Jaydee,excellent posts.
Addressing the first post
-------------------------
Shrinking the government would be efficient, and cheap. But, where would we be without Socialism? FDR pulled us out of the depression when the "small" government just couldn't make it anymore. Even in this "smaller" government the degree of impact a corrupt politician would only increase in proportion to the number of citizens s/he represents. I believe Socialism is necessary to keep corporate giants from overwhelming citizens and smaller businesses. This is what I believe.
Second Post
-------------
I meant that Communism had good intents, but bad outcomes. If you need more elaborating let me know. But since you like to keep things "smaller" I am sure you will understand it. Haha, and yes that was a cheap shot.
Addressing the first post
-------------------------
Shrinking the government would be efficient, and cheap. But, where would we be without Socialism? FDR pulled us out of the depression when the "small" government just couldn't make it anymore. Even in this "smaller" government the degree of impact a corrupt politician would only increase in proportion to the number of citizens s/he represents. I believe Socialism is necessary to keep corporate giants from overwhelming citizens and smaller businesses. This is what I believe.
Second Post
-------------
I meant that Communism had good intents, but bad outcomes. If you need more elaborating let me know. But since you like to keep things "smaller" I am sure you will understand it. Haha, and yes that was a cheap shot.
Communism is a BAD idea. It assumes that accumulating wealth is a zero-sum game meaning by getting gold you must be taking it from someone else. This is assumption is flawed. Also, communism says NOTHING about FREEDOM and HUMAN RIGHTS which are intrinsic to man and therefore must be recognized. If your social/political/economic system ignores this, then it is simply unjust and temporary. (it will fall eventually)
<< FDR pulled us out of the depression when the "small" government just couldn't make it anymore. >>
Last time I checked WWII was what really got us out of that mess.
Communism is like heaven on earth. Unrealistic. Sure it would be nice for everyone to be well off no matter what work they do. But if you have to share what you earn with everyone, what's the point of working too hard? Let everyone else work and share it with you. That's why communism requires a system to force people to work. Which of course infringes on people's freedom. It's an unstable equilibrium which eventually fails. On the other hand, Capitalist system doesn't need to do anything to make people work, because human greed is doing it for them. Much more natural and stable. Also, even if Marxist ideology worked theoretically, do you think after the Soviet Union failed miserably, anyone will be willing to risk giving it a try. No way.
I wanted to give someone the chance to comment about WW2. Unfortunately, I have no evidence right now, nor am I going to bother looking up any later as I am feeling really lazy right now, but back to the point... FDR brought the country to a recession, he restored alot of the US's industrial power before the war. Without FDR, this country would have been in no shape to compete or supply the on going war in Europe. From a "Great Depression" to a recession is A LOT, something that Hoover's "rugged individualism" could not accomplish. But, yes WW2 to bring this country to a full boom, thanks to FDR's socialist policies.
Communism is not a political system. It is an economic system.
It could be possible for a society to have both Democracy (a political system) and Communism (an economic system). It'd probably crash and burn though
The former USSR used Communism as their economic system, and quasi-Socialism as their political system, IIRC. That crashed and burned too
It could be possible for a society to have both Democracy (a political system) and Communism (an economic system). It'd probably crash and burn though
The former USSR used Communism as their economic system, and quasi-Socialism as their political system, IIRC. That crashed and burned too
SuperTool, please read the previous posts, before you post. You are fighting a one man battle. No one here is for Communism. We all agree it does not work.
Communism is a great idea, it just has a bad name because no one has done it right yet. If someone were to impliment communism corectly, it would work out fine. Its just that the russinas and whoever else tried it messed it up, and theyre not really communist, they just call themself that.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,402
- 8,574
- 126
actually, if you look at the graphs, the US went deeper into recession after socialist policies were put into place. a recession is defined as growth below the trend line, and the trend line at the time was the great depression. output was falling even more. in 1940 the US real GDP starts rises above 1936 levels as we started selling war material to england. and in 1941 the GDP is actually above trend. then again for the previous 10 years trend was the depression. straight out of figure 21.5, case-fair economics.
JOKE: Democracy sucks! We get the all the citizens not knowing who they're voting for and it divides the nation 48.6% to 48.5% and then the losing side calls in lawyers (shudders) to protest the people's choice saying they were mislead or they didn't choose right. Everyone waits as hard working judges in a predominantly geriatric region squints at a democracy laced voting ballot trying to see if it was punched wrong or the chad (democratic for "paper" is hanging or...
In a dictatorship...bang bang, new leader!
is hanging or...In a dictatorship...bang bang, new leader!
Borushka, like I have time to read all this crap.
Growing up in the USSR, I think I heard enough.
First of all Russia never had Communism. They were building communism. It was their unachievable dream. A system where all products are shared equally amongst people. So it's not a good idea gone wrong. It's a good ideal that can never go right because it goes against human nature. People are greedy. Maybe not all, but as long as there are some who are, communism cannot work. That's the excuse that communists used to kill thousands of people who were considered greedy.
So get your facts straight.
And I agree that certain "socialist" policies like universal minimum healthcare and higher education are good.
But I don't agree with:
<< A.) Everone has a job, no matter how lazy or ignorant a person, there is something they can do to contribute to society >>
If someone lazy or ignorant, and doesn't want to improve, I don't think they automatically deserve a job. I don't think they should starve to death, but there shouldn't be any incentive to be lazy and ignorant.
Growing up in the USSR, I think I heard enough.
First of all Russia never had Communism. They were building communism. It was their unachievable dream. A system where all products are shared equally amongst people. So it's not a good idea gone wrong. It's a good ideal that can never go right because it goes against human nature. People are greedy. Maybe not all, but as long as there are some who are, communism cannot work. That's the excuse that communists used to kill thousands of people who were considered greedy.
So get your facts straight.
And I agree that certain "socialist" policies like universal minimum healthcare and higher education are good.
But I don't agree with:
<< A.) Everone has a job, no matter how lazy or ignorant a person, there is something they can do to contribute to society >>
If someone lazy or ignorant, and doesn't want to improve, I don't think they automatically deserve a job. I don't think they should starve to death, but there shouldn't be any incentive to be lazy and ignorant.
Actually communism has never existed. The Soviet Union wasnt Communist, it was a socialist totalitarian oligarchy, just as China & Vietnam are now (although the socialism is mainy symbolic in thos countries now).
BTW, the Russian revolution wasn't in support of communism. The Menshovics were the ones who won the revolution & deposed the Czar's autocracy. They were basically for a constitutional monarchy along the social democratic model of Western Europe. But then the Bolshavics held a coup & hi-jacked the revolution & had the Czar's family executed, thus causing the Russian Civil War to start.
The fact is if they had a election in 1917 the Menshovics would had won by a country mile. But the Bolshies were cleverer that's all. Lenin was in fact a paid up member of the of the Kaiser's secret service, so once he was in power he had Russia surrender to the Kaiser the grand Duchy of Warsaw, the Grand Duchy of Finland, the Duchy of Kureland & the rest of the Baltic states & much of the Ukraine & White Russia. Consequently when Germany signed the armistice, those regions had no overlords & were free. The new state of Poland ended up with those parts of the Ukraine & White Ruusia that Lenin had signed over to the Kaiser. Later Trotsky won the civil war & then invaded Poland to get those territories back, the Pols won & gained even more land. However Stalin got all that back (Polish Belarus & the Polish Ukraine) during WWII. Poland was given a little bit of Germany as compo.
Anyway in a mixed economy both socialism & capitalism has its place. Once one restricts itself to a certain ideaology they are fuked. Policies from both the left & the right should be utilised, depending on what's right for the job at hand. That's the strength of the many OECD nations, which are all mixed economies. For example the main reason for Japan's success during the 50's, 60's, 70's & 80's were that all its corporations were controlled by the bureaucrats of the Industry ministry who decided that electronics was the way to go (Sony didn't get involved in electronics because it wanted to, it got involved in electronics because the Industry Ministry told them to). Its no coincidence that the nations that most closely follow capitalist ideals are in the 3rd world, where most people are dirt poor.
BTW, the Russian revolution wasn't in support of communism. The Menshovics were the ones who won the revolution & deposed the Czar's autocracy. They were basically for a constitutional monarchy along the social democratic model of Western Europe. But then the Bolshavics held a coup & hi-jacked the revolution & had the Czar's family executed, thus causing the Russian Civil War to start.
The fact is if they had a election in 1917 the Menshovics would had won by a country mile. But the Bolshies were cleverer that's all. Lenin was in fact a paid up member of the of the Kaiser's secret service, so once he was in power he had Russia surrender to the Kaiser the grand Duchy of Warsaw, the Grand Duchy of Finland, the Duchy of Kureland & the rest of the Baltic states & much of the Ukraine & White Russia. Consequently when Germany signed the armistice, those regions had no overlords & were free. The new state of Poland ended up with those parts of the Ukraine & White Ruusia that Lenin had signed over to the Kaiser. Later Trotsky won the civil war & then invaded Poland to get those territories back, the Pols won & gained even more land. However Stalin got all that back (Polish Belarus & the Polish Ukraine) during WWII. Poland was given a little bit of Germany as compo.
Anyway in a mixed economy both socialism & capitalism has its place. Once one restricts itself to a certain ideaology they are fuked. Policies from both the left & the right should be utilised, depending on what's right for the job at hand. That's the strength of the many OECD nations, which are all mixed economies. For example the main reason for Japan's success during the 50's, 60's, 70's & 80's were that all its corporations were controlled by the bureaucrats of the Industry ministry who decided that electronics was the way to go (Sony didn't get involved in electronics because it wanted to, it got involved in electronics because the Industry Ministry told them to). Its no coincidence that the nations that most closely follow capitalist ideals are in the 3rd world, where most people are dirt poor.
Bullcrap.....Moonbeam.... Heaven is a monarchy...
Every one does what they are told to do by the big Guy !!!
Every one does what they are told to do by the big Guy !!!
Dabanshee, wow. That was a nice post. Do you remember what happened to Rasputin? I can not remember if he escaped or not. I know there is a rumor that Alexandrea(sp?) escaped, but this is all I remember.
SuperTool, I do not think you are understanding me. You tend to repeat the things I say in your rebuttal posts, which only reenforce what I have stated previously.
ElFenix, I am not an economist so I am going to trust you on this one. But, I am going to remain stubborn and still believe it was FDR who brought this country out of the depression. Nonetheless, nice post, I have been told.
SuperTool, I do not think you are understanding me. You tend to repeat the things I say in your rebuttal posts, which only reenforce what I have stated previously.
ElFenix, I am not an economist so I am going to trust you on this one. But, I am going to remain stubborn and still believe it was FDR who brought this country out of the depression. Nonetheless, nice post, I have been told.
Moonbeam is right. Heaven is communist. So far these posts say that communism will never work due to human nature. In heaven, no one has human nature.
If I remember correctly, Rasputin was found drowned in a river bed or lake, with gunshot wounds all over him. He may have found in a sack as well. Debanshee?
I'd like to live in a commune one day...
A little cooperative heaven on earth.
The question is, should we allow men?
(Because not only is God a Democrat, He is a Woman!)
A little cooperative heaven on earth.
The question is, should we allow men?
(Because not only is God a Democrat, He is a Woman!)
Yep, it's not Democrat Liberals that bug me, it's the "Democratic Socialists" that get my goat. You have at least one good thought there. "A.) Everone has a job, no matter how lazy or ignorant a person, there is something they can do to contribute to society
B.) Everyone has health care, just because parents can not provide does not mean their children do not deserve health care, all children deserve health care."
I just love it actually. Everybody seems to put quite a bit of importance on health care, but nobody like paying for it. Right now my employer is coughing up around $650.00 per employee per month for our coverage. We each kick in $125.00 per month if we want our family included. Uh, does that seem like a lot to you? It does to me! And do you know how many people in this country pay nothing for their family's medical care? A hell of a lot! They breed without having a roof over their head or job, then expect "Society" to take care of them. They're "entitled" you know?
Now, if these same people were able to help pay a premium for health insurance, the premium the rest of us pay would go down. Your idea about "everyone having a job" might just do the trick. Instead of handing out food stamps, subsidized housing and welfare, we'll just put them to work. Part of their pay can be deducted for health insurance. Good thinking there Borushka!
B.) Everyone has health care, just because parents can not provide does not mean their children do not deserve health care, all children deserve health care."
I just love it actually. Everybody seems to put quite a bit of importance on health care, but nobody like paying for it. Right now my employer is coughing up around $650.00 per employee per month for our coverage. We each kick in $125.00 per month if we want our family included. Uh, does that seem like a lot to you? It does to me! And do you know how many people in this country pay nothing for their family's medical care? A hell of a lot! They breed without having a roof over their head or job, then expect "Society" to take care of them. They're "entitled" you know?
Now, if these same people were able to help pay a premium for health insurance, the premium the rest of us pay would go down. Your idea about "everyone having a job" might just do the trick. Instead of handing out food stamps, subsidized housing and welfare, we'll just put them to work. Part of their pay can be deducted for health insurance. Good thinking there Borushka!
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,402
- 8,574
- 126
i think with rasputin first they poisoned his drink, then they left him. one of the junior nobility around saw him moving and shot him with his revolver. rasputin somehow escaped, fell through the ice into a river, and died of drowning.
ornery, your employer probably pays a lot less than $650. the $650 is just an accounting figure, which really has no meaning. since labor supply is slightly more inelastic than labor demand, you end up paying a higher percentage of health care, social security, etc., than is written on paper.
ornery, your employer probably pays a lot less than $650. the $650 is just an accounting figure, which really has no meaning. since labor supply is slightly more inelastic than labor demand, you end up paying a higher percentage of health care, social security, etc., than is written on paper.
<< Right now my employer is coughing up around $650.00 per employee per month for our coverage. We each kick in $125.00 per month if we want our family included. Uh, does that seem like a lot to you? It does to me! >>
Shhhh! You don't want people to think that honest hard working citizens pay too much for health care!
Ornery, you mean to say God is not Pamela Anderson Lee?
And to think all this time, I've been so misled!
And to think all this time, I've been so misled!
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter