Reply
RTA
Wordsmith
RTA
Posts: 920
Registered: ‎08-19-2008
0 Kudos

Re: The Post-American World - Chapters 1 and 2 - a Digression.

Choiysa wrote: Again, I have not taken issue with you about this, I have been trying to point out that there is a big difference between the American economic system, whatever you call it, and European/Scandinavian ones, whatever you call them, the latter being much more interventionist, perhaps more interventionist than you realise. 

 

I’ve never denied that there aren’t differences between the systems.  You can have no idea what I realize in that regard, because I’ve not specifically spoken about any of the differences between those systems.  That’s not part of the discussion.  The bulk of the discussion, between you and me, has been about your insistence that Europe is not composed of capitalist-based economies.  And you have indeed taken issue with my statement that most the world’s economies are capitalist-based.  You wrote: “I do not agree that there has been a 'general direction toward a capitalist model of some sort since the 1980s'.”  Then you went on to align capitalism with laissez faire ideology (two very different things) and assume that, because we assert that most economic models today are capitalist-based (that is, that capital in most economic models today is privately owned), both Zakaria and I are unaware that all capitalist economies are mixed to one degree or another.  My argument has, for this whole discussion, been only about the common element between most economic models—that common element being that capital is privately owned.  I’ve not discussed, nor intended to discuss the various nuances between all these mixed economies—it’s not pertinent to the book, thus far, or the discussion.  All I’ve been responding to is your resistance to the simple statement that most the world’s economies are moving toward a capitalist model of some sort. 

 

Choiysa wrote: My interactions with Americans in the UK (which are not inconsiderable) my reading and my interactions over four years on these board do not lead me to agree with you on this.

 

I, personally, try not to let my interactions with some individuals reflect on my interactions with other individuals.  You are having a conversation with me.  Unless, of course, your point is you consider me as ignorant as all the other boneheaded Americans you've been so unfortunate to encounter, without reprieve. 

 

Choisya wrote: I do not wish to read Zakaria – I have had American books on economics coming out of my ears for the past 20 years – since “Reaganomics’ and Mrs Thatcher’s adventures with Friedmanomics.

 

I really don’t think the text is limited to a discussion on economics.  Zakaria’s training, after all, is in foreign affairs.  And, as far as I can tell, his position has nothing to do with Reagan’s or Friedman’s.  Our discussion about Zakaria’s statement that the world’s economies are moving toward a capitalist model of some sort is a minor point in the book, used to address a much fuller discussion.
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Post-American World - Chapters 1 and 2 - a Digression.

[ Edited ]

Unless, of course, your point is you consider me as ignorant as all the other boneheaded Americans you've been so unfortunate to encounter, without reprieve. 

 

I would not describe any Americans I have met here or elsewhere as either ignorant or boneheaded.

 

I think we should terminate this discussion as it is not getting anywhere. The bottom line appears to be that we do not understand one another's drift.  Finis.

 

 


RTA wrote:

Choiysa wrote: Again, I have not taken issue with you about this, I have been trying to point out that there is a big difference between the American economic system, whatever you call it, and European/Scandinavian ones, whatever you call them, the latter being much more interventionist, perhaps more interventionist than you realise. 

 

I’ve never denied that there aren’t differences between the systems.  You can have no idea what I realize in that regard, because I’ve not specifically spoken about any of the differences between those systems.  That’s not part of the discussion.  The bulk of the discussion, between you and me, has been about your insistence that Europe is not composed of capitalist-based economies.  And you have indeed taken issue with my statement that most the world’s economies are capitalist-based.  You wrote: “I do not agree that there has been a 'general direction toward a capitalist model of some sort since the 1980s'.”  Then you went on to align capitalism with laissez faire ideology (two very different things) and assume that, because we assert that most economic models today are capitalist-based (that is, that capital in most economic models today is privately owned), both Zakaria and I are unaware that all capitalist economies are mixed to one degree or another.  My argument has, for this whole discussion, been only about the common element between most economic models—that common element being that capital is privately owned.  I’ve not discussed, nor intended to discuss the various nuances between all these mixed economies—it’s not pertinent to the book, thus far, or the discussion.  All I’ve been responding to is your resistance to the simple statement that most the world’s economies are moving toward a capitalist model of some sort. 

 

Choiysa wrote: My interactions with Americans in the UK (which are not inconsiderable) my reading and my interactions over four years on these board do not lead me to agree with you on this.

 

I, personally, try not to let my interactions with some individuals reflect on my interactions with other individuals.  You are having a conversation with me.  Unless, of course, your point is you consider me as ignorant as all the other boneheaded Americans you've been so unfortunate to encounter, without reprieve. 

 

Choisya wrote: I do not wish to read Zakaria – I have had American books on economics coming out of my ears for the past 20 years – since “Reaganomics’ and Mrs Thatcher’s adventures with Friedmanomics.

 

I really don’t think the text is limited to a discussion on economics.  Zakaria’s training, after all, is in foreign affairs.  And, as far as I can tell, his position has nothing to do with Reagan’s or Friedman’s.  Our discussion about Zakaria’s statement that the world’s economies are moving toward a capitalist model of some sort is a minor point in the book, used to address a much fuller discussion.

 

Message Edited by Choisya on 11-14-2008 03:44 AM
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Post-American World - Chapters 1 and 2 - Bush on Capitalism.

[ Edited ]

I see that President Bush has entered into the discussion we have all had here:smileyhappy:.   But whilst defending 'free market capitalism' he appears to also be advocating a greater 'mixed economy'.  The French President's comments that the dollar is no longer 'the only global currrency' are also interesting and it is true that the Euro is playing a bigger part in today's money markets.  Sterling has just slipped to a record low against the Euro but it has dropped against the dollar after Germany announced it was in recession.     

 

Jon:  What do you think Zakaria might say about both these Presidential comments?

 

 

Message Edited by Choisya on 11-14-2008 03:45 AM
Frequent Contributor
Jon_B
Posts: 1,893
Registered: ‎07-15-2008
0 Kudos

Re: The Post-American World - Chapters 1 and 2 - Bush on Capitalism.

[ Edited ]

Choisya wrote:

 

Jon:  What do you think Zakaria might say about both these Presidential comments?



 

I think Zakaria would agree with Bush that the current crisis should not be read broadly as a failure of free market capitalism - and I think he'd also agree that state intervention is not always the right solution, though he clearly thinks it is a good solution in several circumstances - most likely in more circumstances than Bush, since Bush's promotion of government intervention seems oriented more towards crisis resolution while Zakaria thinks mixed economies can work on a more permanent basis, depending on the country.  I don't know if he'd agree entirely with Sarkozy that the dollar is no longer the "global currency" but he'd probably say that's a state we'll reach within a decade.

 

By the way guys, a thread on Chapter 3 has been up for a little while now :smileywink:

 

 

Message Edited by Jon_B on 11-14-2008 06:09 AM
________________________________________

Need some help setting up your My B&N profile? Click here!

Looking for a particular book, but can't remember the title or author? Ask about it here!