The second reason why Capitalism died was that there were no more colonies left for the West to colonize.

The third reason is that there were no native populations for the West to enslave, colonize or kill in the twentieth century.

The (undefined and escapist) political system – which you seem to be ‘espousing’, that has never existed on Mother Earth till date (by your own admission) is NOT Capitalism. Capitalism existed.

Give it some other name to start with – and flog it for all it is worth.

It took a lot of efforts to kill that Capitalist Beast – and it needs a stake to be driven through its heart – so that it never comes alive again – like Dracula.

This figment of your (infertile) imagination, please dont call it Capitalism. It hurts.

Why would the government assist corporate thieves? You didn’t see Enron or Arthur Andersen being bailed out.

So what is the difference according to you in bailing out corporate thieves and failed business ventures??(of course the precondition to bailout a corporate thief’s company is change of the leadership).

1) How does the “US government believe that if some entrepreneur fails, the whole economy will do down”? If you are making reference to the TARP, the AIG cash shot, or the automotive sector bailout, these weren’t singular entrepreneurs, but pillars of the US, and in some cases, the global economy. What happens if one of the pillars in your home collapses?

They are businesses, FAILED BUSINESSES, donno what you think is the definition of Capitalism is, but you sure don’t dump Capital into a massive pit where its all lost. The whole point of Profit and Loss calculations(something socialists do not perform), is to tell us where should the Capital go because that’s where its being most productive.

Another thing is, do not forget that when you bail one company out, you are doing it on the expense of other companies which did not require bailouts. That my friend is called socialism, except in Socialism they do these things to unproductive people.

In socialism if a bunch of people do not have houses then they are provided houses on the expense of others. In Capitalism(at least your definition of Capitalism) all they need to do is to go to the BIGGEST PILLER of the mortgage industry, take Loans which they cannot pay back, and then default on their loans, and THEN the govt is going to make everybody else pay for those loans, because those pillars are too big to fail.

2) The US is not embarking on a nationalisation drive out of choice. With a trillion dollar bailout, it is protecting its investment. It intends to divest in due course of time.

That’s like saying (and with a very crude example) you wear a condom because you wanna play safe and don’t wanna catch disease while you rape other women.
The question is not why nationalization, rather WHY the TRILLION DOLLAR BAILOUT?? Federal Reserve-Bush-Obama have initiated on the process of creating the Next bubble(zero percent interest rates), I mean its so fucking late that nothing can be done to stop the next bubble from forming. Even if the banks are Nationalized, there will be another series of “too-big-to-fail” companies which will fail in the next bust. And then we will walk through Nationalized Car manufacturing, Nationalized Healthcare, Nationalized Banking, Nationalized Animal Healthcare, Nationalized Education, and I wonder how long will it take where America be having more Nationalized sectors than India.

@Cow-tse-tong said:

Why would the government assist corporate thieves? You didn’t see Enron or Arthur Andersen being bailed out.

So what is the difference according to you in bailing out corporate thieves and failed business ventures??(of course the precondition to bailout a corporate thief’s company is change of the leadership).

1) How does the “US government believe that if some entrepreneur fails, the whole economy will do down”? If you are making reference to the TARP, the AIG cash shot, or the automotive sector bailout, these weren’t singular entrepreneurs, but pillars of the US, and in some cases, the global economy. What happens if one of the pillars in your home collapses?

They are businesses, FAILED BUSINESSES, donno what you think is the definition of Capitalism is, but you sure don’t dump Capital into a massive pit where its all lost. The whole point of Profit and Loss calculations(something socialists do not perform), is to tell us where should the Capital go because that’s where its being most productive.

Another thing is, do not forget that when you bail one company out, you are doing it on the expense of other companies which did not require bailouts. That my friend is called socialism, except in Socialism they do these things to unproductive people.

In socialism if a bunch of people do not have houses then they are provided houses on the expense of others. In Capitalism(at least your definition of Capitalism) all they need to do is to go to the BIGGEST PILLER of the mortgage industry, take Loans which they cannot pay back, and then default on their loans, and THEN the govt is going to make everybody else pay for those loans, because those pillars are too big to fail.

2) The US is not embarking on a nationalisation drive out of choice. With a trillion dollar bailout, it is protecting its investment. It intends to divest in due course of time.

That’s like saying (and with a very crude example) you wear a condom because you wanna play safe and don’t wanna catch disease while you rape other women.
The question is not why nationalization, rather WHY the TRILLION DOLLAR BAILOUT?? Federal Reserve-Bush-Obama have initiated on the process of creating the Next bubble(zero percent interest rates), I mean its so fucking late that nothing can be done to stop the next bubble from forming. Even if the banks are Nationalized, there will be another series of “too-big-to-fail” companies which will fail in the next bust. And then we will walk through Nationalized Car manufacturing, Nationalized Healthcare, Nationalized Banking, Nationalized Animal Healthcare, Nationalized Education, and I wonder how long will it take where America be having more Nationalized sectors than India.

GDP is the single most important economic indicator that drives policy and a key measure of production. A declining GDP is indicative of receding production levels. I’d be worried if there were two consecutive quarters of contracting GDP as this would be indicative of a recession.

I am sorry dude, but GDP is nothing but a bunch of random number added together. Mock us all you can on your blog, citing what an abomination we are in the name of Holy Economics and the prophecies of Keynes(sorry dude but that’s all you sound like, “HOW DARE THEY INUSLT ECONOMICS THEORIES?” on your blog).
Though right when you are willing to talk some logic, explain me how come the GDP of a country rises during a War, when actually resources are pulled out of productive places and deployed for unproductive destruction.
Then explain me how come post war GDP drops are not considered as recession, how come in 1945-47 the GDP of USA saw one of the largest GDP drops in the years, YET there weren’t any people dying on streets, more productive resources were only created.

The government needs revenue. It can’t be in a deficit bubble forever. TAX expensive purchases, and investment real estate purchases!

I hope that suggestion was for America, coz in India we have something called the BLACK MARKET. Like out of 10,000 people who would be in reach of this tax, 50 people might actually pay that tax, and that too because they are the cricketers and bollywood stars. Everybody else would talk advantage of the black market and walk around the “regulation”.

That’s more superstitious than anything else. the automotive sectora you are boasting off are ready to file for bankruptcy even now after the failure of bailout packages.
About AIG, the thing is, if a pillar is faulty, you cannot safeguard the structure by piles of straw, and that is what bailout is.

2) The US is not embarking on a nationalisation drive out of choice. With a trillion dollar bailout, it is protecting its investment. It intends to divest in due course of time.
Protecting its investment? how? by looting the americans? second thing is, it is not U.S, but U.S government which is looting.

3) Your GDP argument is so far out that I won’t even bother commenting on it.
That saved a lot of time.
4) India’s land reforms have a long way to go. Fragmented holdings, dismal productivity and diminishing agricultural yields will bear testimony to that fact.
Ohh and what is the degree of perfection about land reforms and who decides it? some Keynesian idiot?
Agricultural yields are INCREASING since always, you have fully outrageous ill-informations about Indian agricultural sector if you think its declining.
5) Stamp Duty on expensive homes wouldn’t be a bad idea, if we use examples from the First World, such as Australia, where first home buyers who buy dwellings for less than AUD 500K receive stamp duty exemptions, whilst over 500K, you cough up the stamp duty. The government needs revenue. It can’t be in a deficit bubble forever. TAX expensive purchases, and investment real estate purchases!
Looters can never help anybody, you are just trying to support the robinhoods. And government always remains in deficit. You may try to mention the periods when US or Indian government were not in deficit. The heights of deficits keeps changing though. Its heighest for US in current scenario. The Fiscal deficit is burden on common man, government always remains free to keep taking loans and debts and wasting it on useless lots.
6) India still has a large number of sick government financial institutions, who wouldn’t last a day as private sector entities.
Yes and thats the wastage. Government be it Indian or US or Australian always perforates wastage.

Overall, the article is about a reality, and that is, U.S is on negative row on economic liberty front, and India is on positive move.
Nobody is saying that India is capitalist enough to be called liberated.

Satyam – fraud case. Why would the government assist corporate thieves? You didn’t see Enron or Arthur Andersen being bailed out.

1) How does the “US government believe that if some entrepreneur fails, the whole economy will do down”? If you are making reference to the TARP, the AIG cash shot, or the automotive sector bailout, these weren’t singular entrepreneurs, but pillars of the US, and in some cases, the global economy. What happens if one of the pillars in your home collapses?
2) The US is not embarking on a nationalisation drive out of choice. With a trillion dollar bailout, it is protecting its investment. It intends to divest in due course of time.
3) Your GDP argument is so far out that I won’t even bother commenting on it.
4) India’s land reforms have a long way to go. Fragmented holdings, dismal productivity and diminishing agricultural yields will bear testimony to that fact.
5) Stamp Duty on expensive homes wouldn’t be a bad idea, if we use examples from the First World, such as Australia, where first home buyers who buy dwellings for less than AUD 500K receive stamp duty exemptions, whilst over 500K, you cough up the stamp duty. The government needs revenue. It can’t be in a deficit bubble forever. TAX expensive purchases, and investment real estate purchases!
6) India still has a large number of sick government financial institutions, who wouldn’t last a day as private sector entities.

Finally, Keynesian economics doesn’t suggest interest rates need to go down to zero to resolve the current crisis – they merely suggest a downward adjustment to the cash rate would be appropriate. Near-zero rates pose the dilemma of quantitative easing…