Say Anything Blog

Maybe the North Koreans are all sleeping and have their lights turned out, hmmm?

Liberals tell us that capitalism doesn’t work.

Maybe they’re blind?

Or just stupid?

Capitalist

Woof: Yeah, Putin’s a “capitalist” like Castro is a “liberator”.  Stop lying.

"One must regard his leftist opponent as a parent regards his recalcitrant child. Don’t give an inch in a debate with a leftist, and you’ll soon frustrate him to the point that he falls back to his default position. He’ll gainsay your every point. He’ll even resort to calling you names and accusing you of having suspect parentage.”

An experiment in free market economies…

Yes! Those global-thinking North Koreans are so sensitive to global warming that they turn off all their lights at night!
Way to take one for the team, NK!

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

Capitalists believe in free markets.  Free markets consist of free people making free choices.

Are you honestly saying that Vladimir Putin is a capitalist?

I think you probably are, and I think you’re probably dumb.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

WOOF - Putin is nationalizing major industries.

That’s not a capitalist in any sense of the word, no matter how much you embolden the word.

Crack open a dictionary sometime, bud. Learn what these words mean before you continue embarrassing yourself.

I thought state industries had been privatized.
Putins successor Medvedev, is chairman of Gazprom , the world’s largest natural gas company.

Capitalism is no more monolithic than Christianity.
Lot’s of flavors.

The North Ko Commies all use those CFLs, doncha know, and they abhor “light pollution” as well. LOL!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/dec/21/russia.topstories3

Citing sources inside the president’s administration, Belkovsky claims that after eight years in power Putin has secretly accumulated more than $40bn (£20bn). The sum would make him Russia’s - and Europe’s - richest man.

In an interview with the Guardian, Belkovsky repeated his claims that Putin owns vast holdings in three Russian oil and gas companies, concealed behind a “non-transparent network of offshore trusts”.

Putin “effectively” controls 37% of the shares of Surgutneftegaz, an oil exploration company and Russia’s third biggest oil producer, worth $20bn, he says. He also owns 4.5% of Gazprom, and “at least 75%” of Gunvor, a mysterious Swiss-based oil trader, founded by Gennady Timchenko, a friend of the president’s, Belkovsky alleges.

Asked how much Putin was worth, Belkovsky said: “At least $40bn. Maximum we cannot know. I suspect there are some businesses I know nothing about.” He added: “It may be more. It may be much more.

“Putin’s name doesn’t appear on any shareholders’ register, of course. There is a non-transparent scheme of successive ownership of offshore companies and funds. The final point is in Zug [in Switzerland] and Liechtenstein. Vladimir Putin should be the beneficiary owner.”

Putin has not commented on Belkovsky’s claims. The Guardian put the allegations to the Kremlin but was told Putin’s chief spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, was not available.

Discussion of Putin’s wealth has previously been taboo. But the claims have leaked out against the backdrop of a fight inside the Kremlin between a group led by Igor Sechin, Putin’s influential deputy chief of staff, and a “liberal” clan that includes Medvedev…

Critics say the wave of renationalisations under Putin has transformed Putin’s associates into multimillionaires. The dilemma now facing the Kremlin’s elite is how to hang on to its wealth if Putin leaves power, experts say. Most of its money is located in the west, they add. The pressing problem is how to protect these funds from any future administration that may seek to reclaim them.

The process of breaking down the Soviet power structure and de-nationalizing industries resulted in massive sell offs of assets to well placed Russian businessmen.  Putin controlled this process and embezelled to the tune of $40B.

If by capitalist, you mean a “dictator veiled behind a non-transparent process of looting an entire nation”, I guess Saddam, Chavez, Lil’ Kim, Castro… They are all “capitalists”.

WOOF, I think I finally understand your problem.  If you think that Putin is a capitalist, rather than a would-be socialist dictator, then chances are you don’t know what capitalism is.

LMAO.  At you, not with you.

WOOF:

I thought state industries had been privatized.

Russia’s experiment with privatization, for all intents and purposes, has failed.

Mostly due to government corruption, starting with the Corrupter in Chief, Vlad “not really a capitalist pig after all” Putin.

WOOF:

Capitalism is no more monolithic than Christianity.

No doubt.  But the term free market is a rather precisely defined term, on the other hand.

Russia has very little left of its free market, what with the renationalization of private assets and the placing in prison industrialists who dared challenge the states’ right to do this.

One should never have put the KGB in charge of running the country.  That’s one of those things that always ends badly.  Sort of like a monkey brain controlling a robot.

The same effect can be seen with regards to Cuba and Burma. Quite amazing indeed.

Woof is right AND wrong.

Putin is NOT a capitalist leader. Putin IS a capitalist in every other respect.

It sometimes baffles me how little Americans understand foreign culture. You cannot project your mentalities on every other human being in the world. Russia IS NOT the United States. Russia DOES NOT have a tradition of politics-come-public-service. Russians simply DO NOT have the expectation that their leaders are there for altruistic purposes—they accept it the way it is so long as they aren’t starving (and sometimes even when they are). So…

Putin’s policy as president is not particularly capitalist. Putin’s behavior as a private actor is dead-on robber baron.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

Putin’s behavior as a private actor is dead-on robber baron.

A “slightly better” definition of capitalist would be a person who has accumulated wealth through investment and industry.

Putin has done neither, rather he has used his office to steal from his country. 

People who don’t understand the meaning of words any better than you do shouldn’t try using them in public.

Just a suggestion.

Hairy Polemic - It sometimes baffles me how little Americans understand foreign culture. You cannot project your mentalities on every other human being in the world. Russia IS NOT the United States. Russia DOES NOT have a tradition of politics-come-public-service. Russians simply DO NOT have the expectation that their leaders are there for altruistic purposes—they accept it the way it is so long as they aren’t starving (and sometimes even when they are).

What are you going on about here? Do you see anybody who thinks that Russia is the US? With the traditions of the US? Anything written that would give an indication that they think that Russia is the US?

Putin’s policy as president is not particularly capitalist. Putin’s behavior as a private actor is dead-on robber baron.

Robber baron does not equal capitalist.

The free market, level playing field , utopian version of capitalism does not exist.
It is actively resisted by “capitalists” and their gov’t partners.

What are you going on about here? Do you see anybody who thinks that Russia is the US? With the traditions of the US? Anything written that would give an indication that they think that Russia is the US?

Yes. From Justin:

If by capitalist, you mean a “dictator veiled behind a non-transparent process of looting an entire nation”, I guess Saddam, Chavez, Lil’ Kim, Castro… They are all “capitalists”.

These would in fact qualify as capitalists in a society where people do not hold their leaders to a higher standard—Russia being such a society.

Robber baron does not equal capitalist.

Robber baron—according to wiki.

“The term may now be used in relation to any businessman or banker who is perceived to have used questionable business practices or scams in order to become powerful or wealthy.”

What is “questionable” in a truly free market?

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

The free market, level playing field , utopian version of capitalism does not exist.
It is actively resisted by “capitalists” and their gov’t partners.

Unfortunately so. Milton Friedman notes this phenomenon in Capitalism and Freedom.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

Hairy Polemic - What is “questionable” in a truly free market?

Off of the top of my head I would say suspected fraud and government intervention and favoritism, but I have no idea what the anonymous Wikipedia writer had in mind when he or she wrote it.

Poodle is setting up a straw man and then attacking it for everything he’s worth.

He starts by assuming that we free market types want economic anarchy.  We don’t.  I think most free marketers recognize that a certain level of regulation is necessary.  Nobody wants to condone stealing or unethical business practices.

If I ran an oil change service I could probably undercut my competition by disposing of my oil by dumping it in the local lake instead of disposing of it properly, but that’s not what Milt Friedman was talking about when spoke of free people making free choices.

The problem is that people like Poodle then try to tell us that it’s unethical to have non-unionized work forces.  It’s unethical not to cram the unions down the necks of employers.  It’s unethical not to have a $9.00/hour minimum wage.

Which, of course, is completely bogus.

I, personally, feel as Thomas Jefferson did on these issues.  I would rather see our society deal with the greed exhibited by certain unethical citizens in a free economy than live in an economy that has too little freedom.

Nothing is ever perfect.  The corrupt and unethical are always going to be among us.  But better to deal with their graft than to try and solve it by making ourselves beholden to an all-powerful government.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I think most free marketers recognize that a certain level of regulation is necessary.  Nobody wants to condone stealing or unethical business practices.

So you were for regulations before you were against regulations while you were for regulations?

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

The corrupt and unethical are always going to be
among us.

Most of them gravitate to politics.  They usually don’t succeed in business.

"One must regard his leftist opponent as a parent regards his recalcitrant child. Don’t give an inch in a debate with a leftist, and you’ll soon frustrate him to the point that he falls back to his default position. He’ll gainsay your every point. He’ll even resort to calling you names and accusing you of having suspect parentage.”

The free market, level playing field , utopian version of capitalism does not exist.

The term free market refers to freedom of entry and exit, not freedom from all rules; that isn’t freedom, it’s license. Being composed of imperfect human beings, it’s anything but “utopian”.  In fact, if you read “The Doctrine of the Invisible Hand”, which is in Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations”, you will understand what “free market” really means, not the commie version put forth by the lefties.

"One must regard his leftist opponent as a parent regards his recalcitrant child. Don’t give an inch in a debate with a leftist, and you’ll soon frustrate him to the point that he falls back to his default position. He’ll gainsay your every point. He’ll even resort to calling you names and accusing you of having suspect parentage.”

Robber baron does not equal capitalist.

It does in the Marxism-influenced leftie mind, which is why “capitalist” is the wrong term for what we do in the US.  It was always meant to be pejorative.  What we have here is “free people making free choices”.  In Russia, the people aren’t free, and they don’t get to make free choices.

"One must regard his leftist opponent as a parent regards his recalcitrant child. Don’t give an inch in a debate with a leftist, and you’ll soon frustrate him to the point that he falls back to his default position. He’ll gainsay your every point. He’ll even resort to calling you names and accusing you of having suspect parentage.”

Putin IS a capitalist in every other
respect.

No, he isn’t.  Who is his competition?  He has a monopoly, on the basis of his political power, which is the opposite of the free enterprise system.

"One must regard his leftist opponent as a parent regards his recalcitrant child. Don’t give an inch in a debate with a leftist, and you’ll soon frustrate him to the point that he falls back to his default position. He’ll gainsay your every point. He’ll even resort to calling you names and accusing you of having suspect parentage.”

So you were for regulations before you were against regulations while you were for regulations?

The free market, level playing field , utopian version of capitalism does not exist. It is actively resisted by “capitalists” and their gov’t partners.

Regulation is important, but it does not take the form of big government so much in my mind.  Government has very few roles, but the biggest in my mind are to protect people and their assets from theft or coersion, to protect the people from foreign powers, and to establish laws regarding the free practice of trade.  I have a Libertarian buddy that believes that medicine and physicians should be completely unregulated.  That med schools should be able to teach any curriculum they want and witch doctors should have the same prescribing rights as physicians.  We realize that when people take this approach, they want anarchy and the free market and capitalist system should not produce that. 

Let me quote Milton Friedman:

The day-to-day activities are like the actions of the participants in a game when they are playing it; the framework, like the rules of the game they play.  And just as a game requires acceptance by the players both of the bules and of the umpire to interpret and enforce them, so a good society requires that its members agree on the general conditions that will govern relations among them, on some means of arbitrating different interpretations of these conditions, and on some device for enforcing compliance with the generally accepted ruls…

The need for government in these respects arises because absolute freedom is impossible.  HJowever attractive anarchy may be as a philosophy, it is not feasible in a world of imperfect men…

In summary, the organization of economic activity through voluntary exchange presumes that we have provided, through government, for the maintencance of law and order to prevent coercion of one individual by another, the enforcement of contracts voluntarily entered into, the definition of the meaning of property rights, the interpretation adn enforcement of such rights, and the provision of a monetary framework.

You all really ought to pick up Capitalism and Freedom again and read it.  Written in freakin’ 1962, truer words were never written.  Friedman and Adam Smith explain it well, Woof.  They do not talk about Utopia.

Putin is NOT a capitalist leader. Putin IS a capitalist in every other respect.

In WHAT way is he capitalist? He used a position of power to steal national resources. The enitre purpose of “denationalization” was a scheme to become rich.

There’s nothing in that that screams “capitalist” so much as “thief”.

If by capitalist, you mean a “dictator veiled behind a non-transparent process of looting an entire nation”, I guess Saddam, Chavez, Lil’ Kim, Castro… They are all “capitalists”.

These would in fact qualify as capitalists in a society where people do not hold their leaders to a higher standard—Russia being such a society.

No, it wouldn’t. What a BS argument.

Saddam ran a socialistic/Islamic hybrid government. Everything was controlled by the government, food rationed. Private business was next to non-existant. The same is true under Castro.

You’re redefining terms to what you want them to be, not what they are. You’re trying to divorce the terms “capitalist” and “free-market”. You’re trying to redefine socialism as capitalism.

Robber baron does not equal capitalist.

Robber baron—according to wiki.

“The term may now be used in relation to any businessman or banker who is perceived to have used questionable business practices or scams in order to become powerful or wealthy.”

What is “questionable” in a truly free market?

In a truly free market, the businessman is still required to follow the same laws as everyone else. They can’t steal someone else’s land, commit arson to burn out hold outs, murder their competition, etc.

What Putin, Castro, et al have done is to steal everybody else’s wealth and made it their own. What happened is akin to a CEO of a major company stealing from the till, and using his position of power to embezzel money from the shareholders.

That is theft, not capitalism.

What happened is akin to a CEO of a major company stealing from the till, and using his position of power to embezzel money from the shareholders.

This is the only point on which I disagree with you, K.  No CEO has the power of a dictator(like Putin) to control the assets of his country for his own benefit.
There is no comparison between the power of govt and the power of any business.  Govt steals from us every day; in fact, such theft is the only source of wealth for them.

"One must regard his leftist opponent as a parent regards his recalcitrant child. Don’t give an inch in a debate with a leftist, and you’ll soon frustrate him to the point that he falls back to his default position. He’ll gainsay your every point. He’ll even resort to calling you names and accusing you of having suspect parentage.”

Adam Smith:

People of the same trade,seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices

There is no comparison between the power of govt and the power of any business.

Which is why business spends to control gov’t.

Which is why business spends to control gov’t.

As usual, you have it wrong.  The govt is always in control, by means of taxation and regulation.  When Bill Gates didn’t give enough money to Clintonco, they tried to destroy his company, using the courts.  Businesses are forced to give money to govt(tribute, in the full medieval sense) in order to prevent govt from screwing them.
The real problem is, and always will be, the size and scope of govt, not business.

"One must regard his leftist opponent as a parent regards his recalcitrant child. Don’t give an inch in a debate with a leftist, and you’ll soon frustrate him to the point that he falls back to his default position. He’ll gainsay your every point. He’ll even resort to calling you names and accusing you of having suspect parentage.”

Adam Smith:

People of the same trade,seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices

In your ignorance, Woof, you have made the case against trade unions.  The real free market, with its freedom of entry and exit, encourages competition and discourages collusion.

"One must regard his leftist opponent as a parent regards his recalcitrant child. Don’t give an inch in a debate with a leftist, and you’ll soon frustrate him to the point that he falls back to his default position. He’ll gainsay your every point. He’ll even resort to calling you names and accusing you of having suspect parentage.”

Just to add to Robert’s point (which is correct with respect to unions) it’s worth noting that Poodle is quoting rather selectively.

An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations By Adam Smith, Joseph Shield Nicholson

Do you find it hard to be this dishonest, Poodle, or does it come naturally?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Kenny,

Your counterarguments would be dead-on if we held Putin to American standards. As I have argued earlier, this type of thinking is flawed.

In WHAT way is he capitalist? He used a position of power to steal national resources. The enitre purpose of “denationalization” was a scheme to become rich.

There’s nothing in that that screams “capitalist” so much as “thief”.

...yes, according to our laws. In Russia, what he did was perfectly legal—because he made it so. In America that would be called “bad faith” but in Russia, we call it business acumen. The key point: Different standard of conduct. It’s a cultural issue that you clearly don’t get.

Saddam ran a socialistic/Islamic hybrid government. Everything was controlled by the government, food rationed. Private business was next to non-existant. The same is true under Castro.

This does not speak to my argument. At no time did I say that these people operated a capitalist regime.

You’re redefining terms to what you want them to be, not what they are. You’re trying to divorce the terms “capitalist” and “free-market”. You’re trying to redefine socialism as capitalism.

It’s odd to be accused of “redefining” in a paragraph consisting purely of pointless equivocation. I don’t even know what you meant by what you wrote there.

But ultimately, here is the crux of our debate. You are welcome to ignore all of the above, this is really all that matters:

In a truly free market, the businessman is still required to follow the same laws as everyone else. They can’t steal someone else’s land, commit arson to burn out hold outs, murder their competition, etc. [my emphasis]

Umm… Russians don’t follow American laws, they follow Russian laws. The fact that Putin put himself in a position to make the rules by which he plays is rather canny, quite enterprising—he truly CAPITALIZED on the situation. Wouldn’t you say?

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

HP: You are confused if you think that the definition of the term “capitalist” is culturally dependent.  It isn’t.  It’s a term that has a certain definition, and Putin is a dictator, not a capitalist.

"One must regard his leftist opponent as a parent regards his recalcitrant child. Don’t give an inch in a debate with a leftist, and you’ll soon frustrate him to the point that he falls back to his default position. He’ll gainsay your every point. He’ll even resort to calling you names and accusing you of having suspect parentage.”

Rob: Exactly so; competitors don’t collude, they compete, and the consumer is the beneficiary of the that competition, with better supply at a better price.
Only through taxation and regulation is competition reduced, and collusion encouraged.

"One must regard his leftist opponent as a parent regards his recalcitrant child. Don’t give an inch in a debate with a leftist, and you’ll soon frustrate him to the point that he falls back to his default position. He’ll gainsay your every point. He’ll even resort to calling you names and accusing you of having suspect parentage.”

Hairy is fond of splitting hairs, I think.

Seems to me that we’re talking about ideas here that transcend various international laws.  The definition of what is and is not a free market is constant regardless of what society we’re talking about.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

The definition of what is and is not a free market is constant regardless of what society we’re talking about.

Exactly; HP is obviously a relativist.

"One must regard his leftist opponent as a parent regards his recalcitrant child. Don’t give an inch in a debate with a leftist, and you’ll soon frustrate him to the point that he falls back to his default position. He’ll gainsay your every point. He’ll even resort to calling you names and accusing you of having suspect parentage.”

10 more till 16,000!!!!

What a glorious day to be alive!

All the chatter is about the 16,000th.
Will it be but but but CLiiiintooooon or the ever popular “hate filled leftie” grumble. Maybe something new….if r-Gumby is anything he is a man of mystery.

Oh wait…this just in….he is a man of misery…

Never mind.

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

Never mind.

That would be a good sig for you, bob!

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

Kenny,
Your counterarguments would be dead-on if we held Putin to American standards. As I have argued earlier, this type of thinking is flawed.

My arguments are dead on because we’re not talking about “standards of conduct” but whether or not Ptin is a capitalist. I didn’t ask whether or not his Momma considered him a “good guy” (something subjective) but whether or not he is practicing capitalism.

From wikipedia:

Capitalism refers to an economic and social system in which the means of production are predominantly private[1][2] owned and operated, and in which investments, distribution, income, production and pricing of goods and services are determined through the operation of a market economy. It is usually considered to involve the right of individuals and groups of individuals acting as “legal persons” or corporations to trade capital goods, labor, land and money (see finance and credit).

What part of that applies to Putin? Hmmm.

And don’t give some retarded answer about Russians not expecting better. An abused woman may not expect her husband not to hit her...but that doesn’t mean that the hitting isn’t taking place just because she expects it.

Umm… Russians don’t follow American laws, they follow Russian laws. The fact that Putin put himself in a position to make the rules by which he plays is rather canny, quite enterprising—he truly CAPITALIZED on the situation. Wouldn’t you say?

Wow. That’s the most ridiculous example of rhetorical word flipping I have seen in weeks.

Bottom line: Putin used state control of resources to pad his pockets. He didn’t create a business, provide a service or do anything other than take money out of the national pool. He took advantage of a SOCIALIST system to take money.

To use an analogy, you’re claiming Putin is a master monopoly player, but he made his own rules, and they’re nothing similar to the game of monopoly. Putin started off as the banker, with all the money and all the properties, decided what he wanted to keep, and sold the rest at profit to himself. Now the game realizes that when Putin decides to stop being banker the games gonna end cause there’s not enough money to keep going, and all the properties are owned by people not playing the game.

You’re right in the Putin is a damn masterful player of the game, but the rules he changed made it to where it’s no longer monopoly.

He’s not a capitalist and you’re not convincing anyone here otherwise with your nonsense.

Hairy is fond of splitting hairs, I think.

Indeed.

Exactly; HP is obviously a relativist.

Well… yea (though I’m not a moral relativist—if that is the insult you were implying). But as far as definitions of capitalism are concerned, I’ll be happy to join you, my dear absolutists, if you would merely tell me which absolute I should conform to. Yours?

From Rob:

Seems to me that we’re talking about ideas here that transcend various international laws.

Yes sir we are! Putin is a shrewd international capitalist in the purely anarchic international market. There are, after all, no rules in a market that trascends the various international laws.

Kenny,

Wow. That’s the most ridiculous example of rhetorical word flipping I have seen in weeks.

Thank you. Though I think this is far more deserving of your compliment:

To use an analogy, you’re claiming Putin is a master monopoly player, but he made his own rules, and they’re nothing similar to the game of monopoly. Putin started off as the banker, with all the money and all the properties, decided what he wanted to keep, and sold the rest at profit to himself. Now the game realizes that when Putin decides to stop being banker the games gonna end cause there’s not enough money to keep going, and all the properties are owned by people not playing the game.

Thank you for explaining how monopoly works… but what does this have to do with Putin being a capitalist?

He’s not a capitalist and you’re not convincing anyone here otherwise with your nonsense.

Poignant. Alas, I don’t care to convince anyone of anything. I just like playing with your head.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

Adam Smith 20 Pound note

Well… yea (though I’m not a moral relativist—if that is the insult you were implying).

I wasn’t “implying” anything; I said you were a relativist, and you obviously are, since you think the definition of “capitalist” is relative to the country in which one lives; it isn’t.

"One must regard his leftist opponent as a parent regards his recalcitrant child. Don’t give an inch in a debate with a leftist, and you’ll soon frustrate him to the point that he falls back to his default position. He’ll gainsay your every point. He’ll even resort to calling you names and accusing you of having suspect parentage.”

Anyone ever notice how similar Carrick (at the top of this page) and that Rod guy looks?

I’m just saying…

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

in which investments, distribution, income, production and pricing of goods and services are determined through the operation of a market economy.

What is a market economy about the government having a completely monopoly on industry obtained by massive executions in the 1900’s, then giving the monopoly of power from allegedly the “people’s hands”, though it was controlled by the Communist Party with absolute control, to that of a dictator and his cronies?  Capitalism does not mean fleecing a country via the power of government and depositing the funds in bank accounts in another nation.

Russia is far from a free economy.  And if you read Capitalism and freedom, you will find that capitalism cannot and does not exist in societies that are not free.  Free speech.  Freedom of assembly.  Hence why one cannot term China as a Capitalist society.  It is not.  It is a communist society that is struggling to figure out how to stay solvent.  So they are allowing the ruling aristocracy to divy things up and enrich themselves because it increases production and therefore taxes as well as tends to keep more folks employed.

What exactly is capitalist about Russia?

Thank you for explaining how monopoly works… but what does this have to do with Putin being a capitalist?

He’s as much of a capitalist as that example is monopoly.

Poignant. Alas, I don’t care to convince anyone of anything. I just like playing with your head.

I think you’re stupid. If that’s “playing with my head”, then you’ve succeeded. Since nothing has any meaning other than what you assign to it.

Well… yea (though I’m not a moral relativist—if that is the insult you were implying).

No, you’re not a moral reletavist. Your reletavism is like moral relativisms mentally retarded little cousin…