If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
"Markets are neither benign nor malign. They just are. They are a society’s aggregate knowledge about needs, wants, resources and production methods, all summarised into prices.
They don’t worsen inequality, either: inequality is actually lower in the most free economies in the world, and higher in unfree economies subject to socialist redistribution."
Bald statement with no sources..........
This is certainly not true in the current Republican Government USA - the wealth/income gap is continuing to widen, despite their policies. And though it is true that cronyism/corruption is rampant, that fails to explain the very real negative economic consequences that are widening the gap.......cutting social spending, loss of huge revenue due to tax cuts, and the rise of the wealth/income of the elite.
As to Argentina, yes right wing economics does kick start a beleaguered economy. But the only issue in society is not economic growth........the reason.......all do not have equal ability to take advantage of it (Despite Libertarian's "we'll all be successful entrepreneurs like Jeff Besos, or Elon Musk")
The Canadian facts..60% of new business fail within the first five years - the market is red in tooth and claw:
"People also ask
How many businesses fail in the first 5 years in Canada?
I've spent years working with Canadian entrepreneurs, and the statistics can be sobering: approximately 20% of small businesses fail within their first year, and around 60% don't make it past year five.Apr 11, 2025
Also, society has to do uneconomic measures to a minor degree, in order to maintain a very modest, livable quality of life for those on the bottom, for many varied reasons. The answer cannot be that the more non-competitive should die, or at least be on the streets homeless.
It is way to premature to be making long term prognostications about the equality/inequality a ways down the road yet. I believe that the negative reports will soon be coming in after this initial honeymoon period of transition.
Bob A (Democratic Marxist)
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Thursday, 17th July, 2025, 02:42 AM.
What about going from Democratic Capitalism (Current) to Wild West Capitalism (No Regulation): Libertarianism.
Bob (Democratic Marxist)
Bob A, Libertarianism is neither Wild West (because the Natural Law is strictly enforced for all), nor is it Capitalism (while in Capitalism having one's own capital is a pre-requisite for entrepreneurship, in Libertarianism it is not so)...
Over 100 economists warned against Javier Milei’s economic policies. Over 100 economists were dead wrong.
Ivo Vegter
The authors were influential economic superstars: Thomas Piketty, author of the famous (or rather, I should say infamous) Marxist manifesto on inequality, Capital in the 21st Century; and three other neo-socialists, India’s Jayati Ghosh; the Serbian-American Branko Milanović, and Colombia’s former finance minister José Antonio Ocampo.
Their warning was stark: Milei’s proposed policies were, they said, “fraught with risks that make them potentially very harmful to the Argentine economy and people,” and he “ignores the complexities of modern economies, ignore[s] the lessons of historical crises and open[s] the door to the accentuation of already serious inequalities”.
Their problem? Milei’s policies are laissez-faire, but “unregulated markets are not benign: they reinforce unequal power relations that worsen inequality and make it difficult to implement key development policies, including industrial, social and environmental policies”.
Proof, pudding
We’re 18 months on, and the numbers are already proving these eminent economists wrong. If the proof is in the pudding, Milei’s pudding is delicious.
His radical free-market reforms, which included halving the number of government ministries and slashing public spending, pulled Argentina out of a recession. In April 2025, it recorded robust 7.7% year-on-year growth.
Inflation dropped like a stone, from an annual rate of 211.4% in 2023 to 43.5 percent by mid-2025. It is still falling, and the month-to-month rate of 1.5% in May 2025 is the lowest recorded in five years.
Meanwhile,the poverty rate, which even free-market economists expected would rise in the short term, declined from 52.9% in the first half of 2024 to 38.1% in the second half.
In May, the Institute of Race Relations published my paper on Argentina’s remarkable turnaround from a corrupt, stagnant, socialist backwater with one of the worst economies on the planet, and why South Africa can learn valuable lessons from it.
How did over 100 of the world’s most eminent economists get it so wrong?
Study versus control
At the root of this question lies the problem that universities do not present economics as a study of human action and of the choices people make when they set out to satisfy their unlimited needs and wants by the efficient use of scarce resources.
The economics establishment doesn’t view the subject merely as a social study, but as an objective science. Universities teach economics as a means not to study human behaviour, but to control it. They provide economists with the tools by which governments can manipulate economies to achieve political ends.
The neo-Keynesian synthesis that is taught in most faculties accepts the view that classical free markets are efficient in the long term, but believes that Keynesian interventions in markets are necessary to correct short-term imbalances and market failures.
Most professional economists believe governments can, and should, direct the economy through monetary and fiscal policy based on mathematical models of how people might respond to economic interventions by the state. The consequence of this school of thought is that it gave governments virtual carte blanche to inflate the money supply in order to fund deficit spending, which in turn assured the loyalty of their voter base. It also synchronised business cycles into market-wide booms and busts, which, inevitably, these economists blame on insufficiently regulated markets instead of on the monetary and fiscal policy that caused them.
Critique
To see how they went wrong, it is helpful to critique some quotations from the open letter.
“The economic vision underlying these proposals supposedly advocates minimal government intervention in the market, but in reality relies heavily on state policies to protect those already economically powerful.”
The only state policy that “protects those already economically powerful” is respect for property rights. The implication is that the government ought to be an agent of redistribution, instead of a protector of life, liberty and property. It is a normative value judgement, not an empirical description of economics, and it exposes a fundamental philosophical difference with Milei.
“The model of laissez-faire assumes that markets work perfectly if the government does not intervene.”
It does not assume so at all. How can it, when markets are merely the aggregate of choices made by fallible humans with imperfect knowledge?
Laissez-faire theory holds that markets are the most efficient way to deploy finite resources in the production of infinite wants and needs. More importantly, it holds that a single controlling agent (like a government) cannot possibly know all that it needs to know in order to determine people’s subjective wants and needs, and how they can best be satisfied. The market is merely a term for a distributed information system, in which no single actor has sufficient knowledge to make production decisions for an entire society.
Inequality
“But unregulated markets are not benign: they reinforce unequal power relations that worsen inequality and make it difficult to implement key development policies, including industrial, social and environmental policies.”
Markets are neither benign nor malign. They just are. They are a society’s aggregate knowledge about needs, wants, resources and production methods, all summarised into prices.
They don’t worsen inequality, either: inequality is actually lower in the most free economies in the world, and higher in unfree economies subject to socialist redistribution.
Moreover, a 2015 IMF study showed that the main economic drag caused by inequality involves the enrichment of politically connected elites, and not free markets. The problem is cronyism, not commerce, and of cronyism, Argentina had plenty.
Market failures
“Markets are also prone to failures, caused by externalities (when all benefits or costs cannot be attributed to individual agents) and information asymmetry (when some agents in a market know more than others).”
Markets, being composed of people, are prone to failures. So are governments. Unlike governments, however, markets are self-correcting. If one person fails, another steps up to correct the failure. If one company fails to produce what the market needs, a competitor will arise to eat its lunch.
The consequence is that markets are far less prone to failure than governments are.
Externalities, as I’ve written before, are the catch-all excuse for regulation. When externalities can be quantified, it is easy enough to sue, and regulation is usually not controversial. More commonly, however, the sorts of externalities that keep left-wing economists up at night are based on thumb-suck guesstimations of diffuse and indirect harms.
As for information asymmetry, there is no bigger information asymmetry than between government bureaucrats and the market as a whole. You can’t legislate information asymmetry away. The entire point of prices, and why they talk of “price discovery” is to minimise information asymmetry.
Financial crisis
“The 2008 global financial crisis demonstrated that inadequate regulation of markets can have disastrous consequences. The experience of the Covid-19 pandemic provided further evidence of the need for public intervention.”
No, the 2008 global financial crisis demonstrated that reckless intervention in markets can have disastrous consequences. Don’t blame the bankers, and don’t blame those who saw it coming years earlier (like libertarian Ron Paul in 2003).
And the Covid-19 pandemic only provided evidence of the need for public intervention in response to an economic crisis caused by public intervention.
Public spending
“A significant reduction in public spending would increase already high levels of poverty and inequality, and could lead to a significant increase in social tensions and conflicts.”
Except that it didn’t.
“Milei’s idea of drastically cutting taxes while reducing public spending would significantly reduce the state’s ability to satisfy the social and economic rights of citizens.”
That would be the point, yes.
“As Argentina navigates its complex economic landscape, it is essential to approach policy formulation with balanced and empirically informed strategies that are not only attractive in the short term, but also sustainable, equitable and enabling in the long term.”
There was nothing uniquely complex about Argentina’s economic landscape. And the policies that our august left-wing economists prescribe are the same policies that had failed Argentina for over a century.
They’re the same policies that are failing so many countries, including South Africa.
What Milei has proven is that orthodox left-wing economists are simply wrong.
Ivo Vegter is a freelance journalist, columnist and speaker who loves debunking myths and misconceptions, and addresses topics from the perspective of individual liberty and free markets
Last edited by Dilip Panjwani; Wednesday, 16th July, 2025, 10:45 PM.
The wealth/income gap is of necessity ever-widening under "Capitalism".
What about going from Democratic Capitalism (Current) to Wild West Capitalism (No Regulation): Libertarianism.
Nothing tried by Libertarianism will change this endemic nature of fundamental Capitalism.
The gap in Argentina (Libertarian majority government) continues to widen!! And there is other economic fall-out from an all austerity rampage, and cuts to elite taxes.
The gap between the country's highest- and lowest-income households reached a record high in the first quarter of 2025, Statistics Canada said Wednesday
That is after 10 years of Liberal rule! Anything but 'progressive'. Libertarianism would have done a much better job by enabling many have-nots to become entrepreneurs, thereby also raising the incomes for those who choose to be 'workers' (greater demand means higher income).
The agency said the difference in the share of disposable income between households in the top 40 per cent of the income distribution and the bottom 40 per cent grew to 49 percentage points in the first three months of the year
That is very close to the 51-49 divide created by politicians, Bob G...
I hope everyone enjoyed Canada Day yesterday. I found at this year’s celebrations the cheers for Canada were even more boisterous. No doubt a reaction to the attacks from our southern neighbour. Hopefully they can prevent passage of the big ugly bill, which lowers taxes on the wealthy and further erodes health care for the poor. Dilip, we seem to agree the billionaires have more than enough, or do you not agree? If you were in the US congress, would you vote for or against the big ugly bill?
Unfortunately, the bill does not make it easier for the non-ultra-rich to compete as entrepreneurs with the ultra-rich...
Relax, Bob.
You are right about the 49% and 51%, but politicians are only interested in securing 51% of the votes... and hence the divide...
In Monopoly, there are limits to options on the small board... unlike in real life.
And the system we have is truly designed for the ultra rich to keep on getting richer by bribing our corrupt politicians, into creating a system wherein competition by those not ultra rich is very difficult...
Marxism, however, is worse!
I hope everyone enjoyed Canada Day yesterday. I found at this year’s celebrations the cheers for Canada were even more boisterous. No doubt a reaction to the attacks from our southern neighbour. Hopefully they can prevent passage of the big ugly bill, which lowers taxes on the wealthy and further erodes health care for the poor. Dilip, we seem to agree the billionaires have more than enough, or do you not agree? If you were in the US congress, would you vote for or against the big ugly bill?
Stop drawing this economic artificial line at 49-51%. The 49 and 51 percentile people are in the same economic boat.
The real divide is between the majority 99% and the obscenely wealthy 1%.
The top 1% "the billionaires" have more wealth, far beyond any notion of equity, with a system designed to exaggerate their wealth over time. The board game monopoly demonstrates this perfectly, eventually everyone goes bankrupt except for the sole winner, who has it all.
Relax, Bob.
You are right about the 49% and 51%, but politicians are only interested in securing 51% of the votes... and hence the divide...
In Monopoly, there are limits to options on the small board... unlike in real life.
And the system we have is truly designed for the ultra rich to keep on getting richer by bribing our corrupt politicians, into creating a system wherein competition by those not ultra rich is very difficult...
Marxism, however, is worse!
"government's power to steal from the 49% to bribe the 51% into voting for it"
Stop it. I call out your BS again.
Stop drawing this economic artificial line at 49-51%. The 49 and 51 percentile people are in the same economic boat.
The real divide is between the majority 99% and the obscenely wealthy 1%.
The top 1% "the billionaires" have more wealth, far beyond any notion of equity, with a system designed to exaggerate their wealth over time. The board game monopoly demonstrates this perfectly, eventually everyone goes bankrupt except for the sole winner, who has it all.
Sweden is not a socialist country. Denmark is not a socialist country.... are basically capitalist economies with social safety nets and high taxes to support that safety net.
And everyone pays the high taxes, as they are not as progressive as elsewhere....
Mitterrand began as a 'commie lunatic' (Trump's very apt description of Mamdani :-) ), and quickly had to abandon his socialist agenda to save France's economy.
As quoted in JACOBIN, 2022:
The Defeat of François Mitterrand’s Reform Program Still Haunts the French Left
The basic story, as normally told, is this: In May 1981, the French left came to power for the first time since the foundation of the Fifth Republic in 1958. In an atmosphere of euphoria that accompanied their election, the new government pursued a radical agenda that sought to boost economic growth and employment through increased consumption, public spending, redistribution, new labor rights, and a more interventionist industrial policy.
However, France was seeking to expand while the international economy was contracting. The boost to domestic consumption also failed to tackle deeper structural problems in French industry. France faced high inflation and a deteriorating balance of payments situation.
In this context, the government had the option of tackling its balance of payments crises by carrying out a substantial devaluation of the franc, thereby boosting its competitiveness. Yet France was a member of the EMS. Without the agreement of other EMS members for such a devaluation, the government would have needed to leave its Exchange Rate Mechanism and allow the value of the franc to fluctuate with international markets.
This question became acute in March 1983. In what turned out to be a definitive decision, the government opted to stay in the EMS. A new “plan de rigueur,” or austerity package, sought instead to correct the French balance of payments by drastically reducing consumption and the government’s budget deficit.
According to the standard narrative, this choice was a clear and historic one. If France had left the EMS, its government could and would have continued its agenda of pursing socialist policies that prioritized growth and employment, behind a wall of increased protectionism to shield it from the constraints of the international economy. By staying within the EMS, it chose to align itself with a neoliberal agenda of austerity, deflation, and economic liberalization, and abandon the vision which it had pursued from 1981.
Any particular economy must seek to meet as many societal needs as possible. Some economic systems are more successful at this than others (E.g. - Socialism is more successful than Capitalism).
Evidence for this claim?
There are no examples of a socialistic economy that is working.
Canada is not a socialist country. Sweden is not a socialist country. Denmark is not a socialist country. All three are basically capitalist economies with social safety nets and high taxes to support that safety net.
If you want to look for a socialist economy you have to look at Venuzuela, Cuba and perhaps a few other places which don't come to mind immediately. There is a very high cost of a socialistic economy.
Not a government of politicians whose aim is to make as much money as possible while they are in power, and win votes by hook or by crook to maintain/gain power. We need government by individuals co-operating with like-minded individuals to take actions for the betterment of society, without violating the Natural Law.
Top 10 Reasons Why Small Businesses Fail in Canada (2025)
Leave a comment: