"Economic murder": Senior UK public health researchers say 120,000 people died under Tory austerity

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the imposition of sanctions.

It did however work when they finally implemented them properly.

That is not what I said at all. I merely pointed out that it’s rather hard to have a working economy when most of the world won’t trade with you.

That’s not an accurate description of what happened at all though. China didn’t want to trade with the west, they pursued a deliberate policy of isolationism after the cultural revolution until the rapprochement at the end of the 60s, after which the US developed significant trade links with them. The Russians were the same at first, up until Khrushchev arrived on the scene, Europe was keen to establish trade ties with them, it was only the US that remained sceptical.

So North Korea has nothing to do with the cold war. So noted.

Only in a broad sense, the US was never directly at war with China or the USSR. The cold war ended and the US is still technically in a state of war with North Korea.

Uh huh. Violent theocratic radicals seemed to be a-ok when they were fighting communists. Oddly enough when they start saying that maybe the West sucks too, they are no longer ok.

They were never ok, they were just useful for a time.

Oddly (and probably more nominally than anything else) Saddam’s Iraq was supposedly socialist.

No, Saddam’s Baath party were not socialist. The original Baathists were somewhat socialist (and also somewhat fascist), though predominantly pan-arab nationalists. Saddam was a pure fascist Iraqi nationalist.

Possibly because I don’t care about distinctions between your version of free trade or WTO tariffs or whatever. The difference I see is countries we like or need which we trade with. And countries we don’t, which we don’t trade with.

They are important distinctions though, so you should care about them. India for example is far more protectionist and socialist in its economic policies than China, both are members of the WTO, neither are subject to sanctions from the US or the west generally (India was for a brief period related to nuclear proliferation). The west happily trades with anyone regardless of whether they’re fully paid up members of the free-market capitalists club, unless they have good reason not to.

1 Like

Maybe you should read the wall of text again then, because they weren’t the only choices I talked about.

I think you should re-read it yourself. If you are presenting any alternatives, they are so well hidden as to be fully obscured.

6 Likes

No, they’re pretty clearly signposted (e.g. protectionism in europe, post-communist reform, protectionism/socialism in India). I’m not sure what kind of alternatives you’re looking for me to talk about, but I don’t think anything related to anarchism or libertarianism is worth talking about, as they’re hopelessly naive unworkable fantasies (given our current state of technological advancement at least, and I’ve been talking about what has happened in the past, and what capitalism has been responsible for, this hasn’t been about what is or isn’t a great idea for the future).

None of those are economic models. You would need to explore some of the more recent capitalist-socialist hybrids, as well as some of the Renaissance city-states, Imperial China, etc. to have a meaningful sample set. Some of the most important breakthroughs of the past 2 millennia occurs during economic models that have almost no resemblance to either capitalism or communism.

6 Likes

They definitely are economic models, what do you think they are?

Which specific hybrids do you mean? If you’re just talking about European social-democracy I’ve already covered that, and don’t consider it particularly distinct from capitalism (it’s closer to capitalism than either protectionism or socialism). If you’re talking about Latin American ‘democratic’ socialism, then I would consider that far closer to socialism (and not much of a hybrid at all really), but also not at all successful in reducing poverty.

Going further back than the 19th century doesn’t work with the current topic - which was whether capitalism was ‘the cause of greatest reduction in poverty and decrease in mortality the world has ever seen’, in case you’ve forgotten the point to all of this - it’s certainly interesting, and there’s lots to be learned, but that’s beside the point. Going back that far and we’re talking about a much slower pace of change, and far less direct improvement in the lives of the people, compared with the radical positive changes brought on by modernity. We’re talking about an exponential shift here, it really isn’t comparable.

Now I want Good queen Bess II to show up in a locally run health clinic near the palace one day, just to get a cold taken care of or get her flu shot… can you imagine the headlines?

1 Like

Agreed :frowning:

Protectionism is a policy, not an economic model. Reform is a transition state, by definition.

And if you write off the very wide spectrum of European/North American/Japanese capitalist-socialism as one monolith, then, yeah, we’re probably done here.

5 Likes

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.