![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.2){kind=small}
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif?v=92.2){kind=small}
Since 2005, the junta has managed to get around 11,000 taxis andbuses in Yangon -- most of them decades-old jalopies held together bybits of wire and the ingenuity of their owners -- to convert to compressed natural gas (CNG).
Unfortunately, during this time it has installed only 20 filling stations for a city of 5 million people.
More unfortunately, the CNG pumps they have installed are so archaic they can take 30 minutes to fill up one vehicle.
Even more unfortunately, every time a power blackout strikes -- which is at least once a day -- the pumps grind to a halt.
- http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/0
February 27 2007, 18:21:47 UTC 5 years ago
OK.....
Sucks to be themFebruary 27 2007, 18:59:16 UTC 5 years ago
Re: OK.....
funny how command economies and poverty keep lining up ... for decades ...February 27 2007, 19:28:59 UTC 5 years ago
Re: OK.....
Yeah, like Norway.February 27 2007, 19:34:46 UTC 5 years ago
Re: OK.....
non sequitars abound. consider the importance of making coherent arguments, even in a little soundbite.norway doesn't score especially high on the command scale. cf http://www.freetheworld.org .
of course, norway went through its free market phase - it and sweden were leaders in european liberalization. once they instituted serious socialism, economy growth began to disappear. and if it weren't for the capitalist world to export to ...
February 27 2007, 19:48:36 UTC 5 years ago
Re: OK.....
I'm not going to take your source at face-value considering it is obviously extra capitalistic. Norway still has a lot of governmental control, the just have what is important; lots of resources in the form of what the world craves most: oil. Same as Qatar.And, economic growth in norway is still great. It still has the second highest GDP per capita in the world, and highest human development index. So much for your argument, since your facts are straight up wrong.
February 27 2007, 19:55:15 UTC 5 years ago
Re: OK.....
you've yet to make a coherent argument for your claim. we shall conclude, then, that you cannot.norway's economy, particularly outside the petroleum sector, is largely moribund. "great" is not an economic term. high per-capita GDP has been bought at the cost of coercive income redistribution (and, once again, a capitalist world to export to, using capitalist-developed technology, and many decades of capitalist-based economic growth prior to socialism). would you think said gdp would be great if it had been achieved via concentration camps? if you look at the "human development index" you'll see it's solidly collectivist-socialist in bias.
freedom is a primary good. i'm unimpressed with socialist paradises achieved through violence or threat thereof against peaceful activity, economic or otherwise.
February 27 2007, 20:06:32 UTC 5 years ago
Re: OK.....
you've yet to make a coherent argument for your claim. Keeping your head in the sand doesn't mean that the sun isn't shining.would you think said gdp would be great if it had been achieved via concentration camps?
If that were the case, then yes you could make the argument that concentration camps is an effective economy, if that were the sole argument. However as I stated, the people live well there too.
f you look at the "human development index" you'll see it's solidly collectivist-socialist in bias.
Yeah, I know it goes off things like health and happiness, and those are such socialist values.
freedom is a primary good. i'm unimpressed with socialist paradises achieved through violence or threat thereof against peaceful activity, economic or otherwise.
Norway's economic prosperity is achieved through violence? Not surprising you think all socialism is evil though, I guess.
February 27 2007, 20:12:34 UTC 5 years ago
Re: OK.....
> Keeping your head in the sandhigh on personal address, low on coherent argument for your primary claims. carry on.
> Yeah, I know it goes off things like health and happiness
no, it doesn't. it goes off of all manner of things of all sorts of mixed value, and most of all does not take into account how those things were achieved, or how sustainable they are, or what else is missing. a very nice fuzzy fantasy, but not reality.
> through violence?
try opening or operating a business there without complying with their 397458935 business-hampering rules and see how long it is before the police show up at your door. do you think they show up with smiles and flowers?
this is the dirty secret of statist socialism: it attains its ends through the threat of force, just as much as the worst right-wing dictatorship. this is why i'm a minarchist: government is based on violence. therefore it must be used as little as possible, as judiciously as possible.
February 27 2007, 20:24:23 UTC 5 years ago
Re: OK.....
high on personal address, low on coherent argument for your primary claims. Head still in the sand, that's fine. You can be purposely obtuse all you want.it attains its ends through the threat of force, just as much as the worst right-wing dictatorship.
I assume you're against anti theft laws too, since they hamper personal liberties through the use of force? You're sounding a bit crazy.
February 27 2007, 20:24:07 UTC 5 years ago
Re: OK.....
So your argument is essentially that a command economy can work as long as they have virtually limitless natural resources to prop it up? Makes sense.February 27 2007, 20:28:16 UTC 5 years ago
Re: OK.....
Norway is definitely not a purely command economy, its a mixed economy that falls further on the scale towards command than the US does.However, that part is true, technically. Look at Saudi Arabia. If you discount everyone that doesn't get to be part of the economy, the economy is doing fine :P
My point with that is that there can be more government regulation, or less, and the economy will still do good or bad depending on other factors.
A pure command economy has its own set of problems that will create stagnation in most circumstances that countries find themselves in, as has been shown time and time again.
February 27 2007, 20:37:58 UTC 5 years ago
Re: OK.....
I think what the OP is trying to demonstrate is that in a country like Myanmar, a conversion to CNG wouldn't have happened that way when supply is so tight under a less command driven economy. Why would any taxi cab driver spend the money necessary to convert knowing full well that they would only have 20 options with frequent outages? Profit-wise, it makes much more sense to avoid conversion (therefore avoiding costs) and to stick with the form of fuel that has the most existing infrastructure.Maybe if Myanmar had limitless natural resources, this wouldn't be an issue as you demonstrated with Norway. But having a more command driven economy leaves little room for error when money is already tight. It seems like individual cabbies would have been much more suited to make this decision and wouldn't have led to nearly the outrage and inconvenience it has generated.
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
February 27 2007, 18:54:10 UTC 5 years ago
February 27 2007, 18:58:55 UTC 5 years ago
February 27 2007, 19:25:16 UTC 5 years ago
February 27 2007, 19:30:19 UTC 5 years ago
i said economy - i.e., a systemic and overarching description - not economic aspects. command-economies and capitalist-economies are mutually exclusive, as can be seen from their definitions. myanmar certainly qualifies as a command economy. the u.s. only partially qualifies as a capitalistic economy.
February 27 2007, 19:32:26 UTC 5 years ago
February 27 2007, 19:36:08 UTC 5 years ago
you'll have a hard time with it, since the u.s. is not a command economy and myanmar is.
February 27 2007, 19:52:49 UTC 5 years ago
Your problem is you are trying to fit these economies into dichotomous boxes when it is in actuality a scale. Governments can regulate control in all sorts of ways over all sorts of things in an economy, or those things can be completely unregulated.
February 27 2007, 20:02:42 UTC 5 years ago
the problem with your comments, aside from a resistance to argumentation, is that you're throwing around terms without regard to their meaning, and ignoring important distinctions in mine.
here's the basic issue: myanmar is a command economy under a military junta. capitalism doesn't exist in myanmar. of course there are some small spontaneous bits of non-coerced activity, economic and otherwise - there were even those in auschwitz - but those do not amount to capialism. capitalism is a system, and that's now what you have in myanmar or any other command economy.
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
February 27 2007, 19:38:19 UTC 5 years ago
February 27 2007, 19:40:27 UTC 5 years ago
as a libertarian, i want to do away with all commands except "stop initiating force against that person."
February 27 2007, 19:59:10 UTC 5 years ago
This is why the US has anti monopoly laws and the such. A 100% open system will not work any more than a 100% government controlled system does.
What has always worked best is open capitalism in a regulated frame that ensures that competition and innovation are encouraged.
Unfortunately, we have also seen the rise in megacorporations that have been able to have to power to effectively manipulate legislation to actually discourage competition and restructure the frame in ways that are beneficial for perpetuation of their power and a very difficult time for any other competition.
February 27 2007, 20:06:13 UTC 5 years ago
coercive monopolies are impossible under capitalism. this has been demonstrated endlessly by, e.g., von mises.
the best "regulation" is an informed public that votes with its dollars under a minarchical government that ensures individual rights.
anti-monopoly laws are positively evil. not only are they improper initiations of force, on a practical level they discourage business integration, leading to less efficient use of capital, leading to diminished returns on investment, leading in turn to diminished innovation and standard of living. but most of all, they're offenses against liberty.
February 27 2007, 20:22:00 UTC 5 years ago
coercive monopolies are impossible under capitalism. this has been demonstrated endlessly by, e.g., von mises. East India Company.
the best "regulation" is an informed public that votes with its dollars under a minarchical government that ensures individual rights.
Romantic once again, but inevitably futile, as any person who studies a little bit of mass media can tell you. As with communism, you give humans too much credit, and corporations too. Neither have ever earned that trust.
anti-monopoly laws are positively evil. not only are they improper initiations of force, on a practical level they discourage business integration, leading to less efficient use of capital, leading to diminished returns on investment, leading in turn to diminished innovation and standard of living. but most of all, they're offenses against liberty.
Yeah, those poor innocent corporations that would never use a monopoly to overcharge for shitty products or unfairly obstruct competition. Never happened!