On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 14:55:55 +0300,
holman@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Eugene Holman) wrote:
> But capitalism exists as a theory as well as in
> various implementations, none of which fully conforms
> to the ideal. The present Russian implementation,
> quite similar to the American implementation of a
> century or so ago
The American system of a century or so ago had a small
non interventionist government, and most land and
natural resources were private. The present russian
system has a large massively interventionist government,
and most land and natural resources are governmental.
Russia is a system that has moved only a short distance
from socialism. Estonia, on the other hand, has moved a
large distance from socialism.
> certainly falls within the definition of capitalism as
> a type of economic system based primarily on private
> owner****p of capital
Some countries are more capitalist than others. Russia
is less capitalist than most of Europe, less capitalist
than most of the countries of the Soviet Empire. Hong
Kong and Estonia, on the other hand, are highly
capitalist.
"Economic Freedom of the World"
<http://www.freetheworld.com/>
has a ranking system that
tries to measure how capitalist a country is. It ranks
Russia fairly low - 112 out of 144, while America is
ranked fifth out 144.
> > Capitalism is an economic system based on private
> > owner****p of capital, where economic decisions are
> > the outcome a relatively free market in goods and
> > labor.
>
> > <http://www.websters-online-dictionary.com/definitio
> > n/capitalism> gives a good account of what
> > capitalism is.
>
> Contem****ary Russia arguably conforms better to this
> definition than the contem****ary United States.
"Economic Freedom of the World" disagrees.
> The Russian economy is currently based on private
> owner****p of the means of production,
How private is private owner****p is depends on your
prospects of being arrested, having your stuff taken
away from you, and needing to flee the country to evade
unjust prosecution.
> Despite the presence of the state in certain key
> sectors, there is far less state regulation of the
> economy in Russia than in more developed western
> economies, for which reason environmental and worker
> welfare issues constrain the Russian economy less than
> they do in more developed ones.
Regulation usually has objectives incompatible with
environmental and welfare goals, thus a countries
success in meeting environmental and welfare goals is a
poor indicator of the level of regulation. Hong Kong has
very little regulation, and an excellent environment.
Russia is listed by "Economic Freedom of the World" as
having high levels of regulation in the sense of
"Administrative Requirements" and "Bureaucracy Costs",
which agrees with anecdotes I have heard about Russia.
> Additionally, in Russia it is frequently possible to
> bypass existing regulatory legislation with an
> appropriate bribe.
This, however, gives administrators an incentive to make
sure that regulatory legislation is impossible to comply
with legally, which again agrees with anecdotes I have
heard about Russia.
Your argument is circular: You assume that anti
capitalist government actions are intended to achieve
good things, and succeed in achieving good things.
Since we don't see those good things in Russia, you
conclude Russia must be highly capitalist - but we saw
even less of those good things, even greater pollution,
even less welfare, when the place was socialist.
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/
James A. Donald
|
