Quote:
Originally Posted by Seaver
I state more evidence of ineffective government hording of national resources.
And you fall in line stating I'm ignorant and am not paying attention to your argument.
How about proving nationalizing of resources leads to effient use of said resources. And then we can move on in a discussion from there. Until then do not attack me for my beliefs if you can not make a counter argument.
And by the way... I've re-read Roach's post many times... quote where he mensions the World Bank.
|
Quote:
|
so you have bolivia reacting against the forced consequences of imf-driven "structural adjustment" programs
|
That was the first line of roachboy's post. When you don't connect his statement to Brenton Woods organizations (IMF & World Bank) then that indicates to roachboy and myself that you are just as likely to be unaware of the policies they inflicted on developing nations. And if you aren't accounting for such policies in your assessment of the failure of particular marktes, we then wonder how you can make accurate assertions about such failures.
neither of us need or want to prove or argue with you that nationalization is efficient. In fact, roachboy stated that:
Quote:
|
nationalization may not be an optimal solution
|
That said, if you don't know how certain Western policies fit into this discussion and how they account for at least some of the failure of particular markets, then how can you, roachboy, and myself have a profitable discussion over the causes of such failures and possible remedies?
It's true I'm assuming that you don't know about the effects of SAP's on the markets you claim failed due to nationalization. But consider where I'm coming from. I asked you a question to determine whether my assumption was accurate:
Quote:
|
are you aware of any linkages between the IMF/World Bank and the changes you're referring to as failing policies?
|
Instead of responding, you left the thread. if you felt like I was impugning your intelligence or hinging my participation with you on your level of expertise, I apologize. I engage with students day in and day out that know less than me about certain subjects. I don't ridicule them or think less of them. I encourage them to obtain new and further information before coming to concrete opinions. But if you form unshakable opinions without so much as attempting to assimilate new information into your point of view, at what point are we justified in saying bluntly that if all you want to do is espouse that private markets are good, and nationalization is bad, we don't really want to play that game. Often, these kinds of discussions go round and round without any budging of any sort. no recognition that perhaps one has some more info to benefit from, and etc. such "discussions" really just start to appear like they are venues to vent. and that's frustrating if one is trying to talk with (not to) fellow members about an idea. And that frustration comes to a head every once in a while resulting in posts that come out too abrasively.