What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

[Arising_uk]

I think the far more likely outcome in that scenario is the West defaults and China nose dives. ...

Are you saying that America, who owes most of the China loans should default!! If so then that'd be pretty much the end of the current economic system. Now I think, given their resources, they might consider this but I think the reality would be that they'd collapse internally as a unified system and even dissolve into civil strife. Not a good thing in a country with so many guns in the hands of its citizens. China on the other hand could probably weather such a situation as they are not yet the consumerist society the rest of us are.

[chaz wyman]

I think the far more likely outcome in that scenario is the West defaults and China nose dives. ...

Are you saying that America, who owes most of the China loans should default!! If so then that'd be pretty much the end of the current economic system. Now I think, given their resources, they might consider this but I think the reality would be that they'd collapse internally as a unified system and even dissolve into civil strife. Not a good thing in a country with so many guns in the hands of its citizens. China on the other hand could probably weather such a situation as they are not yet the consumerist society the rest of us are.

The West can default in 2 ways.
1) Devalue the currency by quantitative easing - this it has done to some degree.
2) Inflating the economy by charging more for goods.

Ultimately the value of China's dollar reserves are dependant on the value of the dollar and the health of the American economy.
The value of those dollars can only even be expressed through the US economy; they can only spend them there.

However, neither of these scenarios will lead to the Chinese economy nose-diving. it is still healthy and growing, whilst they send their young people to study Western ways in Universities all over the west - spending those dollars very wisely.
The tragedy of this is that home students are now facing fees that have parity with foreign students.

[John]

Network's one of those films that been on my list of films I need to see but never really got around to for years now so watching that clip encouraged me to order a copy from Amazon.

[duszek]

Coming back to the initial question:

sometimes it is the social pressure and the fear of displeasing society which prevents us from seeing and even more admitting the truth.

In the novel "A passage to India" a woman accuses a man of following her into a cave and (presumably) trying to rape her, but only indirectly so. She probably had a hallucination and ran out of the cave like a lunatic and hurt herself.
The accused man can only be saved if she admits that she probably DID have a hallucination.
The problem is that nobody will be greatful if she saves him, she will become a social outcast.
She does the right thing and becomes an outcast.
Only one man who is a third party appreciates her courage.

A similar case happened some years ago in Turkey, when an English girl accused a German boy of trying to rape her and he had to spend some time in a Turkish prison. This girl was probably under the influence of her mother and was too weak to face the consequence of becoming a social outcast. She saved herself walking on this poor boy´s corpse.
But of course, we were not there, we can only presume what happened.

If we sacrifice the truth do we at least do it for something worth it ?

[spike]

It is funny about the truth. It is very subjective. For instance, those who are Marxist will never accept the truth that communism, in politics and economics, was and is a total failure. The proof is in the pudding. It repressed people. Its system of doing things denied reality. It was illegitimate. Communism was truly the big lie. But some persist on hanging onto their belief in it, even though it circumvented reality and the predisposition of the human race.

Many believe communism wasn't given a proper chance. Well, it had at least 70 years to prove itself. However, it showed itself to be manipulative of the truth and thus became corrupt and contemptible. With that truth in mind, this is why we see the world moving in the other direct, of free markets and open societies. Nevertheless, there are many that continue in their delusion.

Communism was truly an immoral system. Theoretically, on paper, it can make sense. But in an imperfect world it doesn't make for good practice. The only way it could be made to work was with brut force, which is not a legitimate way of persuading people to do good and preform well.

[Arising_uk]

...Ultimately the value of China's dollar reserves are dependant on the value of the dollar and the health of the American economy. The value of those dollars can only even be expressed through the US economy; they can only spend them there. ...

There and on oil.

[Arising_uk]

... For instance, those who are Marxist will never accept the truth that communism, in politics and economics, was and is a total failure. ...

And then there's those Marxists who agree with Marx's Historical Materialism, although the other marxists appear to have a case that communism has done a fair job with China.

[Arising_uk]

...

Communism was truly an immoral system. Theoretically, on paper, it can make sense. But in an imperfect world it doesn't make for good practice. The only way it could be made to work was with brut force, which is not a legitimate way of persuading people to do good and preform well.

Funny! And Capitalism achieved it's aims how?

[spike]

Funny! And Capitalism achieved it's aims how?

We are not talking about aims here. We are talking about truth.

As Hegel said about truth, it is always consummating itself. The failure of Marxism and communism as governing systems is that they made themselves truths from the outset without leaving any room or accommodation for truths yet undiscovered. One truth that those ideologies denied and ignored is that the world changes and is always in flux. The reason why capitalism and democracy are ascending is because they accepted from the start the truth of change and therefore are flexible and prepared for any inevitability.

If capitalism has an aim or truth about it is that it be as accommodating, accountable and transparent as possible. Its aim is also to be as resourceful as possible with natural and human resources so that we have economic sustainability. Communism collapsed because it couldn't achieve that aim. And that's the truth.

[Arising_uk]

You appear to be confusing Capitalism with Democracy? Capitalism aims for profit, nothing more nothing less.

[spike]

The truth is, as defined by Francis Fukuyama, liberal democracy incorporates capitalism, the term liberal meaning capitalism and the free market, in the classic sense. What Fukuyama was suggesting is that neither capitalism nor democracy can exist without the other. And I think that is true.

Capitalism is more than just about profit. It is an economic system by which we achieve material sustainability, which is definitely important to maintain civilization. Anyway, without profit there would be no motive for sustainability. Why communism and Marxism ended up in the dustheap of dysfunctional governing and economic systems is because they didn't encourage profit, the very motivation to produce and maintain things. They also never recognized personal achievement, another motivating factor which capitalism is aware of.

The truth is that people compete and want recognition. Capitalism and the free market are extremely accommodating when it comes to that.

[chaz wyman]

...Ultimately the value of China's dollar reserves are dependant on the value of the dollar and the health of the American economy. The value of those dollars can only even be expressed through the US economy; they can only spend them there. ...

There and on oil.

The point is that wherever it is spent that money is only worth money against the US economy.

[chaz wyman]

Funny! And Capitalism achieved it's aims how?

We are not talking about aims here. We are talking about truth.

I think Arising is right here. You are confusing an amoral system; capitalism, with democracy.
Take a look at what capitalism did in pre-revolutionary China; at what it is doing in Brazil with millions living in abject poverty whilst others live high on the hog; and in dozens of other countries that have not had the moderating benefits of social-democracy like the UK and the US.
Face it socialism has worked well when combined with democracy.

Communism as practiced is just another form a amoral capitalism; "State Capitalism"


].

[Arising_uk]

... What Fukuyama was suggesting is that neither capitalism nor democracy can exist without the other. And I think that is true. ...

How did he explain the Greeks and where the word came from? How did he explain the Romans?

[chaz wyman]

The truth is, as defined by Francis Fukuyama, liberal democracy incorporates capitalism, the term liberal meaning capitalism and the free market, in the classic sense. What Fukuyama was suggesting is that neither capitalism nor democracy can exist without the other. And I think that is true.

It is patently false. Nearly all countries that have no democracy are capitalist.

.