mkm wrote: ↑Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:53 am
But clearly makes this country nonsignificant. If the goal of western countries was to destroy communistic ones (It's your claim!), going to war possessing enormous military advantage is the way to go, not waiting till the latter close the gap and creating a decades lasting struggle.
I didn't say anything about "destroying" communist states rather that capitalist nations have an incentive to prevent them from gaining power. That is especially true when they are close to their scope of power. The capitalist primary worry is going to be lose of their power, not global domination.
Going to war is very risky and, as I said, doesn't always result in the outcome you want. For example the Iraq war demonstrates clearly how outcomes can differ dramatically from intent.
mkm wrote: ↑Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:53 am
Yeah, because events in the economy just happen in random.
No and that is never something I've suggested. Weather patterns aren't random yet we cannot predict weather beyond the short-term. Similarly there are no economic models that have been predictive long-term.
mkm wrote: ↑Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:53 am
I just say that you can judge forms of governments by the outcomes. You, on the other hand, agree with that, when outcomes seemingly confirm what you say, and disagree, when they don't. So, blame capitalism for all the evil and communism can do no wrong.
You replies seem to be little more than straw-man at this point. I haven't blamed capitalism for "all the evil" nor have I suggested "communism can do no wrong'. In fact, I haven't made any judgments about the respective systems and instead have discussed them neutrally.
I have no issue with looking at outcomes of governing styles but I don't agree that this should be the sole factor. Governments can succeed by happenstance and others can fail because they are being subverting.
mkm wrote: ↑Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:53 am
Well, USSR and China were/are in a very good position with regard to resources.
They aren't both in terms of natural resources and technology. Nations can try to "steal" technology but that has its limits and can be seen as an act of war. Also by the time china was becoming politically powerful the USSR was being dissolved. If the two achieved peak power at similar times they USSR may still be around .
mkm wrote: ↑Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:53 am
Peter Schiff was pretty spot on in 2006:
Peter Schiff was wrong about just about everything he claimed, the only thing he got right is that there was a housing bubble. Schiff predicted hyper-inflation.....yet the opposite occurred.
But Schiff wasn't using any economic models in the first place, it was just half-backed theories and profiteering.
As they say, a broken clock is right once a day. The fact that some people have profited from betting on economic events says nothing about whether their models are predictive. After all, if everyone was just randomly guessing there would also be people that get things right.
Think of a room with 1 million people flipping coins. At each flip the people that get heads stay. After 10 flips there will be around 2,000 people that flipped heads 10 times. I reckon they may start to think they have a talent for flipping heads.
I'm here to exploit you schmucks into demonstrating the blatant anti-intellectualism in the vegan community and the reality of veganism. But I can do that with any user name.