IbeOkehie:
This is one of the best rankings of economic freedom. It's well known in scholarly circles. Free market capitalism always yields better results than regulated markets and welfarist socialism.

^^^
But you still haven't told me exactly what this scale (for ranking economies) is...and how its rankings are arrived at. I asked for it in my earlier posts and I never got an answer.

I also asked you a second question: what is socialism? I asked this question because it is surprising the number of different answers there are to this question (depending on who you ask). Once you define the term, I will demonstrate how these charged labels obscure the main issue which is the outcomes of policy. Never forget that every economy in the world is a mixed economy.

I await your response.

IbeOkehie:
I'm actually impressed with your questions, but they also show you've NEVER thought about the issues raised here. In that you're like most Nigerians...even the MOST EDUCATED Nigerians have no clue about, well, anything other than what they crammed to get their degree.

^^^


Ok.

IbeOkehie:
I had a highly educated friend, a world renowned fellow in his field and son of a very highly placed Nigerian official. The guy is very liberal, left wing, socialist. We had an argument in which he was supporting free or subsidized housing Americans or government help of some kind, mainly for Black Americans to combat what he called SYSTEMIC RACISM.

I told him that the Clinton Government in 1999 did EXACTLY that kind of socialist program for Blacks and it caused a worldwide disaster. Here's the evidence from the NY Times, a very socialist/liberal paper -

https://www.google.com/search?q=nytimes+clinton+admin+new+regulations+for+housing+credit+1999&rlz=1C1NDCM_enUS837US837&oq=nytimes+clinton+admin+new+regulations+for+housing+credit+1999&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCTIzNDk1ajBqNKgCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

^^^
First of all, the search results you provided show readers letters to the editor, and not the original (21 November 2008) article by the NYT's 3 journalists - so the impression you're giving is misleading, to say the least. The original article certainly did not single out Clinton for blame - the actual title of the piece is "White House Philosophy stoked Mortgage Bonfire" and in it there was plenty of blame to go round - from Carter all the way to Bush the younger. I'm definitely not holding a brief for Clinton but to claim (incorrectly) that the "left leaning" NYT held him solely responsible for the 2008 sub-prime crisis - is simply disingenuous.

Quote the correct article and responses to it - and then we can have a proper debate on the issue. You need to clarify your position - are you against subsidies as a concept or you are against shoddy implementation of the idea? I'm actually looking forward to to this discussion.

IbeOkehie:
You sound exactly like that guy. That's Nigerians. That's why our country is the way it is.

Have a good day.

^^^


I'm now being blamed for someone else's political/economic views - as well as all of Nigeria's problems?

Anyway, I'm used to it. My wife does the same thing to me all the time.

Fujiyama:


^^^
But you still haven't told me exactly what this scale (for ranking economies) is...and how its rankings are arrived at. I asked for it in my earlier posts and I never got an answer.

I also asked you a second question: what is socialism?

I'm going to give a detailed reply but I'm sorry about the missing link. Here:

https://www.heritage.org/index/

You asked...yes I'm against subsidies in all markets except road networks, elementary education and healthcare. These are areas where risk and rights can't be well managed...yet. As technology advances, subsidies should be reduced. I recognize that's an unrealistic expectation but it SHOULD be the starting point for any society that wants to generate development.

And about the mortgage crisis that sparked the 2007/2008 economic meltdown, lots of people contributed but Clinton STARTED it, in 1999 he made the FIRST basic change to regulations that forced banks to lend to unqualified Blacks on the basis of racial reparations. On a separate but VERY RELATED note, the Clinton Government also repealed the Glass-Stegall Act, the MOST IMPORTANT financial safety valve the USA ever had.

I think I supplied too broad a link. When I get into this argument I usually post two NY Times articles only. They're both there.

One is the ORIGINAL report of when Clinton changed the regulations about lending standards.

The other one is about the uproar that erupted when President George Bush the 2nd saw the problems it caused and tried to fix it in 2003 or so. A Black Congress man, I think it was either Mel Watts or Franklin Raines was quoted as calling Bush a racist who hated seeing Black people own homes. And I don't even like George Bush, I think he was a mess.

I saved the full texts. I will post them later.

Socialism is any system that seeks to alter the free bargain trading, aka free markets, and mainly does it by government ownership or control of the factors of economic production and by price regulation. From each according to his ability and to each according to his need.

A family is an almost pure socialist entity. I give my child resources for free simply because...because. It works because we're a homogeneous group of people with close biological relationships. My altruism for my child is instinctive.

The more diverse the family gets, the more the socialist order tends to breakdown. For instance in polygamous families, Nigerians understand at least that much.

So Norway and Saudi Arabia can successfully incorporate more socialism into their socio-economic and political structure than Nigeria or USA.

There's very good research out there detailing exactly what makes a nation successful and happy. Three things...free markets, democracy and ethnic or cultural homogeneous population OR complete domination by one ethnic group over others. Pre and post Apartheid South Africa is a good example, so is the USA. China too, few people understand that China is an Asian version of Apartheid South Africa, the Han tribe dominate all the others.

Not complicated at all. It's also common sense. Nigeria has NONE of those factors hence the continual retrogression compared to its potential. You CORRECTLY state that ALL economies are MIXED but what you don't seem to take into account is that there's a RANGE of the mixture AND the better outcomes ALWAYS come from the free market parts of the structure. As in, MTN vs NITEL or Benue Cement vs Dangote Cement.

I believe Nigeria is far more welfare socialist than free market capitalist. Just government land and mineral resource ownership alone makes me say that. And the Nigerian people are now CULTURALLY socialist, they've FULLY embraced it. So the economy will only get worse. Think Venezuela, Greece and Sri Lanka. That's where it's going and I thank the fates I won't be there.

The USA is headed the same way but there's a LITTLE hope it might reverse but it's so strong I'm sure I'll be dead by the time the implosion happens. So I'm all set!

Thanks.

IbeOkehie:
I'm going to give a detailed reply but I'm sorry about the missing link. Here:

https://www.heritage.org/index/

^^^
This Index - though very thought provoking, is not universally accepted. There are critiques of both the framework and the methodology.

IbeOkehie:
You asked...yes I'm against subsidies in all markets except road networks, elementary education and healthcare. These are areas where risk and rights can't be well managed...yet. As technology advances, subsidies should be reduced. I recognize that's an unrealistic expectation but it SHOULD be the starting point for any society that wants to generate development.

^^^


I need you to explain further what you mean by management of risk and rights. Whose risk? Whose rights? And how is it that road networks, elementary education and healthcare the only 3 broad areas in the whole wide world where risk and rights can’t be “well managed” (whatever that means)…and subsidies are required? What about railtracks? Airspace? Inland waterways? Secondary school education? Vocational/technical education? Risk and rights can be well managed in all these but not the 3 areas you mentioned earlier? How and why?

I think you need to step back and ask again why there is a need for subsidies and why governments use them as policy tools in the first place. Subsidies (among other tools) exist for one compelling reason at least: markets fail. The evidence supports this hard truth and subsidies are used by governments to solve market failure when it occurs or to prevent it from occurring. Of course, market failure is not the only reason why governments grant subsidies but it is by far the most intellectually pure reason. One thing is clear: subsidies have been around a very long time and they are not going away anytime soon.

IbeOkehie:
And about the mortgage crisis that sparked the 2007/2008 economic meltdown, lots of people contributed but Clinton STARTED it, in 1999 he made the FIRST basic change to regulations that forced banks to lend to unqualified Blacks on the basis of racial reparations. On a separate but VERY RELATED note, the Clinton Government also repealed the Glass-Stegall Act, the MOST IMPORTANT financial safety valve the USA ever had.

I think I supplied too broad a link. When I get into this argument I usually post two NY Times articles only. They're both there.

One is the ORIGINAL report of when Clinton changed the regulations about lending standards.

The other one is about the uproar that erupted when President George Bush the 2nd saw the problems it caused and tried to fix it in 2003 or so. A Black Congress man, I think it was either Mel Watts or Franklin Raines was quoted as calling Bush a racist who hated seeing Black people own homes. And I don't even like George Bush, I think he was a mess.

I saved the full texts. I will post them later.

^^^
I'd like the 2 extra links you mentioned before I weigh in on the Clinton era.

IbeOkehie:
Socialism is any system that seeks to alter the free bargain trading, aka free markets, and mainly does it by government ownership or control of the factors of economic production and by price regulation. From each according to his ability and to each according to his need.

^^^
Ok.

I would hold you to this definition going forward. Interestingly, I noted your definition is silent on central planning. More on that later.

IbeOkehie:
A family is an almost pure socialist entity. I give my child resources for free simply because...because. It works because we're a homogeneous group of people with close biological relationships.

The more diverse the family gets, the more the socialist order tends to breakdown. For instance in polygamous families, Nigerians understand at least that much.

^^^


I countered your view about 'socialism and the family' on this thread the first time you aired it. My position has not changed.

Your model falls to pieces when the sociological bonds (and not just the biological bonds) of family are considered. What happens to families with adopted children? Are such families less "socialist" according to your model, because there's no biological relationship between any of the parents and the children? And what happens if we extend the argument even further and consider a family that adopts an orphan child from a different race (footballer Mario Balotelli is a public example). Does this make this family even less "socialist" because it fails both the homogeneity and biology tests?

I find this your "socialist family theory" quite interesting to say the least. Margaret Thatcher (who definitely was no socialist) once said: "Who is society? There is no such thing! There are are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first".

If a hardcore champion of free markets like Thatcher could recognize the reality that families are essential to capitalism as a social and economic order...then your argument that the family is nothing but an "almost pure socialist entity" creation becomes more and more untenable. Like I said to you earlier: families existed before socialism (as we understand it now) and will be there long after it is gone.

But I left the most delicious part for last: my very first google search on 'the family as a socialist entity' threw up a quote from a 2019 lecture hosted by the Heritage Foundation (yes, the same Heritage Foundation!) where Edward Feser says that "socialism and the family are incompatible".

IbeOkehie:
There's very good research out there detailing exactly what makes a nation successful and happy. Three things...free markets, democracy and ethnic or cultural homogeneous population OR complete domination by one ethnic group over others. Pre and post Apartheid South Africa is a good example, so is the USA. China too, few people understand that China is an Asian version of Apartheid South Africa, the Han tribe dominate all the others.

^^^
Sources? You need to provide specifics of these studies so we can take them on a case by case basis.

IbeOkehie:
You CORRECTLY state that ALL economies are MIXED but what you don't seem to take into account is that there's a RANGE of the mixture.

^^^
No.

I am very much aware that there is a range of the mixture. That is why I have stated more than once on this thread that the constant use of labels (capitalist vs socialist) and prolonged arguments about ideology are ultimately unproductive. That's why I asked specific questions about the components of the ranking you referred to earlier. I mentioned tax rates, government spending, SOEs etc...because it is actual choices and actions in the policy space that will determine outcomes...not fiery rhetoric. China refers to itself as a communist country. Are its economic policies those of a communist country? Is central planning still a key feature?

IbeOkehie:
I believe Nigeria is far more welfare socialist than free market capitalist. Just government land and mineral resource ownership alone makes me say that. And the Nigerian people are now CULTURALLY socialist, they've FULLY embraced it. So the economy will only get worse. Think Venezuela, Greece and Sri Lanka. That's where it's going and I thank the fates I won't be there.

^^^


Still on these labels?

Fujiyama:


^^^
This Index - though very thought provoking, is not universally accepted. There are critiques of both the framework and the methodology.



^^^


I need you to explain further what you mean by management of risk and rights. Whose risk? Whose rights? And how is it that road networks, elementary education and healthcare the only 3 broad areas in the whole wide world where risk and rights can’t be “well managed” (whatever that means)…and subsidies are required? What about railtracks? Airspace? Inland waterways? Secondary school education? Vocational/technical education? Risk and rights can be well managed in all these but not the 3 areas you mentioned earlier? How and why?

I think you need to step back and ask again why there is a need for subsidies and why governments use them as policy tools in the first place. Subsidies (among other tools) exist for one compelling reason at least: markets fail. The evidence supports this hard truth and subsidies are used by governments to solve market failure when it occurs or to prevent it from occurring. Of course, market failure is not the only reason why governments grant subsidies but it is by far the most intellectually pure reason. One thing is clear: subsidies have been around a very long time and they are not going away anytime soon.



^^^
I'd like the 2 extra links you mentioned before I weigh in on the Clinton era.



^^^
Ok.

I would hold you to this definition going forward. Interestingly, I noted your definition is silent on central planning. More on that later.



^^^


I countered your view about 'socialism and the family' on this thread the first time you aired it. My position has not changed.

Your model falls to pieces when the sociological bonds (and not just the biological bonds) of family are considered. What happens to families with adopted children? Are such families less "socialist" according to your model, because there's no biological relationship between any of the parents and the children? And what happens if we extend the argument even further and consider a family that adopts an orphan child from a different race (footballer Mario Balotelli is a public example). Does this make this family even less "socialist" because it fails both the homogeneity and biology tests?

I find this your "socialist family theory" quite interesting to say the least. Margaret Thatcher (who definitely was no socialist) once said: "Who is society? There is no such thing! There are are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first".

If a hardcore champion of free markets like Thatcher could recognize the reality that families are essential to capitalism as a social and economic order...then your argument that the family is nothing but an "almost pure socialist entity" creation becomes more and more untenable. Like I said to you earlier: families existed before socialism (as we understand it now) and will be there long after it is gone.

But I left the most delicious part for last: my very first google search on 'the family as a socialist entity' threw up a quote from a 2019 lecture hosted by the Heritage Foundation (yes, the same Heritage Foundation!) where Edward Feser says that "socialism and the family are incompatible".



^^^
Sources? You need to provide specifics of these studies so we can take them on a case by case basis.



^^^
No.

I am very much aware that there is a range of the mixture. That is why I have stated more than once on this thread that the constant use of labels (capitalist vs socialist) and prolonged arguments about ideology are ultimately unproductive. That's why I asked specific questions about the components of the ranking you referred to earlier. I mentioned tax rates, government spending, SOEs etc.,.because it is actual choices and actions in the policy space that [b]will determine outcomes...not fiery rhetoric[/b].
China refers to itself as a communist country. Are its economic policies those of a communist country? Is central planning still a key feature?



^^^


Still on these labels?

You're just nitpicking. I'm used to this style of argument from educated Nigerians. ALL the questions and critiques you brought here have OBVIOUS answers.

Because Nigerians have evolved a culture of socialism and they can tell from bitter experience that it doesn't work, the educated ones among them have resorted to a reductionist argument of LABELS ARE WORTHLESS, ONLY RESULTS MATTER. 🙄 As in, PDP = APC = LP and Democrats = Republicans. It's so childish. As a friend brilliantly put it, it seems Nigerians want free market outcomes by applying feudal-socialist methods...and claiming they're all the same thing!!!

Labels matter. The human being names things and conditions for good reason. The EAR is not the same thing as the EYE, but both are ORGANS of the body.

Language matters. One of the most notable techniques of contemporary socialists cum progressives is an attempt to render labels meaningless. Sorry I don't play that.

I described family as a form of altruism and your triumphant comeback argument is "what about adoption"? REALLY? Come on, man!

And this -

But I left the most delicious part for last: my very first google search on 'the family as a socialist entity' threw up a quote from a 2019 lecture hosted by the Heritage Foundation (yes, the same Heritage Foundation!) where Edward Feser says that "socialism and the family are incompatible".

is a known thing that I agree with, every free marketeer knows socialism is hostile to family. From the writings of Karl Marx and down to the contemporary Black Lives Matter Movement, one of the prime prescriptions of socialism has always been that the nuclear family must be destroyed. The explanation is COMPLETELY COMPATIBLE with everything I've written and every free market believer knows it, but it's a long explanation.

It's related to central planning that you claim I neglected. Socialists believe in GOVERNMENT as the ONLY allocative authority. Families tend to accumulate wealth and make their own decisions about allocating it among themselves. An example of that is inheritance of wealth. For socialists, that is wrong because situations like family inheritance violate the principle of TO EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR NEED and from each according to their ability.

Basically family competes with socialist government as a power center in planning the distribution of wealth and resources. Families are disruptive to central planning. That's why socialist policies tend to promote family dissolution, single parenthood and such. Come on man, this is simple stuff.

And most important, you don't catch that free market believers like me are NOT hostile to socialism, if it's applied in the correct environment. The FAMILY is a naturally socialist environment that competes with GOVERNMENT socialism. We therfore endorse family as a socialist entity. To some extent, we also have no problems with socialist policy in HOMOGENEOUS nations because they're SIMILAR to family.

Moving on....

You claim subsidies are employed for one main reason - market failure. That's a LIE on its face. Subsidies are also...maybe majorly...employed to garner votes. The very article we're discussing here is proof of that. Did you read it at all? Over here in USA, why do you think Biden is trying to forgive all student loans?

Results? Oya let's discuss results.

NITEL was a subsidized entity. It failed to produce sufficient telecom services. I had zero access to phone service as a child because of NITEL, while the many rich kids I went to school with at my FGC all had phones. When the telecoms industry was privatized and subsidies were abolished and a free market established, service production became abundant. Prices fell, even the poor get telecom services today.

The miracle of free market capitalist policies in cement, petrochemicals, banking, airlines, telecoms and broadcasting improved the lives of Nigerians. It happened under the neo-liberal wing of PDP. Educated Nigerians look at all that and still shout "nothing matters, it's all labels, APC = PDP". Very jejunish attitude. I mean, wetin be all this denial and willful ignorance abeg?

No point arguing with you. Indulging your endless nitpicking and interrogatives is pointless. Back in 2012 I was living in Nigeria when the people rioted, demanding a restoration of fuel subsidies. I told everyone I talked to at the time, thankfully including some people in government or with access to people that matter in government, that restoring fuel subsidies would destroy Nigeria. I lost several friends over that issue and more friends over the related elections of 2015. The restoration of those subsidies is one of the reasons I left and returned to the USA. And I was correct in the long run. Fuel subsidy is a SOCIALIST policy that has bankrupted Nigeria. Anyone who doesn't understand that elementary fact is simply daft and ignorant of basic economic theory and practice.

Carry your brilliant and incisive arguments to others who need it. You haven't taken the time to think through the issues in an objective manner. And this stuff is actually important. Wetin de do una sef Nonsense & Ingredients.

Bye!