taxes on foreign competitors then the industry has absolutely ZERO incentive to corrupt the politicians. The minuet some political goon manages to sell the public some far-fetched promises under the guise of the common good (all for the purpose of buying votes) then the door becomes wide open for motivated organisations to corrupt the political system to give themselves an advantage over their competition and allow them access to public funds.

Technically yes, but that's not the type of socialism that makes him foam at the mouth.

Oh, so that kelly-moore is a government is it?

Socialism is a POLITICAL ideology. A business owned by employers is no more socialist than a business owned by one person or an organisation run by donations!

Pay the regulators enough that bribes & kickbacks would be an insult?

Find some of those "20% people" that won't steal no matter what & hire them?

Start handing out corporate death penalties for companies that try to engage in regulatory capture.

Or how about; Let the people spend THEIR OWN MONEY and stay the fuck out of other people's business.

Bet the residents of Somalia are really celebrating this news! So good they probably will forget about starving now!
The capitalist miracle is about to save them......not!

Oh for fucks sake, can you go back and LOOK at the data before you start crapping on the keyboard? Nations with a larger private sector more effectively reduce poverty compared to nations with larger wealth redistribution, both foreign and domestic - This is paramount to statistical fact, so much so that the notoriously anti-capitalist UN had to admit they were WRONG.

Perhaps if there was more industry in somalia these people could have real jobs, rather than selling fish scraps from a bucket in the markets - Oh, but don't worry, Somalia are getting $1 a day donations from some fat-fuck westerners who will happily not eat a bag of chips to help out but will bitch and moan as soon as someone wants to open a factory there! And do I really need to remind you that Somalia is one of the single most totalitarian nations on the face of this earth?

You honestly could not have picked a worse example aside from North Korea.