Communism vs. Capitalism

i cede my point on employment. curretnly i am a sophomore in college, and if you have any specific books you recommend i do have a 3 week break coming up and am in the market for reading material. thanks.

however, prove a positive. dont prove a negative. prove that the computer was built under communism. prove the computer was made under socialism. prove a dictator decreed my computer be made by people all over the world acting collaboratively voluntarily. no coercion needed. i walked into bestbuy and traded my money for the wonderful machine i am now typing this on.

i say god exists, you say he doesnt. i say you cannot prove he doesnt exist. therefore he must exist?

back up the idea that the computer could have been conceived, come to fruition, and be setting on my desk under communism.

well finals tomorrow. go go gadget self restraint, ill be back on NS on monday. have an enjoyable weekend skiing!
 
I'm curious then who is holding them back if not themselves? I'd think it more accurate to say a percentage can not escape being poor.
 
It's simple, the Fed has less and less control with monetary policy. I mean we can debate it or we could just watch interviews with Greenspan. The guy is no saint, but he's right. Am I saying the Fed is a great institution? Of course not. All I am saying is it is losing power with monetary policy, if you don't get that I'm sorry but it's a fact.
Uh yup that's what I said. Gold Standard = tools of injections are pointless. Therefore you have an S=I determinant which is not plausible and will cause severity in recessions and depressions. You are trading stability for inflation. Inflation is workable, instability is dangerous when paired with human emotion. Thus the reason there is a de facto currency. I mean I guess I am really ignorant compared to you. I'm sure you knew that countries which abandoned the gold currency before the Great Depression largely escaped repercussions of a global meltdown. Even though international trade was infant compared to today, the point still holds. You also have to realize the position the dollar is in and what would happen if it was converted back to the gold standard. This doesn't mean it isn't a good solution for other countries and that it will never work for the US again but right now it is a bad idea. I guess everything I just said is noting.
Yes, bubbles are speculative. This is not because of government policy. What you need to understand is the word externalities and you need to understand imbalances. These are flows outside business cycles (slowing investment) that cause bubbles to pop. IE bank rush before the great depression. yes, a buildup can happen, but it is largely an offset of external investment that does not feed to a specific point in a given effective demand. Money is ripped out of investment and hoarded to savings. It's not a very difficult concept.
Please enlighten me with your infinite wisdom on which policies the government single handedly caused the recession. I mean, you are calling me ignorant so I must not know anything about the current situation? The private sector couldn't have had anything to do with it by means of extreme credit crunches?
Right, I'm done explaining this. Re-read my posts. It's simple.

 
Super low taxes? What the hell are you talking about?
Unless someone lives in a state with no state income tax, taxpayers the highest and second highest tax brackets pay around 42-47% of their salary to the government. That means about 6 months out of the year they are working exclusively for the government. Now, what benefits do they derive from all their taxes? Hardly any. That sounds a little like slavery to me. This bullshit mantra of equality is just an excuse to tax as much as possible, in an attempt to bring the classes closer together, not by elevating the poor, but by bringing down those with "too much". Socialist states just replace a business and professional upper and upper-middle class with a parasitic government elite. I guess this a great way to eliminate the wealth gap.
As Churchill said quite accurately, "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings, the inherent virture of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." Socialist states are nothing more than welfare states that cannot subsist. Take France for example, if socialism is working so fantastically there, why do we hear constantly of rioting and rampant unemployment? Because they've created a welfare state where there is no incentive to strive for more, and no incentive to hire additional workers full time because of all the government regulation on required benefits for employees. Do you think anyone in their right mind would want to start a business in France or Sweden for that matter?
Union participation? You gotta be joking. Union participation is a giant tick on America right now, a relic of a bygone age that is bankrupting our government. You know where higher taxes go? Not to schools, not to ineffective and wasteful social programs, but rather to feed that ever growing parasite known as the government unions. About 50% of every tax dollar goes directly to a direct exchange, meaning that it is paying someone's salary. The vast majority of unions in the United States today are government unions. We've already seen what the UAW has done to the American car industry, unless government unions are brought down the whole government could share an equal fate. Its not time for more regulation of business, but rather more regulation of government itself. Its time to cut the fat off the parasites, not the people who produce in a free-market system. Do you know why California, for example, is bankrupt? Its because of the unions. How much do you think the average prison guard makes? They're all looking at starting 6 figure salaries with all the benefits and job protection they could ever want, not to mention their wage increases off the sweat of the taxpayer. Guess where California fire chiefs live? In the most luxurious homes I can assure you, and they get to retire with 3/4 pension at 55, getting paid to do nothing! Doctors, dentists, and other professionals? They get jack shit. Now explain to me how a capitalist system that determines a fair-value of labor is unjust.
^That is socialism for you. California is the pathetic American socialist experiment. They've take the one-time 7th largest economy in the world and made it a cesspool of debt.
Our economy as a whole is shrinking because of government backed debt. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are far more to blame for the housing bubble then any private bank.
 
Hell yeah man, read that one Sraffa book I said. It's really complex but worth it. Eye opening indeed.
As stated before. Capitalism has allocated natural resources at a rate never seen before. This does bring us technological innovation. However, the argument that we are all better off with Capitalism is certainly a debate. You may be buying commodities, does that certainly mean your life is better? That is not a choice you or I can make. This was one of Marx's important principles in Capital (which I will never read all of).
I say that the burden of proof is on you to say that there is an all tier creator as opposed to any other formation of life. There's a really cool theory as pertaining to Sraffa that makes neoclassical economics contradict itself. It actually has to do with invariables unaccounted for.
 
What the hell am I talking about? I'm talking about the marginal tax rate.
figure2.gif

Pretty simple. We don't pay as much as we used to in taxes. Hm that's interesting. I see 35% on the IRS website, but yet you say 42-47%. Not to mention that doesn't account for write off expenses and other loopholes that are often dodged.
Hardly any? Granted they don't see the benefit most do, but Roads, schools, etc. Slavery? hahaha wow. Yup those 5 houses all over the world really encapsulates slavery. Most of the investment doesn't even come back to our economy anymore.
You do know where the Gini coefficient stands right now right? I hope you understand that this isn't good for an economy especially in times of high unemployment and pessimism. It means hoarding. Yes that is what happens and yes that is what the top 5% are doing. It hurts any type of demand from the average person aka effective demand. An excuse? You need to look more into economics. Your dad my be bitching about uncle Sam reaching into his pocket like my father does but you need to understand income inequality has severe repercussions. This isn't some social scheme to bring classes together or a liberal agenda being carried out. This is real life macro economics. So yeah, stop there.
Winston Churchill was routinely mocked for his economic principles. So yeah, that might not be your best choice.
Again, wow. France's rioting comes from a social problem. I suggest you read instead of watching burning fires on tv. You may just understand what exactly is happening. There are plenty of socialist countries with better unemployment rates than the US right now. Funny you should mention France, their unemployment rate is the same as ours. Well .1% different. Every other European country is doing better in unemployment besides Belgium and Spain.
Yeah why would we want real wage to go up? Let's keep the American people earning less! Good call Salcedo.
Yep definitely the UAW caused the collapse of the auto industry. Good thing those CEO's were taking paycuts in downturns of business. Damn those middle class auto workers. Damn them to hell!
Salcedo. Don't compare California government workers to the rest of the country. That state is fucked. Funny then what is Massachusetts? The socialist experiment that works? I hope you know that lovely Reaganomics helped stockpile debt. You do know he sprang government spending with military and raped taxes. As did good ole GW Bush.
I'm sorry but you need to go back to the 1980's. You would fit in then. Or just stop listening to Glenn Beck, you sound like a walking doll of him. The man has absolutely no clue about economics.
 
It's simple, the Fed has less and less control with monetary policy. I mean we can debate it or we could just watch interviews with Greenspan.

So the fact that there still printing massive amounts of money and setting interest rates still supports that they have no control anymore?

Printing money was the problem, the gold standard kept the usd worth something. Whether your a fan or not, having kept the gold standard would have have left our economy in a much better place today, without the insane inflation. If your denying that than I really don't know what your talking about. That logic makes no sense.

"Inflation is workable," Workable? Ha, we haven't even seen the inflation coming from the last few years of printing money. Not to mention those same policies are going to continue. The inflation right now is already ridiculous.

I'm not talking about a government number, I'm talking about real inflation that were seeing in the market. The value of the dollar is a small percentage of what it used to be. Again, I'm not talking about the news comparing to other fiat based currencies and saying the dollar is strong.

Monopoly money is better for the economy because it's not worth anything so there is no reason to horde it right? Actually blaming the problems on the gold standard and talking about the fed as if it is a decent institution is ridiculous. What kind of bs are they teaching people these days. Ditch the book, look at the whole thing with an open mind. Your right, it really isn't that hard.

The best thing for our country would have been JFK staying alive long enough to see his bill actually go into effect. And the the US gov. to take back control of the money supply. Even Wilson, the first one to give into the bankers and sign the federal reserve bill, greatly lamented it later in life.

The good thing about your backwards logic, is that everyone thinks like that, inflation will keep going up, and people like me will continue to watch our precious metal investments rise in value.

 
Didn't say no control. You are not interpreting correctly.
The gold standard, again deepens depressions and makes it impossible to help cure them. We still are worth something, just not pegged to gold. Again, no, the gold standard deepens recessions. I don't know why this is so hard for you to grasp.
Okay, stop with inflation. It isn't a problem like it was in the early 80's. Just stop all you are saying is blah inflation print money recession inflation. Stop. They are not intertwined. There is not a major problem like there was in the 80's. Again, that is the tradeoff, inflation for stability. There was a period where this was invalid known as stagflation which is an inherent flaw of capitalism at its finest. Seriously, you would rather have an unemployment rate of 20% than inflation? Hm wonder what is worse for productivity.
Great, so can I make up arguments for you too? Can you not read? I said the Fed wasn't a great institution. I forgot because the dollar is obviously monopoly money. Oh wait, it is still the global pegged currency. Hence, no reason for gold standard.
Please find a part in any of my responses where I said a quasi institution is the best way to regulate a nations currency? Oh yeah, you can't because you are making up arguments again.
Main points.-you have some sort of obsession with inflation-you understand that printing money causes it to lose value but nothing else about inflation-you have no inherent grasp of implications of a market based currency -you call me ignorant and then completely misunderstand my post-you don't know what quasi means unless you look it up-you are misinterpreting everything I am saying
I'm done answering you because all you do is take something of my logic and half ass answer it with a twisted perception of what I am saying. Congrats.
Precious metals are a commodity like anything else. Currencies/commodities are subject change and rarities change. Keep investing in gold/silver hopefully it pays off for you.
 
Too bad the income tax law doesn't even apply to the average american citizen.

The income tax is voluntary compliance. Labor is an exchange, you do the job you get your money.

go ahead and try to find the law or prove that the average american is liable to pay a tax on his labor.
 
dammit. im back into this. haha

ok ill make a positive statement. The laptop i am currently typing this on could not have been conceived, produced, and would not have ended up in my greedy little hands under communism. The micro processor that is humming away would not have been invented, even if it had, it would not have been small enough to fit inside a slim laptop. the internet that we are communicating would not exist. Finally, there would not be a private enterprise such as bestbuy that sells computers to consumers. all that i laid out would not happen under communism. the laptop i type this on is a quintessential product of capitalism. everyone in the process of creating this laptop benefited. (unless china built it;) otherwise the computer would not exist. there is no person or entity that says i must trade with you, or the bestbuy that sold me the computer. it was all voluntary.

whewww. there is my take on my computer being produced under a capitalistic model. paint me a picture of a computer made in communism. last i checked Cuba doesnt make computers. if they did, i bet they would be shit ;) you may be right, i cannot prove the computer would not exist in communism. but now ide like to see you prove it could have even had a slight chance existing. haha

skiminnesota's positive statement ===================*== ball now in mitchpee's court. haha
 
my bad, i think we may have been operating on two different wave lengths. when i asked you to prove a positive. what i meant was you have already stated that "you dont know" if the computer would have been produced under communism. you may be right, i dont know. but in order for the discussion to move forward, i need to know why you think the computer could have been produced under communism.. do you? or was it for the sake of conversation? (devils advocate, etc)

otherwise going back to god. i tell you, god exists. (computers made under communism) you then say, no he does not. (i say computers would not be made to the extent they are today under communism) then i say, well you cannot prove god dosent exist. therefore god does exist. my inability to prove computers would not be made under communism does not mean they will be made / would have been made.. the one making the claim. (computers made under communism) must support the claim being made.

we might be going in circles and actually be advocating the same thing. its getting a bit confusing. haha
 
This may be more complex than I want it to be but here it goes...
Anything will be produced in a communist economy that is produced in a capitalist economy. The difference comes down to surplus labor is all. Granted you have working capital in capitalism, but in communism you also have working capital but the means of production are owned by an entity not intertwined with citizens owning the means of production (ie capitalists).
A worker will produce your laptop where labor is the only overhead cost and not sold for a profit. Hence the worker gets compensated for what he produces, but the capital with previous labor embodied in it does not produce for profit to pay off the capital. ie no interest rates. This process will take the L from a worker and give him a set wage in which a laptop is created systematically through several processes of embodied labor (ie capital). WIth this wage, the costs of creating the computer (labor) = the total exchange value is determined by that input. Simply the Marxian labor theory of value. Hence, the basis for fair production without an exploitation of surplus labor (where workers are working for more than what they are compensated for)
This is an older classical model of a Marxian economy which has a lot more inputs to adjust with.
 
there is no government system that is 100 percent unflawed.
capatalism does to an extent survive on "the search for the sucker" and laizzez faire or free market completely ungovernmented control would be too much of a divide between the rich and poor.
Marxism Communism is a great government in principle, however unfortunately humans have to run it and therefore it is corrupted. Humans are greedy at heart and therefor kill the concept of Communism.
 
He knows a lot about the topic. Seems like he studied economics a little bit. Only problem is some of his ideas just don't make sense.

Like his view of the gold standard. And reasons for our economy being in rough shape. Also his views on inflation.

 
Are you seriously patronizing me? A "little bit"?
I never expressed any "views" on inflation. I expressed relationships of inflation and facts of inflation. I don't have an opinion on inflation.
Now because you can't grasp something doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.
It really isn't that hard to conceptualize. A switch the Gold Standard will cause deflation AND unemployment like it did when Churchill switched over to it for Great Britain. That's the initial shock of the switch. Do you think there is a reason we use a de facto currency? Yes there is and there's a reason that we are using it.
You don't understand that with a gold standard currency is left to equilibirum and in essence the outside leakages of the business cycle are not easily repaired meaning LONGER depressions and LESS ability to combat unemployment/recessionary pressures.
 
Yeah, i wasn't. I just don't understand your view on the gold standard. I mean where staying a float right now, but prices are climbing from inflation, and we can only prop up our economy for so long. At some point the printing has to stop and then what?
 
weak argument because these charities have a negligible impact in local society and definately on the global scale. and look at the larger scale: is there a charity that can help say, all of China? China is being exploited by America and theyre stuck in the situation theyre in. its just large scale class struggle
 
The thing is we aren't propping up. Debt can be easily wiped.
What happens is you will have a planned devaluation something like the plaza accord of 1985 I believe. Essentially what it does is pegs the dollar against certain currencies and devalues it with respect to those other currencies. You also have shrinking of money supply as a great way to cure inflation, but the Fed generally messes it up and too much destruction will cause a quick rapid deflation which can be deadly to an economy.
So if we were to switch we would have severe fluctuation like we had before we switched to de facto currency. It's just better for society so we don't have dire economic times for years.
 
But where do we go in the end though. Since we've bailed the gold standard inflation has risen a lot, and plenty even before that after the fed was introduced.

Do we just keep printing more money out to deal with the problems and by doing so create more inflation, and keep repeating? What is the goal and execution for dealing with the problem?
 
First of all, I clearly mentioned that it included state income taxes. Read more closely next time.
Second, roads and schools? Great argument there buddy, those account for a combined total of 7-8% of every tax dollar spent. As compared to 58% that is a direct payment to individuals. But of course we should increase taxes so the latter percentage can be compensated even more. Like I said, government needs regulation, not the the private sector. Paying over 40% of one's earnings for roads and schools, that sounds fair.
Third, the government, bad management, and the UAW brought down the American car industry, so I guess they've damned themselves to hell. The inflated salary of two persons (the CEOs) is negligible compared the the inflated pay of tens of thousands of auto workers.
Fourth, a commendation on your originality. Tying the top 15-20% of American with the top 0.5-1% with dumb comments like "5 houses", typical vilification of the rich, never heard that before.
If I need to go back to the 1980s, you need to take your Paul Krugman economics back to the 1930s. Is this really what current day economic teaching has degenerated back into? You say hoarding money is bad, therefore the government should step in and commandeer a higher percentage of people's earnings. Am I understanding you correctly? Because we all know government knows how to spend in the best interest of everyone. It wouldn't surprise me if you think the New Deal helped solve the great depression as well. Also, don't try and patronize me with your supposed broader world view. Of course I understand that a factor in France's problems include a social aspect. I suggest you put down your book, actually go there, and talk to people that live there like I have.
With the government printing money faster than it can spend it, I'd put any assets I had into metal currency. Oh wait, I already convinced my old man to do that back in October of 08 with 20% of his assets, he's done very nicely off that. But I'm sure it would've been better for the government to have taken it rather than have evil people like us hoard it. What incentive is there to reinvest, its clear that Obama plans to let the capital gains tax cut expire.
You seem to like charts, so here's one for you.
2uxw6f5.jpg

Explain how that is controlled inflation.

 
Yes we should increase taxes to cover for what Reagan and Bush helped mess up along with Democrats. Spending and preaching the dead neoclassical S=I argument which does not work.
UAW brought down the auto industry? Are you that naive? Seriously?
Of course it had nothing to do with the lack of innovation and extremely high amounts paid for lobbyists against foreign trade, which if calculated, makes the pension payout look like a penny on the ground. Inevitably the global capitalist system with competition drove out the US auto maker. Not because a salary increase or health pensions of auto workers. Yeah let's blame it on the lowest people in the problem. You're seriously saying something that has had barely any affect on the issue and just trying to take a shot at unions. That's all this whole thing has been about. When CEO's salary is ONE person increasing five hundred fold as compared to the wage of others. Keep listening to fox news Salcedo, you seem like a repeat of everything they were saying about the auto mess until they realized how contradictory of an argument they were making and forgot to take out the skimped R+D money + lack of innovation.
Where did I say the New Deal solved the Great Depression or were you just implying? Also, because I said efficiency wages my theoretical basis is that of Paul Krugman? Cool. I can tell you that the global prosperity of this country had a high tax rate to pay for the debt incurred by the New Deal and WWII. Cutting programs is not the way to go about it. Also, government money going to incomes is much better than private industries investing in Taiwan, wouldn't you say? I'm not saying there's no room for private industry but I am saying injections need to happen which is the co
Hoarding money IS bad because it is the same exact thing as the government being too big in a capitalist system. Nice contradiction. There are 3 leakages from Keynesian theory. This accounts for two of them.
Government does know how to spend in the best interest of everyone because that is why it is there. There are inefficiencies in the government, but it is an entity created for the social good. Alas the founding fathers would be on my side with that one. Patronizing with my broader world view? Interesting interpretation, but you still haven't proven anything wrong in my point? US unemployment sucks compared to Europe, and their industrialization is way below ours? How does this happen? It is something for you to think about.
Also I don't have time, but I don't believe your percentages at all.

 
Ha, almost forgot about this shit, I've been skiing all week. I'll address each oneseparately.1. Again, the unions played a pivotal role in bringing down the auto industry.Almost everything you mentioned ties back into it. Why do you think the carcompanies payed for lobbyists and contributed major campaign funds topoliticians who would implement protectionist policies? Because of the labormodel they worked under. Ever heard of planned obsolescence? They had to maketheir cars fail at a certain point so that people would come in and buy another car. Why? Because they had to pay for the generous benefits, pensions, and salaries of their employees. Only way to remain profitable. Naturally, peopledidn't like this very much and began gravitating increasingly to foreign madecars. The solution of the auto industry was to try and shut out the competition(Japan), force Americans to buy American cars. They used their funds andpolitical clout to all but ban Japanese cars through implementation ofprotectionist laws (protecting who exactly? Certainly not the American public).This protectionism also made it seem like the American car makes wouldn't haveto innovate. What did the Japanese do? Beat the Americans at their own game,built their car over here instead, prohibited unions at their car plants (whata coincidence that none of them have failed recently, eh?). Now, instead of theprofits going to a greedy rich American CEO, they're going to a Japanese one,how do ya feel about that? I for one love driving around in my Toyota thatisn't built to fail. The American companies tried to catch up but they weredoomed to fail, they were playing catch up the whole time. The spike in oil andthe recent economic downturn were the last straws.Keep regurgitating your liberal education MitchPee, unions are good and CEOs are bad. If you're truly a student of economics I shudder at the thought that theleftist professors have even entrenched themselves now into that department aswell. For the record, seldom do I watch Fox News, but I love yourOlbermann-esque accusations to anyone you disagree with. Glenn Beck, Fox News, what else you got up your sleeve?2. Hoarding is bad, too big a government in a capitalist system is bad. Now we have one, and are on a direct path to the other. Say you hold liquid assets,what do you think is the best course of action when the government is running the money printers at full capacity? Inflation is an indirect form of taxation.Its not surprise people have turned to precious metals. Maybe the governmentshould "requisition" it again? Same old argument of the 1930s. "In his Presidential Proclamation 2039, March 6, 1933, which declared the national “bank holiday,” Roosevelt blamed the banking crisis on gold hoarding.""Less thana month later, on April 5, 1933, Roosevelt issued Executive Order 6012, which expropriated privately owned gold. He ordered Americans to surrender their gold to the government by May 1, 1933. Violators would be subject to a $10,000 fine or as many as 10 years in prison."http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0906e.aspHow do you prevent people from hoarding in your opinion?3. Lastly, "There are inefficiencies in the government, but it is an entity created for the social good. Alas the founding fathers would be on my side with that one." This one only took me a google search...The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits.-Thomas JeffersonI think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.-Thomas JeffersonI predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.-Thomas JeffersonThe two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.-Thomas JeffersonWhen the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.-Ben FranklinGovernment is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. -George WashingtonThe marvel of all history is the patience with which men and women submit to burdens unnecessarily laid upon them by their governments. -George WashingtonAnd to finish off, here's a graph since you don't believe my numbers at all. Its from 2007 so its off, but probably not by much.
34snkzn.jpg
http://finance.yahoo.com/taxes/article/102817/How-Your-Tax-Dollars-Are-Spent

 
Skiing is what you should be doing! That's what I am doing and we all do, hope you guys get some snow we are lacking it. With that said...
Regurgitated liberal education? That's cute. Olbermann? I hate the guy's antics just as I do Glenn Beck's.
Stop simplifying my opinion into such a narrow minded perspective. You are patronizing me and keep bringing your argument to an elementary level with such accusations. I shouldn't have made the Beck/Fox reference but I only did it because they tried the whole "blame the unions" and were shut down severely by some renowned thinkers. I'm sick of perpetuating this argument, but I highly suggest you look up how "Fordism" became extinct while it was still our primary production model. This large management failure played a huge role and is what shut Glenn Beck's vilification of the Unions up. Yes it's not just the rich that get vilified.
You need to learn that politics lingo is separate from economics lingo and it is quite obvious you don't know while trying to correlate those quotes in your post to today's situation. I'll start off with the first contradiction you make...
"I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious."
I don't think you understand the context of this quote. Parasites living off the industrious is exactly Karl Marx's argument and exactly what the government (he's referring to Monarchial not democratic/representative) was then. You would be more correct in quoting Alexander Hamilton in this case because he is the proponent of industry, Jefferson was more like John Stuart Mill on perspectives of libertarianism. Also Liberalism, libertarianism was the basis for classical thought. Neoliberalism is what you are talking about. That is more Ralph Nader-esque and not something I wholeheartedly agree with. Since you like categorizing so much, I suggest that you diversify your knowledge on what aspects the invisible hand market belongs in. I don't assume like you do so if you believe that Unions have no place in the labor market I pity your simplified view of economics. Competition is good in certain aspects but the perfect competitiveness displayed by several inane arguments has already shown enough.
It is not big government that is the problem with leakages, it is inefficiency. Yes the US government is inefficient. Yes the FED is a quasi institution that allows too much inflation, however, there are negatory aspects of devaluation especially in an unregulated market. It's called Argentina and a complete financial overhaul that had to be done, moreso than that of ours.
Obviously, I don't believe we should be in a totalitarian situation that tends to subsequently happen with the development of communism, but I don't believe that 5% of the people in a country should own as much as they do in the US while the real wage of the common person has been stagnant during times of economic growth. I have written several papers with analysis of human capital, composition, working capital, etc. I would be glad to send them over to you if you are so inclined.
 

Look, I don't want to get into a pissing contest. I'm throwing the bullshit accusations only because you compared me to the likes of Glenn Beck.
Of course the management brought down the car companies. In part because in their heyday they made promises to the unions they could not fulfill indefinitely, yet were under obligation to. Ever remember hearing about GM employees sitting around doing nothing because they couldn't be laid off? Their partial responsibility cannot be denied.
Regardless, that was just a tangent off the main issue. Government unions are the ones I'm really aiming for. No one can deny that they have played a major part in sucking the coffers dry in several states, most notably California.
Just an example of LAhttp://www.dailynews.com/ci_9220386
No one can argue that that is beneficial. Like you said, you believe government exists for the greater social good, I don't see how the above link or support for unions helps that argument. Over a third of state employees are unionized, less than 8% of private sector employees are. Increasing taxes only goes to further feeding this machine, and even in Jefferson's quote it clearly says "we", he wasn't talking about the Brits. In general, I believe the government should have as little control over the economy as possible. Of course their are necessary services that the government is the best provider of (national defence, police, ect), but increased government spending is not a long-term solution to economic woes.
If you'd like to send me your papers feel free, I'd be happy to look at them. What I wonder about more is what solution you have to this supposed inequity. The only one I can deduce from your posts is increased statism, which I disagree with.

 
this is true, just look at whats going on now. no one can deny that in the past couple of years we are moving in a socialist direction. i blame the fact that the essence of the US as a republic has almost disappeared. imo the whole notion of "doing for the common good" is such bullshit and just a way for the government to convince people to give more money in taxes so that they can then waste this money. what government programs really work? us postal service, amtrak, social security (in the future), medicare, public education, fema, etc certainly don't. how they can effectively run socialized medicine is beyond me.
also, i'm so sick of the US correctly being portrayed as the "policeman of the world." it's time to stop meddling in the affairs of other nations. the "containment doctrine" and the "truman doctrine" are complete rubbish. stopping the spread of communism around the world is a terrible and unachievable objective. who really cares if a nation halfway around the world (vietnam) adopts extreme left policies? it does not effect us at all. do you really think that we were attacked on 9/11 because they hate our freedom? if you believe this you are naive. they hate us because 1) during the Gulf War we had troops on sacred Saudi soil 2) we openly support and aid israel 3) we overthrow regimes in the middle east ie: iran in the 50's, 4) we don't understand the political nature of the middle east and the relation of islam to politics. if we completely got the fuck out of the middle east altogether and stopped aiding israel, I guarantee that our relations would improve with these nations and that we would no longer be a major target by the taliban and al qaeda. (read coll's book Ghost Wars to really understand the middle east)
i guess what i'm getting to is that politics is all bullshit and politicians are mostly scum. they are going to say whatever gets them elected and not abide to their promises during the campaign. both political parties are essentially the same and this two party system is currently destroying our nation. americans also need to generally become more educated and to see through the fog of politics to see the true motives of said politicians.
by the way, ben bernake getting time magazine person of the year is the biggest load of crap i've ever seen; maybe obamas peace prize comes a close second. bernake has done nothing to help the economy but to cripple the dollar. everyone believes that we are out of the recession because the stock market is going up. just look at the dollar index; the only reason that it is going up is because the dollar is on a steady decline in the past year. nominally, compared to gold, the stock market has stayed pretty level. what is most frightening is the prospect that the dollar completely collapses which would put us in a legitimate depression. having interest rates at 0% for almost a year is accelerating this prospect as it encourages borrowing and spending when we should be saving. god i could go on all night about this but its about time to spark this L of ny diesel.
 
There is no way for either extreme to work... there has to be a common medium...

that said... communism/socialism is most likely the next phase of economic basis... seeing as it's likely the preferred system of the working class.

After monarchical feudalism, the favored economical system of kings and monarchical/fascist rulers came capitalism.. the preferred economic system of the merchant class... which has grown a strong industrial base around the world, and thus every nation has some sort of industrial workforce... which is the driving force for communism to erupt from.

Russia tried to skip a step... same with China... go from agrarian culture... then use workers to build an industrial base... and then let the leaders give powers to these workers... That will never work... and thus, the soviet union, and china and Cuba and any other communist nation has never successfully been able to try it. there has never been a true revolution of the proletariat...

Now that the world is becoming far more industrialized, the possibilities for socialism to come into play are growing. Not to mention, the world is becoming less and less religious as well... something that many who believe in socialism needs to happen for people to come to a common consensus with each other...

It wont be any time soon... most likely not in any of our lifetimes... but communism will one day come back and be given a full, fair chance...

what the economic system is that will replace communism is a question that is a bit mindboggling though... because the working class isnt even the lowest class on the bill.. could be interesting to find out...
 
In my Economics Class, we separated into groups and played the X,Y game. Those who haven't played the game it goes like this

4 groups each with 2 signs, one X one Y. Based upon how many people put up each sign is the determined the point value you get

3 X's 1 Y - 2points for Y -1 point for X's

4 y's- Everyone gets one point

etc.

In the whole time that we played the game Not one time did everyone put up all Y's. Reasoning: from Adam Smith people don't want to sell products to help people. They are in it for the money SELF Interest everyone has it. Everyone wants to make more than the next guy because if you are you have a better stand of living. In a Command economy (yes communism is a command economy) people don't get to make skis, because its not what people need it's what people want. In a command economy you are only allowed to make/sell/buy what you need. not what you want.
 
im glad that someone made this a threadi would recommend this movie "Capitalism: A love story" by Michael Moorefantastic movie
 
I agree with you on many things, especially the innovations and such, but here's the problem... with both Capitalism, AND Communism...

they are both run by people who gain more power than those below them..

Eventually, Capitalism becomes greedy corporatism, and Socialism becomes greedy totalitarianism (or at least something in that direction) if left unchecked anywhere...

Also... during our industrial revolution during those years you mentioned... it's not like the differences between the rich and the poor were that awesome... look at the folks working in the factories in the cities... they had to walk through cholera infested shit, and mud and disgusting stuff just to work 12.. 13 hours in a dirty, super nasty sweatshop with dangerous machines that could chop their hands of, all without a break and basically be a total bitch to whoever was paying them in bacon scraps at the end of the day...

Shit sucked. They were basically slaves, and there was little compensation for their deaths that would happen from time to time. at the end of the day, It's not that awesome for 99% of everyone.

And farmers? if their farm failed because of harsh conditions... or a bad winter, they didnt have anyone to help them out or back them up... they just failed, and had to either sell the farm, go to the city and become one of said 'slaves' (if they could even do such a thing...) or die completely in a last ditch effort to keep the farm from the banks.

So... that's just some of the reasons why, in my mind, all capitalism all the time, is a pretty wack situation... just like 100% communism all the time is a pretty wack situation

And to answer your question - "can anyone name one thing that they use on a daily basis that either started or was advanced significantly and became affordable to most in a centrally planned government? Just one!"

I'm pretty sure the autobahn system in Germany was centrally planned for the most part if not all of it and gave rise to the many highway systems around the world... and those are used every minute of every day, 24/7... but somebody correct me if I'm wrong... but I'm pretty sure that's the case here (and by correct me if I'm wrong, I don't just mean give me your opinion, or tell me what you've heard or some ignant shit, give me a link to some concrete proof from a legit source )

(also, I'm pretty sure the romans, built roads that, were surely planned by the government, or someone appointed by the government, and many of them still exist around southern Europe, especially in Italy. They have stones that are thousands of years old that still hold up - I know I dont use them personally, but If I lived over there I might)

(and as for amtrak... A: some people dont have balls and are scared of flying, or just want to see the country without driving, and B: It's fuckin way cheaper than flying, anyway - least out here.
 
the cool thing about being capitalist is you can shoot a communist and not get in trouble for it just like when you kill someone who is trying to rob your house it isnt murder its self defense. The same goes on in nature...lions will make a kill and hyenas will try to steal it, but the lions have the right to kill the hyenas for doing this, and they often do. smart people deserve to keep their money. Nature is fair. In nature the world is up for grabs and the only fair way to allocate resource is to let animals fight over them. If they let humans fight the smartest ones would kill everyone else. There is MORE opportunity to get rich here than anywhere else. Anyone who complains about inequality is too stupid to make it and its time we let them starve to death the way it happens in every other species in the animal kingdom. communists are fucking gullutonous pigs who want to scavenge the kills of others. communists are botflies...they are parasites
 
and gnartron and the rest of you communist losers here.. dont fucking pretend youre innocent.. you are not... if i am part of a majority that votes to execute an innocent person, im evil... If you vote to steal the wealth of innocent people,, you are evil, no matter how rich they are and how poor you are... dont you penis suckers dare think that you are fucking innocent
 
Lol. I'm not saying you're completely wrong or anything here dude... I agree with you for the most part like I said... All I'm saying is that you're trying to make it seem like America's growth back then was the greatest thing to ever happen to the face of the universe, when at the time, it wasn't all the tits that you're making it out to be.

No no, I was not comparing living conditions back then to now so much, I was saying that, for the poor, its not like they were making such a fucking awesome living as you seemed to make it out to be. Yeah, capitalism lowered prices, and made it so they could afford more things they wanted, they had more purchasing power, bladdy blah.. but It's not like they were living a whole holy shitload better... The poor and working were still living 14 to a 10x10' shitty slummy building that was falling apart and not built to any safety code, and sometimes seemed like it was going to fall out of its foundation when the wind picked up at times.. The biggest difference is they were just living in America... which was far better than the persecution and bullshit they were dealing with in Europe or wherever else they were coming from at the time... Remember... there was a crapload of people coming over here for other reasons than hearing that it was just some giant goldmine (although... I guess in the case of the millions of people who went out to California for gold, it at least sorta was).

Children were actually put to work a lot of the time in factories because they had small hands, and could un-jam machines, and stick their tiny hands and appendages in places that adults frankly, just couldn't reach into.

Carnegie and Rockefeller and Vanderbilt... Glad you brought them up, because I was going to. They didnt lower prices because they were on some mission to help people. They lowered their prices to fuck their competition in the asshole, and rightfully so. Rockefeller did it so well in fact, that he eventually killed off ALL Standard Oil's fuckin competition, and had a monopoly on the market.. Then Standard started charging a fuckload on it. (if you think gas going to 4.50$ a gallon 2 summers ago was a lot.. shit... it would have been like it went to 17$ a gallon back then when the prices were raised from where they were) While, this is way less than what it was when the industry started growing, it was still obvious what the intentions were in charging exorbitant prices...

It got so bad, that there was downright public outcry from everyone to the extent that the government HAD to get involved and lay down the law. If the government is so fucking evil, and shit as you seem to be making them out to be, and Capitalism as it is, is so fucking awesome as you say, then who in capitalism was there who could have stopped Standard oil from just raising the prices on oil right back to where they were? that whole 90% drop in keresene, as well as anything else could have gone right fuckin back up if there was no significant competitor - which there was not.

As for Amtrak.. I only compared it to flying because YOU did. Duh. lol.

I dont know... All I can say is, yeah... capitalism has it's place, obviously it's done great and made most of our innovation possible, but are you saying that we should unregulate shit, abolish the government, and just let all this shit run lassaiz-faire all the way through? I dont know dude... I see how that worked when America was 30-40 years ahead of every other country in the goddamn world, who were being run by greedy kings and just wanted to test their soldiers on the battlefield against their rival or something... but today? fuck that shit. The world's caught up, and they caught up in countries that tax the richest 1-2% way more than we do...

as for the road... how about comparing it to space? Before the soviets sent a man into space (uh.. centrally planned haha) before anyone else... people had been looking up since they had fucking eyeballs, thinking they wanted to go up there... There are stories of chinese guys during the Ming Dynasty, strapping a shitload of fireworks to a chair, aiming it straight up, lighting them all up and exploding into a raging fireball of LOL... The french tried to do it with balloons during the 1800's and realized that space was a lot fucking farther than they had previously thought... then they realized air just gets way fuckin thinner the higher you go up and its kinda impossible. Astronomers for years looked through telescopes that had homemade, hand carved lenses, just to see what the fuck was up there... Hell.. Leo Da Vinci even came up with a goddamn rocket ship idea he was working on for taking off and going on a vacation on the moon... but unfortunately, humans die, and he couldnt live long enough to complete it, along with his bagillion other inventions... So... going to space wasn't exactly a NEW concept when Yuri Gagarin was kickin it in outer space for the first time...

With that said, by your logic, going to space is 60000 years un-innovative... 200,000 years un-innovative if you want to get real primitive with me... That puts a giant damper on "one giant leap for mankind" now doesn't it...

The point I'm making here is that, just because people had thought about it doesn't mean they had the means of actually doing it...

It took some people in Rome to say, "you guys, in the sweet helmets and skirts over there, get 20000 italians to stop playing soccer and go gather up a fuckton of cobblestones, and lay them flat in a road, 20 armlengths wide, between Rome and Milan so we can roll our bling'd out chariots from here to there a lot faster in case some asshat germanic tribe flips out and attacks, because WE MUST PROTECT THIS HOUSEEEEE''

 
communism is gay. if you had a hard math exam, and you got 90. but the noob who never does anything only got 20. capitalist=you win, he fails

communism=you get your mark raped but you both win. Work to your abilities, recieve for your needs. (bad)
 
SNAP

child labor was ended as a result of our collective higher standard of living. also dont anyone pretend child labor doesnt happen today, in this country. when your choices are starve, or have little johnny work. it will be work. sure the labor unions had a hand in it, but it was the forces of the free market that made child labor obsolete. it was not the altruist complainers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top