Excuse me?
You claim:
Quote:
|
the core of the problem i really have is that you take no account of context but feel that it is ok to opine anyway, and then, when challenged, you simply revert to these strange, meaningless categories. you cannot treat the propositions particular to neoliberalism as abstract statements, any more than you can rationally pretend that "efficiency" is a neutral category. if you want to have an actual conversation, then fine--either do some research--a salutary act that would probably demonstrate what i am saying about truncated contexts in your posts better than i could--or make an effort to actually engage with the content of the argument.
|
I have posted historical facts relating directly to the nationalization of industries and their complete failure. Efficiency
is a neutral category. Either it works well in comparison to before or it does not.
Example. Egypt gained more agrarian land during the Nasser period. However they converted some of the land from the production of rice and wheat to the production of feed for cattle. Since that time Egypt has had to import food from outside countries because it can no longer grow enough to supply enough food to the people. Any farmer can tell you that in fertile grounds with abundant water you grow crops, when water is more scarce and you have more land it is more beneficial to grow cattle due to the land that is required. Thus they are inable to independantly feed their own population because of improper and yes... inefficient land usage, not because of a shortage of land.
So here is once again a truth that you fail to reply against. You claim I simply change my argument yet you have failed to once even reply to any of the historical facts I have presented.
You can claim that they are opinions, when economic realities are hard fact. When nationalized Russian oil production was a mess. Once it has been opened to international investment, they have found completely new oil reserves (despite being investigated for decades by the government beaurocracy), upgraded and made much more economically feasable.
If they want to go down the route of government controlled economy that's their right. The problem is every single one of these looks at the reforms of the Soviet and German economies with rose colored glasses in their attempt to gain world power ignoring the realities of economy.
The only conversation you have presented is implying individual investors is a leech on the economy and is in fact a new phase of colonialism, one without either merit or backup. If YOU want to engage in a conversation then so be it. However I would appreciate you using historical or economic fact to back up your statements.