Think of present day China as a winning model – must be a hybrid, no extremes.

You’ve got to be joking.
With all due respect to China. I love China. I do not love the government. Let’s deconstruct China right now. How is the environemnt there? What are regulations on consumer and worker safety? *Then* we can come back and talk about winnning models.

Just sayin’.

boxer @ 166

Close, but you are assuming that societies must choose one or the other completely. Moderation in all things. Free markets beat the USSR because they were not completely free (something that is being undone now unfortunately and will spell our demise). Think of present day China as a winning model – must be a hybrid, no extremes.

You think of that as a compromise only because “free market” has been hijacked to mean “winner takes all, no rules”. Similarly, “socialism” (which means gov’t ownership of factories) has been hijacked to mean gov’t ownership of anything.

Capitalism requires all kinds of things to be provided and fair: courts, infrastructure, laws… IOW, there’s a big role for government. USSR failed because you can’t plan what people will invent, produce, buy. But unless the US gets back to fair courts, fair laws, workable infrastructure, open information, we won’t be far behind. It’s actually the same problem as the USSR – the planning is done by fat cats who haven’t the foggiest notion.

I not sure what you’re saying, but your definitions are wrong. Socialism is much more than government ownership of factories and “free market” in its pure sense means no governmental control.

boxer @ 166

Close, but you are assuming that societies must choose one or the other completely. Moderation in all things. Free markets beat the USSR because they were not completely free (something that is being undone now unfortunately and will spell our demise). Think of present day China as a winning model – must be a hybrid, no extremes.

You think of that as a compromise only because “free market” has been hijacked to mean “winner takes all, no rules”. Similarly, “socialism” (which means gov’t ownership of factories) has been hijacked to mean gov’t ownership of anything.

Capitalism requires all kinds of things to be provided and fair: courts, infrastructure, laws… IOW, there’s a big role for government. USSR failed because you can’t plan what people will invent, produce, buy. But unless the US gets back to fair courts, fair laws, workable infrastructure, open information, we won’t be far behind. It’s actually the same problem as the USSR – the planning is done by fat cats who haven’t the foggiest notion.

I don’t think you understood what I posted.

things come undone @ 146

Mary McCurnin @ 116
Nice analysis.

Thank you!

boxer @ 166

Close, but you are assuming that societies must choose one or the other completely. Moderation in all things. Free markets beat the USSR because they were not completely free (something that is being undone now unfortunately and will spell our demise). Think of present day China as a winning model – must be a hybrid, no extremes.

You think of that as a compromise only because “free market” has been hijacked to mean “winner takes all, no rules”. Similarly, “socialism” (which means gov’t ownership of factories) has been hijacked to mean gov’t ownership of anything.

Capitalism requires all kinds of things to be provided and fair: courts, infrastructure, laws… IOW, there’s a big role for government. USSR failed because you can’t plan what people will invent, produce, buy. But unless the US gets back to fair courts, fair laws, workable infrastructure, open information, we won’t be far behind. It’s actually the same problem as the USSR – the planning is done by fat cats who haven’t the foggiest notion.

Then what is the difference between Corporatism (Facism ) and Commies the people don’t choose under either system. Wealth should be more equaly spread and the people not the government and/or the MainStream Media should choose. I think were getting to a set of principles for a better government.

leftdcin72 @ 109

Too bad y’all aren’t as angry at the Clintons. How many funerals for our fallen soldiers have they attended and they have been behind it all the way and still are because NOTHING HAS CHANGED. Lieberman for all his nuttiness is no more responsible than the Clintons and just because the Clintons have been more slick, does not make them less responsible. Going after Lieberman and not the Clintons is illusory.

That is not to say that anyone should necessarily be faulted for not attending a funeral they are “supposed” to attend. There are many ways to grieve and having attended Vietnam era funerals for friends killed, I can attest to that.

OMG!!! Clinton is now responsible for not going to funerals for soldiers he didn’t send to Iraq? And Hillary? Well, I don’t excuse her her vote, but Bush is the person who illegally invaded a sovereign nation in contravention of national and international law and who continues to perpetrate an illegal occupation on the Iraqi people, faux election or no faux election. The International Law of Occupation is pretty clear on what constitutes a legitimate election and having one conducted under the watchful eyes and guidance of the occupying force is not one of the permitted parameters.

I do not wish to be strident but one Clinton is both Clintons. That is their MO. HRC did not even read the NIE before voting for Iraq. I am not suggesting that Bill Clinton attend any funerals. But this site is suggesting that Lieberman should and I do not see the difference between Lieberman and the Clintons. Lieberman’s and the Clintons’ support for this war matches up. Do not kid yourself.

It’s just that Lieberman likes his contrarian role and he is not running for President.

Too bad y’all aren’t as angry at the Clintons. How many funerals for our fallen soldiers have they attended and they have been behind it all the way and still are because NOTHING HAS CHANGED. Lieberman for all his nuttiness is no more responsible than the Clintons and just because the Clintons have been more slick, does not make them less responsible. Going after Lieberman and not the Clintons is illusory.

That is not to say that anyone should necessarily be faulted for not attending a funeral they are “supposed” to attend. There are many ways to grieve and having attended Vietnam era funerals for friends killed, I can attest to that.

OMG!!! Clinton is now responsible for not going to funerals for soldiers he didn’t send to Iraq? And Hillary? Well, I don’t excuse her her vote, but Bush is the person who illegally invaded a sovereign nation in contravention of national and international law and who continues to perpetrate an illegal occupation on the Iraqi people, faux election or no faux election. The International Law of Occupation is pretty clear on what constitutes a legitimate election and having one conducted under the watchful eyes and guidance of the occupying force is not one of the permitted parameters.