Re: Development Race: China and India

On May 13, 10:49 pm, Raymond <ni...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 May 2008 18:17:24 -0700 (PDT), RichAsianKid
>
> <richasian...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >On May 13, 8:57 am, Raymond <ni...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 12 May 2008 16:54:46 -0700 (PDT),RichAsianKid
>
> >> <richasian...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> >On May 12, 12:37 pm, Raymond <ni...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 10 May 2008 17:15:18 -0700 (PDT),RichAsianKid
>
> >> >> <richasian...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> >> >> Your point regarding economic development is very well put, but
there
> >> >> >> is no need to look down on the people. Those phone operators
are no
> >> >> >> less undignified than those Chinese factory workers who must
endure
> >> >> >> the backbreaking hard labor to earn probably even less than $6
a day.
> >> >> >> Both are victims western capitalism, and both should be changed
for
> >> >> >> the better.
>
> >> >> >If capitalism is so evil, why is it the mainland Chinese are now
so
> >> >> >deeply in love with it? Are the Chinese evil?
>
> >> >> >Never forget that wealth has a thousand fathers, but poverty is
an
> >> >> >orphan.
>
> >> >> There is nothing evil about creating wealth, but capitalism is
evil
> >> >> because capitalism is not based on creating wealth but based on
> >> >> exploiting the poor and disadvantaged. It is a serious mistake to
> >> >> think that capitalism creates wealth. Capitalism is only a tool to
> >> >> ac***ulate wealth by robbing the poor. The reason people would
mistake
> >> >> capitalism as the quick way to create wealth is only because
wealth is
> >> >> always harder to create than to steal.
>
> >> >> The reason capitalism is running rampant in China is only because
> >> >> Chinese people are more creative in creating wealth once they are
free
> >> >> to engage in economical development. Still, capitalism is the
beast
> >> >> that must be tamed and controlled if Chinese people want to keep
their
> >> >> newly created wealth for themselves.
>
> >> >You wrote in your very first sentence: "There is nothing evil about
> >> >creating wealth".
>
> >> >But is there anything evil about creating inequality?
>
> >> There is nothing wrong with inequality in regards with personal
> >> wealth. Inequality is not about wealth. It's about the unequal
> >> possession of natural resources and the intrusion of other people's
> >> living spaces. You are not wrong by being rich, but when you use your
> >> wealth to take advantage of other people, you are wrong and you are
> >> called a capitalist.
>
> >Why is equality this holy grail, this "summum bonum", this chief good
> >anyway?
>
> Because it's the only way to have peace and justice on earth.

Why don't you read the entire paragraph before your reply? i.e. hint:
there's no such thing as peace or justice. You may as well march on
the street crying out 'no justice, no peace' like some negro on
America streets. I know you swallowed all those 1960s slogans without
even digesting it and RichAsianKID was there too but snapped out of
it. You're still some junior judging from how you defended China.  ;)

>
>  Equality can only be achieved thru mediocrity and this very
>
> >idea of equality of somehow every last single soul (as in democracy,
> >for instance) where every last person whether he's smart or stupid or
> >rich or poor is somehow of "equal" "worth" -- no, that's the
> >"socialist" equivalent from a political arena perspective. Should dumb
> >or borderline retarded people have equal say as someone with 130 IQ?
> >If that's not ideology, then what is? Moreover, power can only be
> >exercised through differential, else what utility would economic power
> >ever be? What good is $1 million if all your neighbors have $2M?
> >You're already so naive and so utopian. As I quoted the fable: genie
> >grants farmer a wish: you can have anything you want but the catch is
> >everything you wish for your neighbor gets double. Farmer pensively
> >thought for a sec before he wishes half his crops destroyed.
>
> Equality is not about having the exact same kind of power for
> everybody. Equality is about recognizing the fact that everyone is
> entitled to enjoy life the way they prefer without causing harm to
> others or being harmed by others. You are free to have all the money
> and power of the entire world if you guarantee with your own life that
> you will never use such wealth and power to harm anyone.  That is the
> true meaning of equality. Money can buy you anything you ask for
> except somebody else's suffering. That's why the farmer in your fable
> is a criminal who deserves to be hanged.
>
>

A rich guy needs a kidney transplant. He arranges a mutually agreeable
and *voluntary* agreement between donor and recipient. Then some human
rights advocate jumps in crying out no no no, you're taking advantage
of those little poor people, we the third party will NOT and will
NEVER permit this!!  What do you think Raymond?


>
> >No, rank and percentile are way more im****tant in the grand scheme of
> >things, be it SAT scores or socioeconomics.
>
> >>  Even if the
>
> >> >worst off is better off? And isn't that the unspoken dimension of
all
> >> >those who rail against the free market (which, btw, is very
different
> >> >from all this muttering and stuttering of  'democracy' as you'll no
> >> >doubt note [think democracy is a form of political socialism, that
is
> >> >the familiar 1960s slogan power for the people, power for the weak,
> >> >yeah!!], but I guess that's a detail)?
>
> >> >Besides you then said capitalism is a tool to ac***ulate wealth by
> >> >robbing the poor. Well, isn't socialism worse, i.e. isn't socialism
> >> >merely a tool or disguise for the government to rob all its
*people*,
> >> >i.e. rob everyone involved? Some are more equal than others of
course,
> >> >but at the same time the values of the weak triumph precisely
because
> >> >the elites have used them as devices of power (Nietzsche).
>
> >> Just because socialism is not yet perfect doesn't mean capitalism is
> >> the solution. Socialism can always be improved. Capitalism, on the
> >> other hand, must be eradicated in order to have any real equality in
a
> >> civilized world. Nietzsche is dead just as his god. There is no need
> >> to wor****p a dead man's gibberish.
>
> >To put the above point slightly more bluntly: people *know* deep deep
> >down not every last single soul counts equally. Let's say your brother
> >(or your parents, or your child) is now trapped behind one door in a
> >burning building. And there's another stranger trapped next to it.
> >Unfortunately there's time to only open one door. Which door would you
> >open and which person would you let out?
>
> >Or perhaps, let's repeat the same scenario but this time there are
> >*two* strangers trapped next door. By opening one door you can save
> >(one of) your child/brother/parents, but if you open the other door
> >you can save two. Which door would you open?
>
> >What if there are five strangers? Ten? Twenty? What if these strangers
> >don't look, speak, talk like you. They are of different skin color,
> >wor****p different religions, and they stink etc etc. Really, would you
> >let out your brother or parent or child or would you let out the
> >strangers?
>
> >It's a hypothetical situation of course, but I think the metaphysical
> >fact is that our loyalties are concentric and that fact very very
> >strongly, and perhaps fatally, undermines the naive utopian
> >"allcomers" worldview that the West is now exhorted to rally behind.
> >Put slightly differently, promiscuous altruism is not exactly an
> >'evolutionarily stable' strategy.
>
> The world is never perfect, and disasters do happen from time to time
> to all of us, and we as mere humans can never be perfect to always do
> the right thing. However, if we ever give up on doing the right thing,
> we will stop being humans altogether.
>
> Life is not easy. That is why we enjoy living life.
>

There's no right or wrong. There's only what you prefer and what you
don't, and you cry out or justify or rationalize accordingly to tap
into the other party's guilt. As usual, there are only winners and
losers. Might makes right and it's so elegantly Darwinian!

>
>
> >> >Look at the city of Hong Kong which is now considered part of the
PRC.
> >> >Or Singa****e for example. Both of these places are not exactly
****ning
> >> >hills or illuminating beacons of democracy, and yet both represent
the
> >> >most successful economic oases in East Asia. In terms of GDP, these
> >> >two places rank even higher than Japan and NW European countries.
>
> >> >And at the same time, they also rank highest in the 2008 Index of
> >> >Economic Freedom:
>
> >> >   
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/pdf/index200...
>
> >> >No, I think it's part of human nature to be selfish.
>
> >> It may be part of human nature to be selfish, but it is definitely
not
> >> part of human nature to harm others for the purpose of being selfish.
> >> There must be a clear line, and capitalism is crossing that line.
> >> That's why government control is vital in keeping capitalism in check
> >> in both Hong Kong and Singa****e.
>
> >But like I said before, capitalism is already a compromise. It allows
> >the healthy expression of power *without* actually directly hurting
> >the poor.
>
> I disagree. Without the protection of the government, capitalism would
> eat human beings alive. That was what happened in China before 1949.
> And that was what happened in the west as well in the early days of
> industrial revolution.
>

So to extend what you just wrote, you realize how democracy is merely
political socialism (can we guess that Jim Walsh will respond here?).
Do you think that a IQ 70 Negro should have as much political say as
an IQ 130 Professor? That's democracy, wow! One man, one vote. Isn't
that romantic, isn't that charming. What do you think?


>  Of course you will say, well, how can the rich be so cruel
>
> >to let the poor starve in some libertarian society etc. Maybe if the
> >poor should have a leash on the rich then capitalism really,
> >relatively speaking, hurts them. But that's only assuming that somehow
> >the rich will have some responsibility to take care of the poor. Which
> >brings up an unspoken dimension: and that is, if you're Japanese or
> >Korean or Taiwanese or mainland Chinese that above formulation may
> >seem cruel. For what you have in your mind is some form of welfare
> >state that at least some of your alms goes directly towards your own
> >kin. It works way less so in America (or Russia too, where I read one
> >study that they donate less to gypsy panhandlers than to those who
> >'look' more like Russians). Should Asians, for instance, foot the bill
> >of blacks who in turn claim outrageous grievances against whites even
> >though it's heaven-on-earth for blacks in America?
>
> It's nothing but a Capitalists' lie to claim socialism is all about
> being a welfare state. No, the rich does not need to take care of the
> poor if the rich does not take away the already limited livelihood the
> poor is relying on. On the other hand, if you are in control of 90%
> the country's economy, then you are naturally responsible for the
> welfare of at least 90% the country's people. This is not footing
> anyone's bill. It is your responsibility for being rich.
>

So you're for the flat tax then? Rich people shouldn't pay a higher
*percentage*. I actually don't disagree.

> >>  And capitalism,
>
> >> >believe it or not, is actually a toned down version of our universal
> >> >quest for power. It may be an unhappy compromise for some reading
> >> >this, but it's a compromise that somehow works. That is, it
harnesses
> >> >our selfish human potential to its fullest in a less destructive and
> >> >manageable form.
>
> >> >And with drive (if not instinct) on our side, so much is possible.