Full Debate: Dinesh D’Souza vs. Bill Ayers at Dartmouth (1 Viewer)

Haven't watched it yet, but will later.

If you don’t have too much time I’d recommend skipping the 18 minute speeches and begin where they are responding to each others speeches at around the 42 minute mark. But you’ll be missing out on some great stuff, I assure you, especially D’Souza’s view of the greatness of America.
WATCH FULL DEBATE: Dinesh D’Souza vs. Bill Ayers at Dartmouth » The Right Scoop -

Click to expand...

I can't think of two people Im less interested in hearing from.

zimmer said:

...some great stuff, I assure you, especially D’Souza’s view of the greatness of America.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Which at 37 minutes consists of short-sighted (or deliberately ignorant) patronising of those countries - victims of Western colonialism - whose growth rate and economic clout are now finally rivalling or exceeding others'. As an Indian himself by birth, one might have hoped he'd be a little more informed about the history of the British Empire in his country.

Admittedly Bill Ayers apparently erred in claiming Dickens for America, but D'Souza claims the very secret of 'wealth creation' for America, as if Adam Smith and his antecedants didn't even exist! He recognises the fact of international transfer of wealth, but apparently convinces himself that the US has never stooped to such outmoded means of obtaining wealth.

Ayers' opening speech was perhaps a little too intellectual and verbose, too detail-oriented; but so far D'Souza could've benefitted from a little more attention to historical facts.

More comments may follow as my viewing progresses

I've never listened to a full Bill Ayers lecture, and I hate D'Souza regardless of whether he's talkiing about religion or politics, so I have no intentions of sitting through a 2 hour video here! From my perspective, Bill Ayers is telling people some things they might need to hear, but don't want to acknowledge...such as America turning into a colonial power in the 20th century. That's not what a conservative audience who wants to be fed a pile of bull**** about America's greatness will take in, but it needs to be said and at least Ayers will say it, although there are many other speakers on the left who can deliver the message more clearly and concisely! And D'Souza....this goofball's opening ramblings are just further evidence that he is one more conservative hack who has made a lucrative business out of identifying what his audience wants to hear, and then telling them their right about everything...whether it's God or Country or both! He just knows what conservatives want to hear about themselves, their religion and their national greatness. So, he's a charlatan! And his recent scandals are further proof that he has no real character or sense of ethics:

Dinesh D'Souza indicted for campaign finance fraud

Anti-Barack Obama filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza exits after ‘adultery’ row

Commie said:

And D'Souza....this goofball's opening ramblings are just further evidence that he is one more conservative hack who has made a lucrative business out of identifying what his audience wants to hear, and then telling them their right about everything...whether it's God or Country or both!

Click to expand...

I hesitated over editting this into my previous post, but in fairness does say that the greatest thing America 'taught' to India was to make things which other people want to buy...

Mithrae said:

Which at 37 minutes consists of short-sighted (or deliberately ignorant) patronising of those countries - victims of Western colonialism - whose growth rate and economic clout are now rivalling or exceeding others'.

Admittedly Bill Ayers apparently erred in claiming Dickens for America, but D'Souza claims the very secret of 'wealth creation' for America, as if Adam Smith and his antecedants didn't even exist! He recognises the fact of international transfer of wealth, but apparently convinces himself that the US has never stooped to such outmoded means of obtaining wealth.

Ayers' opening speech was perhaps a little too intellectual and verbose, too detail-oriented; but so far D'Souza could've benefitted from a little more attention to historical facts.

More comments may follow as my viewing progresses

Click to expand...

I don't where D'Souza gets this idea of Ben Franklin being a "wealth creator," but he blew up his "wealth creators" meme when he added Steve Jobs to his capitalism trinity. Jobs was a guy who bought out creative genius and co-founder Steve Wosniak to consolidate his control of the company, and outsourced production of Apple personal devices to sweatshops like Foxxcom in China. Yeah, that's how the "wealth creators" do it! They create wealth for themselves and leave millions living in virtual slavery.

You're right that Ayers is someone too walled in within academia to be the best spokesman on the left. There are many independent journalists like Jeremy Scahill, who could give a first hand account about the harms caused by American military forces working on behalf of corporate interests and corrupt dictators abroad. But Ayers makes one good point early that American exceptionalism and wealth creation first had to be built on the destruction of the native first nations of the Americas...approx. 90% were killed off over a 200 year period. It's a fact that most people don't want address because it interferes with their chest-thumping mythology.

Mithrae said:

I hesitated over editting this into my previous post, but in fairness does say that the greatest thing America 'taught' to India was to make things which other people want to buy...

Click to expand...

I don't see this as a virtue anymore! The looming ecological disaster facing this world today comes in large part from the desires of over 2 billion Indians and Chinese to emulate American capitalism. We have built an economic system based on frivolous production and creating enormous wastes. An estimate...don't know exactly who the original source was...in the documentary on consumerism called The Story Of Stuff says that only 1% of North America's total materials flows actually ends up in products and is still being used within products six months after purchase. We have created an incredibly wasteful system that has only worked because we still had large healthy ecosystems. Ours are starting to break down on us, but China and India have both been shortcircuited on their way to living the American Dream because their populations are just too large, and they don't have the land and water resources to accommodate high consumption and high energy use.

I couldn't care less what either of these two twits has to say. Dinesh D'Souza is a moron, and Bill Ayers isn't even a has-been, he's a never-was.

Kobie said:

I couldn't care less what either of these two twits has to say. Dinesh D'Souza is a moron, and Bill Ayers isn't even a has-been, he's a never-was.

Click to expand...

D'Souza is a moron to you because you're a Lib...

...Bill Ayers is like you except you didn't set off bombs. You're of the same cloth, hold the same beliefs and have the same political "enemies".

Ayers was the man who helped launch Obama's political career. He worked with Obama. He admitted to writing one of his biographies. Ayers... he's a terrorist the left tolerates, he's the fool who was quoted in the NYT on 911 as saying 'I don't regret setting bombs, I feel we didn't do enough."

Ayers is the stereotypical brain dead Leftist, espousing the stereotypical brain dead blather from the Left. And his one time play-pal... Obama... who holds the same dimwitted views is running the country into the ground.

zimmer said:

D'Souza is a moron to you because you're a Lib...

...Bill Ayers is like you except you didn't set off bombs. You're of the same cloth, hold the same beliefs and have the same political "enemies".

Ayers was the man who helped launch Obama's political career. He worked with Obama. He admitted to writing one of his biographies. Ayers... he's a terrorist the left tolerates, he's the fool who was quoted in the NYT on 911 as saying 'I don't regret setting bombs, I feel we didn't do enough."

Ayers is the stereotypical brain dead Leftist, espousing the stereotypical brain dead blather from the Left. And his one time play-pal... Obama... who holds the same dimwitted views is running the country into the ground.

Click to expand...

lol we do?

Watched part of this live, am downloading to listen to in car later.

Dinesh is a great speaker, but he did look a bit disheveled that night. He dared cross great leader, and we know what that means.

Commie said:

I don't see this as a virtue anymore! The looming ecological disaster facing this world today comes in large part from the desires of over 2 billion Indians and Chinese to emulate American capitalism.

Click to expand...

The Chinese and Indians were squatting in ditches starving and still would be if they hadn't decided to emulate American capitalism.

Heres a hint-it wasn't marxism (in any of its forms) that has made those nations competitive.

Please just move to N. Korea.

I hate Krugman but I don't go around calling him a "moron" because he obviously is an intelligent man with a passion for defending his views. I feel the same way about Dinesh(who I like). Even if you don't agree with him he clearly is well spoken and comes up with very articulate, thought out arguments to defend his views. These people implying he is "ignorant" only show their own ignorance by making such foolish comments.

US Conservative said:

The Chinese and Indians were squatting in ditches starving and still would be if they hadn't decided to emulate American capitalism.

Heres a hint-it wasn't marxism (in any of its forms) that has made those nations competitive.

Please just move to N. Korea.

Click to expand...

That is just pure racist bull**** that doesn't deserve a reply. I'll leave it at India's founding...where Mahatma Gandhi advised his countrymen to avoid the lure of trying to imitate the British or other western cultures and instead avoid modernization for the sake of modernization...as Nehru and later Indian rulers applied. He wanted the focus to remain on what was best for village life...encouraging self-sufficiency...growing their own food, making their own clothes etc., and not joining the big drive towards specialization and consumerism that they have become trapped in today. And fwiw, a recent documentary I saw on Mumbai provides a visual of what is toxic and intolerable in capitalism: giant, multi-story high rise condomiums...with swimming pools on the roofs of the buildings...overlooking a city dump where the poorest of the poor sift through garbage and scrap metal surrounded by rotting food and toxic chemicals as they try to find something of value to sell for food. This is India under capitalism today! And a similar story can be said for China...which is choking in smog and filth as a few have risen to opulent wealth while the majority have similarly been forced off the land to work as cheap labour in overcrowded cities.

Commie said:

That is just pure racist bull**** that doesn't deserve a reply. I'll leave it at India's founding...where Mahatma Gandhi advised his countrymen to avoid the lure of trying to imitate the British or other western cultures and instead avoid modernization for the sake of modernization...as Nehru and later Indian rulers applied. He wanted the focus to remain on what was best for village life...encouraging self-sufficiency...growing their own food, making their own clothes etc., and not joining the big drive towards specialization and consumerism that they have become trapped in today. And fwiw, a recent documentary I saw on Mumbai provides a visual of what is toxic and intolerable in capitalism: giant, multi-story high rise condomiums...with swimming pools on the roofs of the buildings...overlooking a city dump where the poorest of the poor sift through garbage and scrap metal surrounded by rotting food and toxic chemicals as they try to find something of value to sell for food. This is India under capitalism today! And a similar story can be said for China...which is choking in smog and filth as a few have risen to opulent wealth while the majority have similarly been forced off the land to work as cheap labour in overcrowded cities.

Click to expand...

Those people in Mumbai are living better lives now, and Gandhi is a racist.

US Conservative said:

The Chinese and Indians were squatting in ditches starving and still would be if they hadn't decided to emulate American capitalism.

Click to expand...

That IS complete BS and also insensitive ...

US Conservative said:

Those people in Mumbai are living better lives now, and Gandhi is a racist.

Click to expand...

... is correct, however.

Commie said:

That is just pure racist bull**** that doesn't deserve a reply. I'll leave it at India's founding...where Mahatma Gandhi advised his countrymen to avoid the lure of trying to imitate the British or other western cultures and instead avoid modernization for the sake of modernization...as Nehru and later Indian rulers applied. He wanted the focus to remain on what was best for village life...encouraging self-sufficiency...growing their own food, making their own clothes etc., and not joining the big drive towards specialization and consumerism that they have become trapped in today. And fwiw, a recent documentary I saw on Mumbai provides a visual of what is toxic and intolerable in capitalism: giant, multi-story high rise condomiums...with swimming pools on the roofs of the buildings...overlooking a city dump where the poorest of the poor sift through garbage and scrap metal surrounded by rotting food and toxic chemicals as they try to find something of value to sell for food. This is India under capitalism today! And a similar story can be said for China...which is choking in smog and filth as a few have risen to opulent wealth while the majority have similarly been forced off the land to work as cheap labour in overcrowded cities.

Click to expand...

Gandhi's village-dominated economics and romanticism of a rural lifestyle both work against India's economic stability (anti-poverty) and progress.

Second point: India is a convoluted bureaucracy where local gov't officials have almost unlimited administrative power, but no checks or balances. It leads to a mountain of corruption in both the public and private spheres of life, which can't be controlled because both India's Congress and judicial system are also screwed up. A market economy doesn't work in such an environment.

China is also awful. It may have had some progress on liberalizing the economy, but you can't have a "free people" when there's no corresponding liberal movement for the Chinese people. The Communist government that has NO respect for human rights and doesn't let anyone in the lower classes have any say or political decision making power. Communism has been terrifying when it comes to respecting Indigenous and minority ethnic groups (i.e. Tibetans) in China; and there's rampant violations of free speech, freedom of the press, freedom from gov't censorship, freedom of movement ("Hukou system"), freedom of religion/philosophy, torture and black jails, and straight up political corruption.

brothern said:

That IS complete BS and also insensitive ...

... is correct, however.


Gandhi's village-dominated economics and romanticism of a rural lifestyle both work against India's economic stability (anti-poverty) and progress.

Second point: India is a convoluted bureaucracy where local gov't officials have almost unlimited administrative power, but no checks or balances. It leads to a mountain of corruption in both the public and private spheres of life, which can't be controlled because both India's Congress and judicial system are also screwed up. A market economy doesn't work in such an environment.

China is also awful. It may have had some progress on liberalizing the economy, but you can't have a "free people" when there's no corresponding liberal movement for the Chinese people. The Communist government that has NO respect for human rights and doesn't let anyone in the lower classes have any say or political decision making power. Communism has been terrifying when it comes to respecting Indigenous and minority ethnic groups (i.e. Tibetans) in China; and there's rampant violations of free speech, freedom of the press, freedom from gov't censorship, freedom of movement ("Hukou system"), freedom of religion/philosophy, torture and black jails, and straight up political corruption.

Click to expand...

Compare the poverty rates, productivity, and number of people dead of famines in both nations, to the modern era.

It was capitalism (even if simply mimiced like in china) that has turned the region around.

zimmer said:

Ayers was the man who helped launch Obama's political career. He worked with Obama. He admitted to writing one of his biographies.

Click to expand...

Or not. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/t...t-but-his-tease-tells-us-a-lot-about-america/

brothern said:

That IS complete BS and also insensitive ...

... is correct, however.


Gandhi's village-dominated economics and romanticism of a rural lifestyle both work against India's economic stability (anti-poverty) and progress.

Click to expand...

Except in the Indian states which have tried to resist westernization of their cultures and economies.

Second point: India is a convoluted bureaucracy where local gov't officials have almost unlimited administrative power, but no checks or balances. It leads to a mountain of corruption in both the public and private spheres of life, which can't be controlled because both India's Congress and judicial system are also screwed up. A market economy doesn't work in such an environment.

Click to expand...

I am no expert on India; but I notice that there is unmistakeable link between the levels of corruption in government and the levels of wealth inequality and privatization of the economies! Take a look at Kerala in the south west of India, in comparison to the rest of India:

Kerala is the state with the lowest positive population growth rate in India (3.44%) and has a density of 819 people per km2. The state has the highest Human Development Index (HDI) (0.790) in the country according to the Human Development Report 2011.[3] It also has the highest literacy rate 95.5, the highest life expectancy (Almost 77 years) and the highest sex ratio (as defined by number of women per 1000 men: 1,084 women per 1000 men) among all Indian states. Kerala has the lowest homicide rate among Indian states, for 2011 it was 1.1 per 100,000.[4] A survey in 2005 by Transparency International ranked it as the least corrupt state in the country. Kerala has witnessed significant emigration of its people, especially to the Gulf states during the Gulf Boom during the 1970s and early 1980s, and its economy depends significantly on remittances from a large Malayali expatriate community. Hinduism is practised by more than half of the population, followed by Islam and Christianity. The culture of the state traces its roots from 3rd century CE. It is a synthesis of Aryan and Dravidian cultures, developed over centuries under influences from other parts of India and abroad.

Click to expand...

Kerala - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One of five Indian states that has elected communist governments, and in spite of the pressures from the federal government and India's class of billionaires - who want Kerala to clearcut and open their territories for resource extraction, Kerala remains mostly socialist and resistant to privatization of its lands and resources. They have their problems; but compare that with the toxic mix of opulent wealth and grinding poverty in cities like Mumbai. This is becoming an increasing problem as the drive to capitalism is destroying forests, wasting topsoil, and extracting water unsustainably...some agriculture experts predict most of India's primary food production zones will be used up by about 2030 because of declining water and topsoil....then what?

China is also awful. It may have had some progress on liberalizing the economy, but you can't have a "free people" when there's no corresponding liberal movement for the Chinese people. The Communist government that has NO respect for human rights and doesn't let anyone in the lower classes have any say or political decision making power. Communism has been terrifying when it comes to respecting Indigenous and minority ethnic groups (i.e. Tibetans) in China; and there's rampant violations of free speech, freedom of the press, freedom from gov't censorship, freedom of movement ("Hukou system"), freedom of religion/philosophy, torture and black jails, and straight up political corruption.

Click to expand...

I don't see any evidence that Capitalist communist China respects human rights any more than the previous Maoist Communist governments! Are the Tibetans any freer now than they were under Mao? I would say no, and they are at greater risk of elimination and assimilation now that China is a capitalist nation that has the same need to devour resources at increasing rates as western capitalist nations. At least under Mao, they only had the ideological interference of Communist Party officials that were sent in to form governments. Now, they have millions of Chinese being moved into their nation and setting up agribusiness and looking for resources in the ground to exploit. The population of Lhasa - the capital is majority Chinese today, so Tibetans are already a minority within their own country.

So, I would say that it has been the "liberalization" of the economy that has been the author of their destruction! Just as it was in the Neoliberal laboratories - Chile and Argentina 40 years ago! Was it any surprise that Pinochet and....whoever the military dictators were in Argentina at the time...kept on purging, killing and disappearing thousands of people while they were providing a "free" economy? This line that capitalism is essential for democracy is ass-backwards! Capitalism at best, has to be restrained by a government that can set rules without interference of powerful wealthy special interests. The greater the disparities in wealth in a capitalist society...the less real democracy exists in that nation! We already have a situation where wealth provides almost complete immunity from prosecution, and provides the means to control government. Elections now are becoming a meaningless pageant for Chris Matthews and the usual clowns in the media to spout off about as if they actually mean anything!

But, back to China....at least under Mao, China was mostly self-sufficient and was not the primary producer of carbon emissions in the world. Today's China is no. 1 user of coal and oil in the world, and it's major cities have become so dirty that people are literally dying from the air pollution. That was something that Chinese cities with thousands riding along on their bicycles in their Mao Jackets didn't have to worry about...at least they could breath the air!

Commie said:

Except in the Indian states which have tried to resist westernization of their cultures and economies.


I am no expert on India; but I notice that there is unmistakeable link between the levels of corruption in government and the levels of wealth inequality and privatization of the economies! Take a look at Kerala in the south west of India, in comparison to the rest of India:

Kerala - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One of five Indian states that has elected communist governments, and in spite of the pressures from the federal government and India's class of billionaires - who want Kerala to clearcut and open their territories for resource extraction, Kerala remains mostly socialist and resistant to privatization of its lands and resources. They have their problems; but compare that with the toxic mix of opulent wealth and grinding poverty in cities like Mumbai. This is becoming an increasing problem as the drive to capitalism is destroying forests, wasting topsoil, and extracting water unsustainably...some agriculture experts predict most of India's primary food production zones will be used up by about 2030 because of declining water and topsoil....then what?


I don't see any evidence that Capitalist communist China respects human rights any more than the previous Maoist Communist governments! Are the Tibetans any freer now than they were under Mao? I would say no, and they are at greater risk of elimination and assimilation now that China is a capitalist nation that has the same need to devour resources at increasing rates as western capitalist nations. At least under Mao, they only had the ideological interference of Communist Party officials that were sent in to form governments. Now, they have millions of Chinese being moved into their nation and setting up agribusiness and looking for resources in the ground to exploit. The population of Lhasa - the capital is majority Chinese today, so Tibetans are already a minority within their own country.

So, I would say that it has been the "liberalization" of the economy that has been the author of their destruction! Just as it was in the Neoliberal laboratories - Chile and Argentina 40 years ago! Was it any surprise that Pinochet and....whoever the military dictators were in Argentina at the time...kept on purging, killing and disappearing thousands of people while they were providing a "free" economy? This line that capitalism is essential for democracy is ass-backwards! Capitalism at best, has to be restrained by a government that can set rules without interference of powerful wealthy special interests. The greater the disparities in wealth in a capitalist society...the less real democracy exists in that nation! We already have a situation where wealth provides almost complete immunity from prosecution, and provides the means to control government. Elections now are becoming a meaningless pageant for Chris Matthews and the usual clowns in the media to spout off about as if they actually mean anything!

But, back to China....at least under Mao, China was mostly self-sufficient and was not the primary producer of carbon emissions in the world. Today's China is no. 1 user of coal and oil in the world, and it's major cities have become so dirty that people are literally dying from the air pollution. That was something that Chinese cities with thousands riding along on their bicycles in their Mao Jackets didn't have to worry about...at least they could breath the air!

Click to expand...

typical socialist BS, given without context and implying that socialism is the anwer. Do some reading, heres a start. Note what happened in the 80's-90's-liberalization AWAY for socialism is what allowed for the economic and educational boom in India.



First-some historical context...
Economic history of India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And then....
Economic liberalisation in India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Something changed, try and guess what.

US Conservative said:

typical socialist BS, given without context and implying that socialism is the anwer. Do some reading, heres a start. Note what happened in the 80's-90's-liberalization AWAY for socialism is what allowed for the economic and educational boom in India.

First-some historical context...
Economic history of India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And then....
Economic liberalisation in India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Something changed, try and guess what.

Click to expand...

Ever heard of the expression: what goes up, must come down? Because that's exactly what happens to capitalist economies that have grown to their limits of resources and infrastructure. In case you haven't read anything new on India, their GDP growth rate has slowed rapidly in the last two years, and will continue to fall as water levels are pumped down (According to a recent World Bank report, most major Indian cities will run dry by 2020 unless policy-makers make significant changes in water resource management) (With the population soaring past one billion and with a driving need to boost agricultural production, Indians are tapping their groundwater faster than nature can replenish it).

The fundamentals of India's economic growth are that it is based on an unsustainable model: using up renewable resources at an increasing rate. And that does not even get to the point that the growth in income...just as elsewhere where Neoliberal economic policies are applied, is leading to greater extremes of wealth and poverty. FWIW, I don't accept GDP numbers as a benchmark for quality of life in the first place...because they're not! They measure the privatization of public lands and public services as economic benefits, even though the privatization impoverishes the majority of people.

I got a glimpse of this fact a couple of years back when these Bangladeshi sweatshop fires were in the news. I had some corporate tool try to give me the flim flam about rising per capita incomes in Bangladesh, and when I did a little outside research, I discovered that large numbers of sweatshop laborers are recent migrants to the cities, who formerly lived on small farms or in small rural villages. When most present day textile mill workers were asked whether their lives are better now than before they moved to the city - they give a resounding NO! Because, as most of them say, they may have been poor before, but at least they could grow their own food and sell or barter any surplus food for basic necessities. Now, they have to take their meagre pay packets and buy overpriced, poor quality food from a local market. Note that before, when they were farmers, the food they provided for themselves and their families did not show up as a value in any of the economic indices! But, after a corrupt government in league with international business started selling the land out from under the locals, to large scale food growers...who may be foreign, the land sales, the new agribusiness, and the peasants forced off their land to work as sweatshop laborers, all show up as measurable economic activity! Now, I suspect the same progression of globalization in the Third World...which forces peasants off their land to cities where they work for low wages, is also a major factor in India's economic growth numbers.

And, once again, the big problem here is that capitalism itself, is an unsustainable economic system that keeps growing and wasting energy and resources on excess production...until it collapses under the weight of higher energy and resource costs. We are already into this stage of collapse on a worldwide level. The global economy is teetering on the brink of collapse, and all it can do is try to reinflate the bubble! Once investors really start to clue in to the fact that returns on investment are never going to match previous returns, they will start pulling their money out and the whole thing will start grinding to a halt like it almost did five years ago.

Commie said:

One of five Indian states that has elected communist governments, and in spite of the pressures from the federal government and India's class of billionaires - who want Kerala to clearcut and open their territories for resource extraction, Kerala remains mostly socialist and resistant to privatization of its lands and resources. They have their problems; but compare that with the toxic mix of opulent wealth and grinding poverty in cities like Mumbai. This is becoming an increasing problem as the drive to capitalism is destroying forests, wasting topsoil, and extracting water unsustainably...some agriculture experts predict most of India's primary food production zones will be used up by about 2030 because of declining water and topsoil....then what?

Click to expand...

Dude, Kerala is able to survive by excelling in training people in english and sending into the golf states to work various jobs. And while the communist party is huge there, the state itself is hardly communist, it's very much capitalist with a heavy focus (for India) on education and workers rights.

Commie said:

Ever heard of the expression: what goes up, must come down?

Click to expand...

So there aren't fluctuations in socialist economies? Its better to stay down always then? Indias economy is down currently BUT SO IS THE REST OF THE WORLDS.

And the irony of calling capitalism unsustainable while socialist economies continue to do worse is delicious.

US Conservative said:

So there aren't fluctuations in socialist economies?

Click to expand...

In our present brave new world of globalization, there is no such thing as a socialist economy.

Its better to stay down always then?

Click to expand...

If you've never heard of the term - Steady State or No Growth economics, you might want to look it up. If zero growth economics is compatible with capitalism, it certainly is not compatible with the kind of capitalist system we are running today...which is structured on the basis of creating new money out of new debt obligations that are payed by future economic growth. Whatever comes along in the inevitable post-capitalist era, it won't necessarily be optimal for our wants and needs, but it will have to be within the natural limits that nature imposes on us, because nature doesn't make deals or negotiate. It's just a matter of the longer we continue living beyond the carrying capacity of our planet's resources, the less there will be for those who come after us, because it will take longer for renewable resources to replenish themselves, and non-renewable resources....well, let's just say that we are already getting close to the time when most of our essential NNR's are becoming too costly in both energy costs and capital costs to maintain extractive industries. Future generations will be returning to a mostly more primitive way of living, when they are forced to go back to relying on the renewable resources of old.

Indias economy is down currently BUT SO IS THE REST OF THE WOR LDS.

Click to expand...

Exactly, and it's going to stay that way for the most part. The age of rapid economic growth is over for all of the world's major powers. China and India are finding out very quick that they do not have the resources or the open land or the pristine environment to enjoy a long run of economic growth and expansion that occurred in the U.S. for 2 centuries. Their economic booms are measured by a few short decades, as they already have to deal with shortages and environmental degradation.

And the irony of calling capitalism unsustainable while socialist economies continue to do worse is delicious.

Click to expand...

Take away fractional reserve banking systems as a first step...like many of the monetarists advise, and maybe you can have sustainable capitalism. But, the advocates for the status quo often point out to libertarians like the Ron Paul fans, that doing away with the Federal Reserve system and going back to the gold standard and full reserve banking, would mean the end of economic growth.

Commie said:

In our present brave new world of globalization, there is no such thing as a socialist economy.


If you've never heard of the term - Steady State or No Growth economics, you might want to look it up. If zero growth economics is compatible with capitalism, it certainly is not compatible with the kind of capitalist system we are running today...which is structured on the basis of creating new money out of new debt obligations that are payed by future economic growth. Whatever comes along in the inevitable post-capitalist era, it won't necessarily be optimal for our wants and needs, but it will have to be within the natural limits that nature imposes on us, because nature doesn't make deals or negotiate. It's just a matter of the longer we continue living beyond the carrying capacity of our planet's resources, the less there will be for those who come after us, because it will take longer for renewable resources to replenish themselves, and non-renewable resources....well, let's just say that we are already getting close to the time when most of our essential NNR's are becoming too costly in both energy costs and capital costs to maintain extractive industries. Future generations will be returning to a mostly more primitive way of living, when they are forced to go back to relying on the renewable resources of old.

Exactly, and it's going to stay that way for the most part. The age of rapid economic growth is over for all of the world's major powers. China and India are finding out very quick that they do not have the resources or the open land or the pristine environment to enjoy a long run of economic growth and expansion that occurred in the U.S. for 2 centuries. Their economic booms are measured by a few short decades, as they already have to deal with shortages and environmental degradation.


Take away fractional reserve banking systems as a first step...like many of the monetarists advise, and maybe you can have sustainable capitalism. But, the advocates for the status quo often point out to libertarians like the Ron Paul fans, that doing away with the Federal Reserve system and going back to the gold standard and full reserve banking, would mean the end of economic growth.

Click to expand...

Globalization is nothing new. I think some of your understanding of what capitalism IS, is lacking-rather it sounds like leftist dogma to me.

The economy (indias, or anyone else's) is not going to stay down, the markets are cyclical, and if corrections are allowed to occur, they will be on the upswing (and outperform as always, your precious socialist states).

Its humorous to me to hear a marxist tell me what capitalism needs to be sustainable.