Socialism sucks....seriously. [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Socialism sucks....seriously.

Sri
05-02-2012, 12:33 AM
I admit they have got a very good propaganda machine around the world. Everybody likes to be labeled a "progressive". They've hijacked such a good and positive word. :-/

Anyway, as a person matures, all the socialist bullsh|t should become self evident. I find it hard to respect the intelligence of anybody over 30 who leans to the left.

But then I don't care too much about politics and would share a beer with them anyway.

I just want the word "progressive" back without any political affiliations.

:wavey:

Topspindoctor
05-02-2012, 12:42 AM
Socialism is half a step away from communism.

Personally, I don't care too much for politics, because I know for sure that in today's world the little guy's voice doesn't matter and crooks will always fight even bigger crooks for power. This is evident everywhere in the world, even Australian government is 100% corrupt these days.

orangehat
05-02-2012, 12:45 AM
:facepalm:

A socialist would not want to be called a "progressive" in the sense of the word. They find that too tame.

Sri
05-02-2012, 12:49 AM
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vA-4B4VNxzc/TVdqIYiEZ9I/AAAAAAAAPsw/6DMpY1fSEuY/s1600/why_so_socialist.jpg

OTOH, Batman rules!

Batman > Socialism

Sri
05-02-2012, 12:51 AM
Here's proof:

http://d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net/photo/4029474_700b.jpg

Filo V.
05-02-2012, 01:16 AM
People who make threads like this are not progressive, therefore are not identified as progressive.

abraxas21
05-02-2012, 02:20 AM
when i was studying business administration and economics, i leaned heavily towards many libertarian principles. then over the years i fortunately learned to see thru all the bullshit and realize that the world is a lot more complex than many ideological ideas disguised as rational conclusions of a technical analysis.

Sri
05-02-2012, 03:06 AM
People who make threads like this are not progressive, therefore are not identified as progressive.
I'm the epitome of a progressive human being - compassionate, peaceful, and saving people from false ideologies and prophets. :-)

Sri
05-02-2012, 03:09 AM
when i was studying business administration and economics, i leaned heavily towards many libertarian principles. then over the years i fortunately learned to see thru all the bullshit and realize that the world is a lot more complex than many ideological ideas disguised as rational conclusions of a technical analysis.
Absolutely, no ideology is perfect for all situations. Common sense, compassion and truly empowering individuals to control their own fate is a way forward.

PS: I am reclaiming the word "progress" from the lefty loonies. Is there any word / phrase that the far right has taken over? I will need to campaign for that as well!

abraxas21
05-02-2012, 04:44 AM
Absolutely, no ideology is perfect for all situations.

that's not what i was saying or what i stand for, though.

for what is worth, all political projects have ideologies underlying them. i don't think that's bad at all. quite the opposite, it's just natural and necessary to represent a position for the citizenship to adhere, ignore or reject.

what i do have an issue with is with the ones who try to present their thoughts or themselves as critically rational when in point of fact there are certainly influenced by defined ideologies. in that regard, it's evident that a lot of economists can be grouped in that category.

abraxas21
05-02-2012, 04:52 AM
PS: I am reclaiming the word "progress" from the lefty loonies. Is there any word / phrase that the far right has taken over? I will need to campaign for that as well!

i don't think the left has the monopoly of terms like "progress" or "progressive" but they do (or at least should) stand for those ideals given the nature of the principles they typically represent. lefties naturally campaign for changing things and to that extent one can call them "progressive" (which they are called like that, as you rightly claimed). conversely, righties campaign to keep things as they are or even to go back to old policies and to that extent one can call them "conservative" (which, again, they are).

as for words that the far right has taken over (or maybe tried to take over?), one can think of, especially in the USA, it seems, "freedom" and "liberty". the very notion of free market implies this association...

Sri
05-02-2012, 04:53 AM
Depends where you are. In India, we've been socialist for so long, the right represents reforms and change.

But the lefties still hold on to the "progressive" title. ;-)

scoobs
05-02-2012, 05:04 AM
Socialism is just a word, a word that doesn't matter.

What matters is what a country actually does - and I doubt what India actually does could be considered "socialism" - seems to be to be a thorough-going embrace of right wing neo-liberal capitalism, no more socialist than China is still implementing Communist ideology, or North Korea is a Democratic People's Republic. If you think the right represents reform and change, then good luck to you. I suspect you'd find they're mostly cosmetic at this point.

Sri
05-02-2012, 05:13 AM
Socialism is just a word, a word that doesn't matter.

What matters is what a country actually does - and I doubt what India actually does could be considered "socialism" - seems to be to be a thorough-going embrace of right wing neo-liberal capitalism, no more socialist than China is still implementing Communist ideology, or North Korea is a Democratic People's Republic. If you think the right represents reform and change, then good luck to you. I suspect you'd find they're mostly cosmetic at this point.
There you go, you have a pro left tilt so you accuse me of having a pro right tilt. :-(

Here are some facts about India:

1. Socialism is in the constitution

2. All govt's since independence have been populist

3. Some reforms came in the early 90's and very few in the early naught'ies

4. Since 2004 we have got an even more socialist / populist govt at various states and the center

The right does try and push for "reform" (mostly economic). It always fails.

The right in India is pretty stupid and low in caliber.

The left holds on to power and loots the country.

Both the right and left pretend to be the cause of whatever development that has happened in the past two decades.

abraxas21
05-02-2012, 05:38 AM
i don't know much at all about indian politics but here's a pretty interesting article about the search for economic development of india's educated youth.

All Aboard The Slave Ship

An open letter to Young India, callous and comfy in its cocoon

Dear Citizen of Youngistan,

Hi!

You are the talk of the town these days, so, you know, I wanted to talk to you.

You are a student. You seek to be highly educated, but you turn a blind eye to the academic terrorism that routinely cripples and kills poor students in universities. You never acknowledge the privilege of exclusivity. You strut about with the confidence that you will never slip below the poverty line. You never know the pain of exclusion. You would have never lost your home in a slum demolition drive.

On the other hand, you know, with self-assured grace you make up India’s fanciful, much-advertised youngistan edge. You flaunt the fact that you are one of the 120 million youth that your country will add to its workforce over the next decade. You forget that this workforce, devoid of any working class consciousness, shall only serve to launch the latest edition of slave trade. Welcome aboard, dude! The Slave Ship is waiting for you. If and when India’s economy goes into freefall mode, you will be the first to flounder. Just remember that.

You also like to imagine yourself as a sexually restless youngster. Sadly, diktats and death threats make you seek shelter in matrimonial websites with drop-down menus listing 450 sub-castes. You blame this casteism on parental pressure. In your hallowed opinion, caste should be annihilated. You say that this is possible only by discontinuing affirmative action policies for adivasis and Dalits. You have anecdotal evidence to prove that reservation equals ruin.

You also think that India’s biggest problem is a boatload of terrorists from Pakistan. You have not heard of Khairlanji or Gadchiroli or Koodankulam; they are multi-syllable names of places that have never managed to sneak into your sublime conversations. Ultra-ambitious, you only enter lands that require your passport, your visa and your commercialised skill-sets. You are India’s shining, swaggering export. You have sold your soul for a song. You have sold your song for a sophisticated accent. You have sold your sophisticated accent for a sanitised silence.

Most of the time, you do not even speak your mother tongue. You only learn the languages that pay: C++, Java, Python, English. In spite of your mastery over two-and-a-half languages, you choose to remain voiceless. Abjuring violence in the way of old souls, you renounce every aggressive drive to assert yourself.

Maybe you earnestly believe in the development panacea. Maybe you are bamboozled by its seductive, saleable divinity. You don’t realise that government-style development is a devil that walks backwards, drinks blood, feeds on corpses and fattens on millions of tonnes of bauxite and iron. It goes by multiple aliases: Essar, Vedanta, Posco. Like its cross-cousin democracy, development is widely believed to be a rumour to keep rural masses in a hysteric state.

And perhaps, like your home minister, you take pride in being a patriot, unaware of the atrocities of your army in Kashmir and the Northeast and Sri Lanka and Bangladesh and far-flung African countries. You are blase about how your tax money ends up being used for mindless militarisation projects. Since “our republic cannot bear the stain of killing her own children” (as the Supreme Court observed in the fake encounter case of Maoist spokesperson Azad), the state has efficiently come up with an arrangement of convenience in which the children pay for each other’s bullets. The republic remains stainless and squeaky clean. You end up with blood on your hands. Perhaps you sponsored the bullets that killed seven Dalits in a police firing at Paramakudi last month.

Unrest simmers all over society, but as you are extremely busy hanging out in some shopping mall, you have no time to tell your government to behave. How can you talk to power when you do not teach yourself the truth? You do not know who or where the dam-displaced are. You have never shed tears for the victims of Operation Green Hunt. You do not bother to know that hundreds of Tamil fishermen from your country were shot dead by the Sri Lanka navy even as the Indian coast guard roamed the seas. You know next to nothing about India’s flawed foreign policy, not even the fact that your government supplied arms and strategic advice as it actively colluded in the genocide of one hundred thousand Tamils in Sri Lanka in May 2009. You buy the lie that everyone who died in Mullivaikkal was a Tiger and a terrorist. Why, even the discovery of more than two thousand bullet-ridden bodies of Kashmiri youth in mass graves does not drive you to despair.

Would you care to understand the pressing need for plebiscite in Kashmir, or the separate statehood for Tamils in Eelam? You have no sympathy for states that seek to break away. You are taught to think that Telangana spells trouble. In your limited worldview, secession is a swear word, self-determination is suicide...

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?278704

Shinoj
05-02-2012, 05:52 AM
Socialism did work for Countries like the USSR. For a long while they stood up to the monopolies of the United States. And gave them a good answer.

As for Political philosophies,I for one cant understand the obsession of teaching others what works for you.

Be it Democracy,Socialism or anything else. Every Country and its culture is unique and people of the country themselves have to find what works best for them. Free Liberal Democracy worked for United States and some countries in the Western World. And then they started teaching the world that their Method of Governance is the Best.

And for this reason i would support Socialism because Atleast USSR didnt preach as loudly and in a Self Righteous Way that Socialism was the Best.

As for Socialism in India, it really was a disaster. Just after Independence people of India just were happy that they got their freedom after a long time. Hence the Government exploited that feeling by bringing absolutely minimal changes and reforms in the name of socialism for a long long time. To think of it, The reforms came into the 90s which was almost 50 years after independence is just criminal.

They are many Indian states with high level of intellectual potential but are really stagnant in more ways than one. Kerala and Bengal are amongst them.

Sri
05-02-2012, 07:21 AM
i don't know much at all about indian politics but here's a pretty interesting article about the search for economic development of india's educated youth.



http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?278704
Time for a revolution!

Harmless
05-02-2012, 09:54 AM
Is there any word / phrase that the far right has taken over? I will need to campaign for that as well!
moral

takuma
05-02-2012, 01:32 PM
If socialism sucks, then the stench of capitalism has to be described as pungent.

Har-Tru
05-02-2012, 01:46 PM
moral

Nation

Jimnik
05-02-2012, 03:54 PM
Socialism did work for Countries like the USSR.
:spit:


when i was studying business administration and economics, i leaned heavily towards many libertarian principles. then over the years i fortunately learned to see thru all the bullshit and realize that the world is a lot more complex than many ideological ideas disguised as rational conclusions of a technical analysis.
Good to see you back. :wavey:

Harmless
05-02-2012, 03:57 PM
Nation
Right on man.

http://www.yogadork.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/lolcat-fistbump-yoga.jpg

Jimnik
05-02-2012, 03:58 PM
Ron Paul has proven socialists can never own words like "revolution" and "progressive".

scoobs
05-02-2012, 05:12 PM
There you go, you have a pro left tilt so you accuse me of having a pro right tilt. :-(

Here are some facts about India:

1. Socialism is in the constitution

2. All govt's since independence have been populist

3. Some reforms came in the early 90's and very few in the early naught'ies

4. Since 2004 we have got an even more socialist / populist govt at various states and the center

The right does try and push for "reform" (mostly economic). It always fails.

The right in India is pretty stupid and low in caliber.

The left holds on to power and loots the country.

Both the right and left pretend to be the cause of whatever development that has happened in the past two decades.

I'm not accusing you of having a pro-right tilt.

I'm simply saying that socialism is just a word - just because it's in your constitution, it doesn't mean that that is actually the policies that are being followed. There are policies that are considered socialist. Your Government may be socialist in name, but actually following fairly right wing economic policies. Again, they may be described as populist, but what "populist" policies are they actually doing? As far as I know India has embraced capitalism with great enthusiasm and the gap between rich and poor remains a huge gulf - it doesn't seem very socialist to me, whatever the constitution may say.

Jimnik
05-02-2012, 05:45 PM
Politics has its own language. Here are some commonly used terms and their definitions:


"Progress" Movement towards a particular ideology, whether it works or not.

"Liberation" Forcing "progress" on an entity.

"Moral" The party's policies.

"Immoral" The opposition's policies.

"The people" Members of the party.

"Failure" Whatever the opposition does.

"Corruption" Any activity the opposition is involved in.

"Imperialist" Foreign country with a different ideology.


And there are loads more...

Har-Tru
05-02-2012, 05:48 PM
Right on man.

http://www.yogadork.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/lolcat-fistbump-yoga.jpg

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/advice-animals-memes-animal-memes-lame-pun-coon-wrong-kind-of-drink.jpg

Shinoj
05-02-2012, 05:56 PM
USSR was a rich country. They were pioneers in Space technology and damn good in Sports. Dont tell me that they doped a lot. As if the United States Athletes don't dope at all.


:spit:





:no:

peribsen
05-02-2012, 08:36 PM
Socialism is half a step away from communism.

:facepalm: According to you, Norway, Canada and Israel, to give just a few examples, are only a step removed from communism, since the social services of the first two were clearly inspired by socialism, while the third was in fact created by a socialist party (Ben Gurion, Golda Meir, Moshe Dayan... according to you, they were all semi-Communists). Not to forget that, in that case, NATO was created by semi-Communists, since both Clement Atlee and his Foreing Secretary Ernst Bevin were hard-core Labour. If only Stalin had known!!

Socialism did work for Countries like the USSR.

I still don't get why some people think the USSR was socialist. Both posters above seem to not be able to tell the difference between socialism and communism. I know both terms are used as almost synonymous by some people, especially in the US, but I've always found that to be a good example of just how parrochial the US is in so many ways. (Another good example is how they use the word "liberal", they seem to think it is somehow related with the left, while in most of the world it is still used in its original meaning, as someone who defends freewheeling capitalism!!).

Wonder if mainstream Americans are ever aware that the Veterans Administration is often mentioned as a clear example of a socialized health care system. Not to speak of most of the US's social network or other highly succesful institutions harking back to New Deal.

I find it hard to respect the intelligence of anybody over 30 who leans to the left.

What really gets to me is how anybody over 30 can fail to grasp that the health care and educational opportunities that countries like the Scandinavian ones or the Netherlands grant their own citizens are pretty close to the best other nations could reasonably hope to get for their own people. Oh, I was forgetting, you think all their hospitals and public schools are a symptom of communism, how clumsy of me.

By the way, the sorry state of the world economy right now makes a very powerful case for the dismal failure of the neoliberal, unbriddled capitalist model, or doesn't it?

Lopez
05-02-2012, 10:19 PM
While I certainly dislike communism, some aspects of the social democratic model that we have in the Nordic Countries are such that I would hope many other countries would have as well... Naturally there are many things that we do poorly as well. But public education, free university-level education and universal healthcare are good things. Now, as far as Finland goes, I think we've gone too far with taxation and that a smaller government could handle things more cheaply (still not compromising from the most important things).

So in Finland, I'm on the right but probably somewhere else might be on the left :lol:.

Echoes
05-02-2012, 10:43 PM
No "social" programme can work if they're "progressive". It can only work if based on traditions and implemented within the framework of the nation and people's sovereignty. There can't be any global socialism. Those Trotskyists who argue in favour of mass immigration and globalism, and (and as far as Europe is concerned) in favour of "another EU" (while the EU cannot be any different than what it IS) are the useful idiots/agents of the system. :lol: (love that)

The great French philosopher Jean-Claude Michéa noticed the left-wing mistake or lie, when they call the capitalist system conservative. Capitalists hate local traditions and nations. It's the party of movement and progress aiming at a man without cultural background and cultural ties. The founding fathers of liberalism (Smith, Ricardo, Tocqueville, etc.) were considered leftwingers in them days. The founding fathers of communism (Marx & Engels) considered themselves neither ... nor ... And in recent years, it's rather telling that leaders of two influential international institutions were - at the same time - two French "socialists" (DSK at the IMF and Pascal Lamy at WTO but now DSK has other occupations :lol:). They were actually typical leftwinger but no socialists.

Also socialists should drop their dreams of a classless society and rather call for a class collaboration in the form of employee share ownership, as promoted by General de Gaulle (rejected by so-called "socialists" ... of course).

Time Violation
05-02-2012, 11:17 PM
USSR was a rich country.

Sure :)

Jimnik
05-03-2012, 12:10 AM
So rich that thousands risked their lives escaping the "socialist paradise".

abraxas21
05-03-2012, 02:49 AM
So rich that thousands risked their lives escaping the "socialist paradise".

soviet russia certainly wasn't rich by any modern (and western?) world stretch and it was far from being a paradise either (for one thing the limited freedom its citizens had left a lot to wish for) but... it was economically safe for the average joe. people had their jobs and had the basic means to sustain themselves. that's something that changed drammatically when boris yeltsin and his western-backed capitalist style came to power in the nineties. millions of russians fell into poverty and the GDP plumetted while some filthy gangsters, local and outsiders, managed to become billionaires at the expense of the poverty of a whole nation. for years -even to this day- thousands of russian women went to the west to work as prostitutes just because they didn't have any type of labour opportunities back home.

i'm sure russians at the time would have preferred to keep their "socialist paradise" alive instead of having no food on their plates in yeltsin's capitalist-oriented russia.

things have been getting better for the russians lately, though. as corrupt and shady as putin might be, he's still miles better than boris -and most russians know that.

abraxas21
05-03-2012, 02:52 AM
:spit:



Good to see you back. :wavey:

yeh, it's good to be back ;)

Sri
05-03-2012, 02:55 AM
Politics has its own language. Here are some commonly used terms and their definitions:


"Progress" Movement towards a particular ideology, whether it works or not.

"Liberation" Forcing "progress" on an entity.

"Moral" The party's policies.

"Immoral" The opposition's policies.

"The people" Members of the party.

"Failure" Whatever the opposition does.

"Corruption" Any activity the opposition is involved in.

"Imperialist" Foreign country with a different ideology.


And there are loads more...

LOL :worship::worship::worship:

Sri
05-03-2012, 02:58 AM
With all due respect, I don't think the Nordic countries can be used as a comparison. They don't face 1/100th of the challenges countries like India and China face.

Here's what the lefties are thinking: "OMG some people in India are actually breaking the shackles and doing well. Let's start attacking them about the gap between them and the poor of their country."

The only way to uplift people is to free them and give them opportunity. Socialism wants the state to run all enterprise and force people into dependence on the inefficient and corrupt state machinery. Screw that.

Topspindoctor
05-03-2012, 03:02 AM
soviet russia certainly wasn't rich by any modern (and western?) world stretch and it was far from being a paradise either (for one thing the limited fredom its citizens had left a lot to wish for) but... it was economically safe. people had their jobs and had the basic means to sustain themselves. that's something that changed drammatically when boris yeltsin and his western-backed capitalist style came to power in the nineties. millions of russians fell into poverty and the GDP plumetted while some filthy gangsters, local and outsiders, managed to become billionaires at the expense of the poverty of a whole nation. for years -even to this day- thousands of russian women went to the west to work as prostitutes just because they didn't have any type of labour opportunities back home.

i'm sure russians at the time would have preferred to keep their "socialist paradise" alive instead of having no food on their plates in yeltsin's capitalist-oriented russia.

things have been getting better for the russians lately, though. as corrupt and shady as putin might be, he's still miles better than boris -and most russians know that.

The whole system was flawed from the start. People had secure jobs and the means to sustain themselves, that's true. However the whole "communist equality" policy was doomed from the start and only bred corruption and discontent. Imperial Russia would be far better off following the capitalist ways after the revolution, it was quite unfortunate that bolshevik thugs pounced on the opportunity to seize power and reduced a great empire to ashes playing on people's vulnerabilities after the first war. Empowering thugs, peasants, drunks and criminals and "redistributing wealth" (aka robbing the hard working middle class) was ultimately wrong and the system was rotten from the start.

In regards to Putin, he is a better president simply because of his harsh and unforgiving international policies, unlike that fat sloth Yeltsin. Yanks and their Euro ass kissers surely hate him because despite some public discontent, he actually has guts to persue policies that are beneficial to his country alone and to stymie yank instigated conflicts in 3rd world countries like Syria in an effort to expand their influence.

abraxas21
05-03-2012, 03:09 AM
The great French philosopher Jean-Claude Michéa noticed the left-wing mistake or lie, when they call the capitalist system conservative. Capitalists hate local traditions and nations. It's the party of movement and progress aiming at a man without cultural background and cultural ties. The founding fathers of liberalism (Smith, Ricardo, Tocqueville, etc.) were considered leftwingers in them days. The founding fathers of communism (Marx & Engels) considered themselves neither ... nor ... And in recent years, it's rather telling that leaders of two influential international institutions were - at the same time - two French "socialists" (DSK at the IMF and Pascal Lamy at WTO but now DSK has other occupations :lol:). They were actually typical leftwinger but no socialists.

i don't think it's fair to say that "capitalists hate local traditions and nations". they just don't normally consider them in their so called technical analysis and choose to focus on the decisions and freedom of the individual in particular. i'd say that in modern times this is a typical behaviour of all right wingers -not just the purely capitalist ones, or libertarians as some call them in the USA- as opposed to left leaning blokes who tend to center their analysis on society in general.

then again, i do agree with your main idea but that depends on what we understand for 'capitalist system'. in its pure form, and much like communism, capitalism has never truly existed (maybe with the exception of medieval iceland being a notorious case of study). what we have today is a system that badly approaches to it and fails when we consider the size of the state and all of its tools to run the economy. in most cases, be it in europe or the USA (but more in the USA), the rich end up more protected than the poor. if that's what we understand today for "capitalism system", then it is evidently an idea extracted of the right wing agenda.

as for libertarians (or semi-pure capitalists, whichever term you like best), i mostly see them as clueless. i don't think they fully grasp the complexities of the world's markets and how badly things would be if some of their ideas were implemented. i wouldn't tag them as right wingers, though.

Shinoj
05-03-2012, 10:09 AM
Soviet was a Success story and the Yanks got riled because of that. For the first time they saw somebody standing upto them. Soviet rattled the Americans. And hence they started working overtime just to bring Soviet down and got obsessed with it. They sowed the seeds of the Modern Islamic Terrorism to get even with the Soviets.

All the Osamas and the Pakistani terrorism have their roots in Yanks supporting them to get even with the Soviets.

Time Violation
05-03-2012, 10:16 AM
Success story :spit: Man, are you just trolling for fun or what? :)

Shinoj
05-03-2012, 10:22 AM
Just because bunch of people running away from the USSR doesn't mean that the system was a failure. There were just too many forces working against them. The Western Propoganda, the Islamic nations. In the end it showed the World a new system and it stood up for a long time. I would appreciate that anyday.

Time Violation
05-03-2012, 10:56 AM
There's no country in the world where communism wasn't a failure, and if you appreciate it that much, you can always move to North Korea... though you won't be posting much form there :)

Shinoj
05-03-2012, 05:24 PM
I was talking about Communism and Soviet. How has North Korea come into the picture. And anyways if North Korea shows enough Clout Financially,Culturally or in Sporting Arena i would appreciate that also. Maybe i could move in North Korea also. As it was said by W.H Somebody. The World is an Open Place.:rocker:

Time Violation
05-03-2012, 05:50 PM
I'm not sure you have any idea what you're talking about. That's ok though :)

Jimnik
05-03-2012, 08:15 PM
Soviet was a Success story and the Yanks got riled because of that. For the first time they saw somebody standing upto them. Soviet rattled the Americans. And hence they started working overtime just to bring Soviet down and got obsessed with it. They sowed the seeds of the Modern Islamic Terrorism to get even with the Soviets.

All the Osamas and the Pakistani terrorism have their roots in Yanks supporting them to get even with the Soviets.
Are you really from France?

I've got to see what the propaganda machine has been doing to you guys over there.

Jimnik
05-03-2012, 08:16 PM
Capitalism rocks.

Gagsquet
05-03-2012, 08:17 PM
Capitalism rocks.

for the rich

BodyServe
05-03-2012, 08:21 PM
for the rich

Untill it crashes out.

Jimnik
05-03-2012, 08:36 PM
soviet russia certainly wasn't rich by any modern (and western?) world stretch and it was far from being a paradise either (for one thing the limited freedom its citizens had left a lot to wish for) but... it was economically safe for the average joe. people had their jobs and had the basic means to sustain themselves. that's something that changed drammatically when boris yeltsin and his western-backed capitalist style came to power in the nineties. millions of russians fell into poverty and the GDP plumetted while some filthy gangsters, local and outsiders, managed to become billionaires at the expense of the poverty of a whole nation. for years -even to this day- thousands of russian women went to the west to work as prostitutes just because they didn't have any type of labour opportunities back home.

i'm sure russians at the time would have preferred to keep their "socialist paradise" alive instead of having no food on their plates in yeltsin's capitalist-oriented russia.

things have been getting better for the russians lately, though. as corrupt and shady as putin might be, he's still miles better than boris -and most russians know that.
Yes there were two famines in the mid-90s but North Korea also experienced them despite sticking to communism. This was a transition period in which many very serious mistakes were made. As you said, a few oligarchs became billionaires while much of the country starved. Unlike East Germany, the Russian transition from communism to capitalism was handled extremely poorly. Companies were privatized just for the sake of privatization. Thousands of farmers and their suppliers suddenly had the freedom to move where they wanted. So many abandoned their posts and headed west towards Moscow, St Petersburg or even western Europe.

I've always said, even though I'm a libertarian, I do NOT always condone the act of privatization, especially for organizations which have been in government control for many decades. Even in developed countries like the UK (where investors have more experience) the company is basically handed over from one clueless entity (government) to another clueless entity (hedge funds with no experience in the company's industry). Sometimes it works, but there have been several examples of both success and failure in this regard.

As for comparing Yeltsin to Putin, neither are particularly distinguishable. Both are probably socialists deep down in their hearts. I don't know the details of their differences in policy but I'm sure Yeltsin would have been equally opinionated on America's involvement in middle-eastern affairs. But in any case, Putin should be focusing more on Russia's internal problems before worrying about America.

Jimnik
05-03-2012, 08:39 PM
for the rich
Everyone can be rich.

Jimnik
05-03-2012, 08:44 PM
In regards to Putin, he is a better president simply because of his harsh and unforgiving international policies, unlike that fat sloth Yeltsin. Yanks and their Euro ass kissers surely hate him because despite some public discontent, he actually has guts to persue policies that are beneficial to his country alone and to stymie yank instigated conflicts in 3rd world countries like Syria in an effort to expand their influence.
It's not "guts" to talk big to the "Yanks and their Euro ass kissers". It's pure populism. Like every politician, he has nothing to lose by criticizing foreigners.

Jimnik
05-03-2012, 08:46 PM
as for libertarians (or semi-pure capitalists, whichever term you like best), i mostly see them as clueless. i don't think they fully grasp the complexities of the world's markets and how badly things would be if some of their ideas were implemented. i wouldn't tag them as right wingers, though.
So clueless that nobody can prove us wrong. :lol:

Gagsquet
05-03-2012, 08:54 PM
Everyone can be rich.


No capitalism is mostly a reproduction system. Read Bourdieu for more information.

BodyServe
05-03-2012, 08:55 PM
Everyone can be rich.

Tell that to Greeks :stupid: :stupid:

Jimnik
05-03-2012, 08:57 PM
Bless you froggies. Good to see you in the political mood this summer.


Tell that to Greeks :stupid: :stupid:
:spit: Are you calling Greeks retards?

Gagsquet
05-03-2012, 09:13 PM
Tell us when you won't be in trolling mood anymore.

BodyServe
05-03-2012, 09:15 PM
No, they are doomed right at the beginning, how can they became rich?
Only thing they can do is survive.

You said everyone can be rich, this is just untrue as it highly depends on when and where you were born.

Jimnik
05-03-2012, 09:48 PM
No, they are doomed right at the beginning, how can they became rich?
Only thing they can do is survive.

You said everyone can be rich, this is just untrue as it highly depends on when and where you were born.
This is exactly when and where you are wrong.

fast_clay
05-04-2012, 12:18 AM
in democratic systems the natural ebb and flow between left and right should be felt, and argument inside this paradigm is extremely healthy... there can not be one way traffic - and we know what that is called... some of us are probably even living it right now, yet don't know it...

funnily enough, those deriding the libertarian viewpoint in favour of a more leftist approach are not just of the mark, they are not even in the same postcode... this coming from an old staunch lefty...

should the western world swing any further left than it is today, then you are creating the perfect climate for a nasty little fella called totalitarianism... while, too much swing too soon towards the libertarian ideal and you get anarchy...

what you need is ebb and flow, and right now when you have the two 2012 US Presidential candidates romney and obama running campaigns backed by the same entity... well... it wouldn't hurt to give a little bit of the power back to the common man to get rid of the Cleptocracy that has one and all in debt would it...?

though first he has to stand up and take that power and leave nothing for doubt...

don't be fooled... what has stolen your family's wallet is not called capitalism - it is actually the worst form of socialism ever known - EVER - and that is, free trade in the real economy with the proceeds from their efforts socialising the rich... a two tiered system...

UNESCO never had to sign off on this new endangered species... that's how good they are..

abraxas21
05-04-2012, 12:55 AM
So clueless that nobody can prove us wrong. :lol:

it depends on what you mean by 'wrong' or 'right...

i know you've described yourself as a libertarian but i've never been sure to what degree... let's start with something basic: do you approve the existence of a minimum wage?

Sri
05-04-2012, 12:59 AM
it depends on what you mean by 'wrong' or 'right...

let's start with something basic: do you approve the existence of a minimun wage?
Do you approve of freedom? Or do you wish the super state dictates everything?

What we need is capitalism with compassion. But not a super state structure with billions of regulations. That's just an invitation to corruption which leads to situations worse than the ills of capitalism.

abraxas21
05-04-2012, 01:10 AM
Capitalism rocks.

http://austintotamu.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/2960238054_047107ee48_o.jpg

which one are you?

abraxas21
05-04-2012, 01:14 AM
What we need is capitalism with compassion. But not a super state structure with billions of regulations. That's just an invitation to corruption which leads to situations worse than the ills of capitalism.

same question i did to jimmy: do you approve the existance of a minumum wage?

abraxas21
05-04-2012, 01:17 AM
Do you approve of freedom? Or do you wish the super state dictates everything?

should the western world swing any further left than it is today, then you are creating the perfect climate for a nasty little fella called totalitarianism...

this is precisely the type of exaggerations and extreme comparisons that lots of libertarians and conservatives like to use

fast_clay
05-04-2012, 01:40 AM
this is precisely the type of exaggerations and extreme comparisons that lots of libertarians and conservatives like to use

don't worry mate, i believe it is everybody's born right to have an adequate education... for when this is seen to, then there are no excuses... not even healthcare comes close...

the state should concern itself with refereeing the playing field, not fixing the full time score... for when that is taken care of, everyone plays ball...

Topspindoctor
05-04-2012, 01:43 AM
fast clown campaigning hard for the top ACC seed in this thread, I see. Needs the Kim Jong Il avatar back to challenge for the top 3 however.

fast_clay
05-04-2012, 01:49 AM
fast clown campaigning hard for the top ACC seed in this thread, I see. Needs the Kim Jong Il avatar back to challenge for the top 3 however.

:lol: like most australians, you have no real clue... you were the one accusing me of being a socialist for 6 whole months... don't cover the disgust in yourself at being totally wrong by prancing around in here in nadal's Nike spring outfit...

Jimnik
05-04-2012, 07:08 AM
it depends on what you mean by 'wrong' or 'right...

i know you've described yourself as a libertarian but i've never been sure to what degree... let's start with something basic: do you approve the existence of a minimum wage?
You mean a government imposed minimum wage? I guess I don't but let me explain myself.

The way the job markets should work is much like any other market where there's supply (job providers) and demand (job seekers). Hence "job providers" posting job vacancies. Then "job seekers" bid against eachother to get the vacancy. When the market is booming minimum wage automatically rises, when crashing minimum wage falls.

Hence a solution in which the minimum wage fluctuates depending on strength of the economy would work more efficiently than artificially assigning a single value based on subjective opinion.


http://austintotamu.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/2960238054_047107ee48_o.jpg

which one are you?
:lol: My brothers. I think they're being sarcastic.

I actively condemn all public actions of anarchy so rioting/protesting/complaining is a definite no-no. I would tell them to fuck off and get back to work.


don't worry mate, i believe it is everybody's born right to have an adequate education... for when this is seen to, then there are no excuses... not even healthcare comes close...

the state should concern itself with refereeing the playing field, not fixing the full time score... for when that is taken care of, everyone plays ball...
This.

Ideally every parent should work hard to pay for their children but realistically it doesn't happen. So I condone state subsidized education and child healthcare. But once you turn 21, you're on your own.

Shinoj
05-04-2012, 07:44 AM
I actively condemn all public actions of anarchy so rioting/protesting/complaining is a definite no-no. I would tell them to fuck off and get back to work.




Public protesting doesn't mean Anarchy. if the public cant protest against whatever system is imposed on then then what is use of all these concepts . Socialism,Capitalism and so on. Public opinion should be the base of any system.

Shinoj
05-04-2012, 07:47 AM
is there anybody from the Erstwhile Soviet of give a real picture? If you people believe so much about the Leftist propaganda then what makes you think that whatever you are uttering is not a Pro Liberal Democratic Propaganda.

Jimnik
05-04-2012, 01:44 PM
Public protesting doesn't mean Anarchy. if the public cant protest against whatever system is imposed on then then what is use of all these concepts . Socialism,Capitalism and so on. Public opinion should be the base of any system.
Socialism represses protesting more than capitalism, but that's beside the point. In a democracy public opinion is made to count through the electoral system. Going onto the streets and trying to force opinion on people while causing widespread disruption is anarchy.

fast_clay
05-04-2012, 02:20 PM
Socialism represses protesting more than capitalism, but that's beside the point. In a democracy public opinion is made to count through the electoral system. Going onto the streets and trying to force opinion on people while causing widespread disruption is anarchy.

to what political ideology does the US policy signed quietly on new years eve belong...? And the new one signed last month allowing suspected troublemakers like buddyholly and abraxas to be detained indefinitely without access to any legal aid whatsoever after algorithms posing at net cops repeatedly find certain keystroke combinations of these two loveable larrakins disagreeable to the interests of the state...? Where do these fit into the ideological spectrum...?

fast_clay
05-04-2012, 02:55 PM
the minimum wage fluctuates depending on strength of the economy would work more efficiently than artificially assigning a single value based on subjective opinion.




you see it's posts like these that say i could probably shout you a beer, have a political discussion with you and not end up punching you in the face like some of clowns in here that simply don't get it...

The new western economies will soon, or should, be rebuilt with models based upon human nature itself - changeable and flexible...models that do not set an unrealistic target doomed to fail from the outset, but models that have innate abilities to reflect and respond to the strengths and weaknesses inside each particular individual economy...

Where once economic models assumed to intimately know the motivations and incentives of a population, newer models will not assume to know what pleases a population... And when you think about it Jim, people being happy in taking out a mortgage are looking like they are soon gonna be in the vast minority, as this debt based monetary model we've been born into has pretty much run it's natural course...

The age of debt saturation...

Chris 84
05-04-2012, 03:16 PM
this thread sucks.....seriously.

JolánGagó
05-04-2012, 03:40 PM
Socialism is the cancer of this world.

I blame Tiriac.

JolánGagó
05-04-2012, 03:50 PM
Soviet was a Success story and the Yanks got riled because of that. For the first time they saw somebody standing upto them. Soviet rattled the Americans. And hence they started working overtime just to bring Soviet down and got obsessed with it. They sowed the seeds of the Modern Islamic Terrorism to get even with the Soviets.
.

:rolls:

back to school!

http://rookery4.aviary.com/storagev12/2343500/2343559_baf4.png

Gagsquet
05-04-2012, 04:14 PM
Minimum wage causes structural unemployment but that's in a perfect situation where the supply of work could fit in term of skill the demand of work from companies. In our situation where a lot of unskilled people are unemployed and unoccupied jobs needs some specific skills, get rid of mimimum wage wouldn't lead to reduce the unemployment but only cut down low wages. That works in theory but not in practice.

Shinoj
05-04-2012, 05:02 PM
Socialism represses protesting more than capitalism, but that's beside the point. In a democracy public opinion is made to count through the electoral system. Going onto the streets and trying to force opinion on people while causing widespread disruption is anarchy.


Electoral system are not fool-proof. For example in Countries like India, Where there are too many segments of Population that have different voting pattern. So there exist a case where wishes of an entire segment of population gets over ridden by the Majority of Population. So Public protest is all that which remains to register their disapproval.

Har-Tru
05-04-2012, 07:49 PM
The key concept here is freedom.

The best system will be that which maximises the freedom of the citizens. Pure socialism fails at doing that, but pure capitalism does too.

Chris 84
05-04-2012, 08:10 PM
Are you really from France?

I've got to see what the propaganda machine has been doing to you guys over there.

you're one to talk about propaganda.
you seem to have swallowed the capitalist propaganda that we're all subjected to hook, line and sinker. "capitalism rocks" "everyone can be rich" "once you're 21 you should be on your own".

:lol:

Chris 84
05-04-2012, 08:14 PM
Socialism represses protesting more than capitalism, but that's beside the point. In a democracy public opinion is made to count through the electoral system. Going onto the streets and trying to force opinion on people while causing widespread disruption is anarchy.

oh, and this point is just plain stupid. you can argue that you've got a point when its about something that the government has pledged to do, of course, but where it is an issue that has come up without being in a manifesto or being discussed widely prior to the election (such as the iraq war, for example), then nobody has given the government a mandate to act. they might have the final say, but attempting to shape their view and actions makes perfect sense. democracy isn't about casting a vote every 4 or 5 years and leaving the politicians to get on with doing whatever they feel like up til the next election.

Jimnik
05-04-2012, 09:15 PM
you're one to talk about propaganda.
you seem to have swallowed the capitalist propaganda that we're all subjected to hook, line and sinker. "capitalism rocks" "everyone can be rich" "once you're 21 you should be on your own".

:lol:
What capitalist propaganda? You think BBC and CNN are libertarian? Don't be an idiot.


oh, and this point is just plain stupid. you can argue that you've got a point when its about something that the government has pledged to do, of course, but where it is an issue that has come up without being in a manifesto or being discussed widely prior to the election (such as the iraq war, for example), then nobody has given the government a mandate to act. they might have the final say, but attempting to shape their view and actions makes perfect sense. democracy isn't about casting a vote every 4 or 5 years and leaving the politicians to get on with doing whatever they feel like up til the next election.
Bitch, moan and whine until you get what you want. You might as well live in a tent outside Westminster.

I feel sorry for you. With that attitude you'll be miserable for the rest of your life.

Jimnik
05-04-2012, 09:20 PM
Electoral system are not fool-proof. For example in Countries like India, Where there are too many segments of Population that have different voting pattern. So there exist a case where wishes of an entire segment of population gets over ridden by the Majority of Population. So Public protest is all that which remains to register their disapproval.
There's more to the electoral system than 5 year general elections.

This isn't even about socialism or capitalism anymore. Sounds like you're complaining about democracy.

Chris 84
05-04-2012, 09:38 PM
What capitalist propaganda? You think BBC and CNN are libertarian? Don't be an idiot.



Bitch, moan and whine until you get what you want. You might as well live in a tent outside Westminster.

I feel sorry for you. With that attitude you'll be miserable for the rest of your life.

capitalist propaganda is all around us simply because capitalism is all around us. i didn't say that the bbc and cnn are libertarian, but all for-profit media is by definition, capitalist. when such a huge amount of the media is pro-capitalist, then it stands to reason that what we read, what we watch, what we hear, is all pro-capitalist. i never said it is all pro-purest form, laissez-faire capitalism, but it is pro-capitalism nevertheless.

i don't think i displayed a negative attitude. or a miserable one. all i said is that it is a democratic right to attempt to influence the government by voicing one's views about a number of topics. if a certain matter isn't included in a manifesto, but the government of the day still tries to address that matter, then where the public dislike it, and did not give a full mandate for the government to act in that way, they should protest. apart from anything else, if nobody protests, then the government may not even realise that a substantial number of people are opposed to their actions.

There's more to the electoral system than 5 year general elections.

erm, that was what i said when you said you feel sorry for me. it is you who seems to think that you vote and then the government can do whatever it wnats.

Jimnik
05-04-2012, 10:18 PM
capitalist propaganda is all around us simply because capitalism is all around us. i didn't say that the bbc and cnn are libertarian, but all for-profit media is by definition, capitalist. when such a huge amount of the media is pro-capitalist, then it stands to reason that what we read, what we watch, what we hear, is all pro-capitalist. i never said it is all pro-purest form, laissez-faire capitalism, but it is pro-capitalism nevertheless.

Listen to yourself. Now you're saying my extreme-capitalist views have come from being brainwashed by moderate-capitalist media. That alone doesn't make sense but your entire argument is based on assumptions that people are morons and follow whatever they read and watch. It's very cynical and very typical of left-leaning minorities in western countries.

The BBC is a government-run artificially subsidized left-leaning propaganda machine. The vast majority of British newspapers are liberal to socialist (except the telegraph which I don't read either). It is actually very impressive that the UK has maintained a 50% free market economy.

Jimnik
05-04-2012, 10:20 PM
i don't think i displayed a negative attitude. or a miserable one. all i said is that it is a democratic right to attempt to influence the government by voicing one's views about a number of topics. if a certain matter isn't included in a manifesto, but the government of the day still tries to address that matter, then where the public dislike it, and did not give a full mandate for the government to act in that way, they should protest. apart from anything else, if nobody protests, then the government may not even realise that a substantial number of people are opposed to their actions.
If I complained about every issue I did not see in a manifesto, I'd be permanently marching in the streets.

People don't protest because they're outrageously dissatisfied about an issue. They protest because they enjoy taking to the streets, chanting, wreaking havoc etc. Anarchy is a basic animal instinct. Condoning it is like condoning a felony just because the criminal had a "reason".

CooCooCachoo
05-04-2012, 10:34 PM
Listen to yourself. Now you're saying my extreme-capitalist views have come from being brainwashed by moderate-capitalist media. That alone doesn't make sense but your entire argument is based on assumptions that people are morons and follow whatever they read and watch. It's very cynical and very typical of left-leaning minorities in western countries.

The BBC is a government-run artificially subsidized left-leaning propaganda machine. The vast majority of British newspapers are liberal to socialist (except the telegraph which I don't read either). It is actually very impressive that the UK has maintained a 50% free market economy.


If I complained about every issue I did not see in a manifesto, I'd be permanently marching in the streets.

People don't protest because they're outrageously dissatisfied about an issue. They protest because they enjoy taking to the streets, chanting, wreaking havoc etc. Anarchy is a basic animal instinct. Condoning it is like condoning a felony just because the criminal had a "reason".

There's just as little free will in your story of animalistic instinctivism as there is in (your distorted portrayal of) Chris84's account of media bias. For someone who seems to implicitly subscribe to Hayekian arguments, wouldn't you agree that this is logically inconsistent?

According to all major indices of democracy (Freedom House, Polity IV etc.), freedom of assembly is not conceived of as a factor that perverts political decision-making.

Jimnik
05-04-2012, 10:58 PM
There's just as little free will in your story of animalistic instinctivism as there is in (your distorted portrayal of) Chris84's account of media bias. For someone who seems to implicitly subscribe to Hayekian arguments, wouldn't you agree that this is logically inconsistent?

According to all major indices of democracy (Freedom House, Polity IV etc.), freedom of assembly is not conceived of as a factor that perverts political decision-making.
We're getting quite "deep" here. I never said freedom of assembly should be illegal, especially since it already is illegal in many socialist regimes and, as you said, that would make me inconsistent. But I'll almost always condemn it in proven democratic societies, just like I condemn any other stupid choices people make. Obviously people have the right to make mistakes, as long as they accept the consequences.

The real freedom is the freedom to pursue happiness, without enforcing unhappiness on others. This is where I draw the line between freedom and state intervention. Everyone has the right to be greedy, lazy, proud, lustful, selfish etc as long as it doesn't interfere with the happiness of others. So yes there's room to freely reduce to basic "animalistic instinctivism" as you call it but without moving all the way to anarchy or savagery.

abraxas21
05-04-2012, 11:28 PM
don't worry mate, i believe it is everybody's born right to have an adequate education... for when this is seen to, then there are no excuses... not even healthcare comes close...

the state should concern itself with refereeing the playing field, not fixing the full time score... for when that is taken care of, everyone plays ball...

yeah, i can stand behind this

that said, our visions are coloured by our own surroundings. i live in one of the most free-market oriented countries in the world and we have one of the most unequal wealth distributions as well. it's obvious that my country could have good results turning a further to the left than a country like australia... let's not even talk about scandinavia

abraxas21
05-04-2012, 11:53 PM
You mean a government imposed minimum wage? I guess I don't but let me explain myself.

The way the job markets should work is much like any other market where there's supply (job providers) and demand (job seekers). Hence "job providers" posting job vacancies. Then "job seekers" bid against eachother to get the vacancy. When the market is booming minimum wage automatically rises, when crashing minimum wage falls.

Hence a solution in which the minimum wage fluctuates depending on strength of the economy would work more efficiently than artificially assigning a single value based on subjective opinion.

i think you are confused. as it is pictured in all economics textbooks, job providers represent the demand and job seekers (along with the ones who are already working) are the supply. this is so because companies are willing to buy (i.e. they demand) labour which is sold by the workers (i.e. they are the supply).

as for your description of how the labour market works, i think it leaves out a lot of relevant info. for starters, when assessing the labour market we have to begin with the notion that it ain't perfect... far from it actually. what we have in most nations are monopsonies (the reverse of monopoly: the suppliers are too many in relation to the buyers and therefore the latter tend to be in a position of relative power) which is of course inefficient both in the salaries paid as in the companies' output. thus, in this scenario, when the government sets an apropriate minimum wage, it doesn't necessarily discourage unemployment. card and krueger were the first to study this phenomena and since then many economists have taken note of it.

this is one of the many examples in which economic 101 theory doesn't apply to the real world, which will always be infinitely more complicated and always imperfect.

abraxas21
05-04-2012, 11:57 PM
I actively condemn all public actions of anarchy so rioting/protesting/complaining is a definite no-no. I would tell them to fuck off and get back to work.

i don't know what's more troubling for me. the fact that you think that protesting is a form of anarchy or that you'd tell the protestors to "fuck off and get back to work".

it seems to me that you not only are disconnected from the economic theory, you are also totally disconnected from reality.

Jimnik
05-05-2012, 12:27 AM
i think you are confused. as it is pictured in all economics textbooks, job providers represent the demand and job seekers (along with the ones who are already working) are the supply. this is so because companies are willing to buy (i.e. they demand) labour which is sold by the workers (i.e. they are the supply).
Depends which way you look at it. In my explanation I was looking at it from the point of view of the worker. Job seekers (workers) demand the job and job providers (employers) supply the job. Fewer workers reduces demand, hence jobs become "cheaper" to the worker (less work, more pay). Fewer employers reduces supply, hence jobs become "more expensive" to the worker (more work, less pay).


as for your description of how the labour market works, i think it leaves out a lot of relevant info. for starters, when assessing the labour market we have to begin with the notion that it ain't perfect... far from it actually. what we have in most nations are monopsonies (the reverse of monopoly: the suppliers are too many in relation to the buyers and therefore the latter tend to be in a position of relative power) which is of course inefficient both in the salaries paid as in the companies' output. thus, in this scenario, when the government sets an apropriate minimum wage, it doesn't necessarily discourage unemployment. card and krueger were the first to study this phenomena and since then many economists have taken note of it.

this is one of the many examples in which economic 101 theory doesn't apply to the real world, which will always be infinitely more complicated and always imperfect.
For me the minimum wage is not a significant issue. Many countries have them but they're usually so low as to not affect the economy in a major way. I believe Australia has the highest minimum wage at $15/hour. This is much too high but they can afford it because their citizens are generally in high skilled high paid jobs so few people are affected.

Jimnik
05-05-2012, 12:33 AM
i don't know what's more troubling for me. the fact that you think that protesting is a form of anarchy or that you'd tell the protestors to "fuck off and get back to work".

it seems to me that you not only are disconnected from the economic theory, you are also totally disconnected from reality.
There's more to "reality" than protesting, complaining, bitching, whining. If people worked harder and complained less the world would be a happier place. I've already said everything in my replies to Chris and Martin on the previous page, so you can review those. I'm not going to repeat myself.

Economics, like many facets of life, is very simple when you break it down to its core principles. Socialism is a destructive force in this regard because it complicates things dramatically and creates a whole field of unnecessary study. Same goes for politics but that's just human nature.

abraxas21
05-05-2012, 04:59 AM
There's more to "reality" than protesting, complaining, bitching, whining. If people worked harder and complained less the world would be a happier place.

i fully disagree. for starters, it's a moral duty to to rise up to unfairness and injustice and to that regard the people have the power to demand the government for change or even to overthrow the ones in power if their political stances are too far away from the people's basic aspirations.

fortunately history shows us that humanity doesn't share your values. otherwise who knows? europe might still be ruled by feudal kings and your country would still be a british colony....

i might reply to your other post tomorrow

Chris 84
05-05-2012, 12:33 PM
Listen to yourself. Now you're saying my extreme-capitalist views have come from being brainwashed by moderate-capitalist media. That alone doesn't make sense but your entire argument is based on assumptions that people are morons and follow whatever they read and watch. It's very cynical and very typical of left-leaning minorities in western countries.

The BBC is a government-run artificially subsidized left-leaning propaganda machine. The vast majority of British newspapers are liberal to socialist (except the telegraph which I don't read either). It is actually very impressive that the UK has maintained a 50% free market economy.

i'm not saying that people are morons. i'm saying that you can't complain about other people swallowing propaganda when you've done the exact same.
please get your terms right. the newspapers are not socialist. socialism is an entirely different economic system to capitalism. things like the nhs, extensive benefits, an income-based tax system....these are not in existence to do away with capitalism, they are in existence to make capitalism "fairer" (whether you agree with them or not). this is called social democracy, and by definition, social democracy is a capitalist ideal. not pure capitalist, not extreme capitalist, but capitalist rather than socialist. no mainstream media outlets are in favour of pulling down the economic system and replacing it with socialism. many are in favour of the welfare state and advocate social democracy, but that IS capitalism.
and what does "liberal" mean? the extreme right and extreme left can both claim that term and everything in between always claims that term. calling the media "liberal to socialist" is not only meaningless, but it avoids the issue that i was raising. left-leaning or not, the media is capitalist.

If I complained about every issue I did not see in a manifesto, I'd be permanently marching in the streets.

People don't protest because they're outrageously dissatisfied about an issue. They protest because they enjoy taking to the streets, chanting, wreaking havoc etc. Anarchy is a basic animal instinct. Condoning it is like condoning a felony just because the criminal had a "reason".

erm, ok. the vast majority of protest is peaceful and certainly has nothing to do with anarchy. and as has already been said, you criticise me for implying that people are moronic and followers (when i never said any such thing), before yourself saying that people have no free will and only protest as they are following their basic animal instinct. organised, peaceful protest is about as far removed from anarchy as you can get, by the way.
condoning demonstrations againt wars, pay cuts, etc is different from condoning illegal actions simply because one is legal and the other is not. indeed, sometimes legal demonstrations take place to voice anger at illegal actions, such as the war in iraq.

There's more to "reality" than protesting, complaining, bitching, whining. If people worked harder and complained less the world would be a happier place. I've already said everything in my replies to Chris and Martin on the previous page, so you can review those. I'm not going to repeat myself.

Economics, like many facets of life, is very simple when you break it down to its core principles. Socialism is a destructive force in this regard because it complicates things dramatically and creates a whole field of unnecessary study. Same goes for politics but that's just human nature.

if people worked harder and complained less, we'd still have 19th century sweatshops, we'd still have people living on a pittance, we'd still have high rates of death by curable illnesses in the "1st world", we'd still have only a handful of people able to vote, women would still be second class citizens, blacks would still be slaves.....i could go on forever. yet you think it is better that people shut up, work unquestioningly (again, an argument which proves you are the one who thinks that people are moronic), and get on with things, even where things are clearly wrong and unfair?

zeleni
05-05-2012, 02:59 PM
As some posters have already written, essence is not about names and ready-made ideological concepts, it is about actual situation and government policy in particular case (country) in particular time.

The goal should be to find the right balance between freedom and solidarity. Nordic counties are probably the closest to that, which doesn't mean that their model can be applied successfully everywhere because of cultural differences.

Today it is easy to bash socialism and so with good reason. But I don't think it's fair to forget role of socialism in fight against colonialism and fascism/nazism. Also in some counties socialism (or so-called socialism, as I explained in the first paragraph) gave good results - China before socialism was devastated prey of colonial powers (UK, Japan). Now they are becoming the biggest economy in the world and their people have the highest level of human rights than ever in their very long history (things should always be observed in their context, not in some ideologically imposed artificial context of "universal" human rights).

Also, capitalism apologist seed to forget that numerous failed states in Africa, Latin America and Asia are capitalist countries. They always point on one dozen of richest countries where it is hard to say how much of their wealth is due to capitalism and hard work and how much due to colonialism and plunder.

Things seems to be more gray and blear than apologist of any paper concept (capitalism, socialism) would like to admit.

fast_clay
05-05-2012, 08:39 PM
(things should always be observed in their context, not in some ideologically imposed artificial context of "universal" human rights).



Indeed. It is all relative to the path travelled.

Sunset of Age
05-05-2012, 11:32 PM
I don't get this thread at all.
The current global money crisis is due to overexerting CAPITALISM more than anything else. Power to the Money Grabbers, oh yeah! :rocker2: :help:

What the hell is wrong with the concept of thought of a just-a-bit fairer distribution of cash and opportunities between all, and a bit more of protection to those who haven't been the luckiest around?
Why is that so frightning to some - read: the Rich & Famous Lucky -, as I see over here in this thread?

A bit more compassion and a bit more equal sharing of chances, why the hell is campainging for a little more socialist distribution of chances and cash so frightning to those who already benefit so much because of their talents?

I don't get it.
If this post designates me as a commie - well so be it. :ras:

Jimnik
05-06-2012, 12:11 AM
i fully disagree. for starters, it's a moral duty to to rise up to unfairness and injustice and to that regard the people have the power to demand the government for change or even to overthrow the ones in power if their political stances are too far away from the people's basic aspirations.
"Unfairness and injustice" is a point of view, that's why we have democracy. If 40% disagree with 60% it doesn't give the 40% the right to demand change and overthrow government.


fortunately history shows us that humanity doesn't share your values. otherwise who knows? europe might still be ruled by feudal kings and your country would still be a british colony....
History shows that socialism sucks. The sooner people come to realize this the better.

Sunset of Age
05-06-2012, 12:22 AM
History shows that socialism sucks. The sooner people come to realize this the better.

Oh yeah man, capitalism is soooooo much better.
Enron, ABN AMRO, Vestia, etc, anyone?

The Rich, Fortunate & Lucky grabbing grabbing grabbing the CASH oh yeah. And nothing's going to stop them.
You get fired as a banker -> no problem, you'll get hired in no-time again to do the same lousy job for 10,000 euro a month, once again.
You get fired as a blue collar worker -> ah damn mate. That sucks. Good luck in getting an unemployment-fee, eh? If you're over 45 years of age, don't even ever bother about trying getting a new job again, as hard as you try. :wavey:

The losers - aka the normal people, only can :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: at it all.

Yeah socialism - imho, just trying to have a mite more truly equal distribution of luck, talent and resorces among folks, indeed sucks. :o
End the Sarcasm Alert.

Who are you folks opposing to this principle, all sorority's kids???
I guess so. Count yourselves blessed folks.

Jimnik
05-06-2012, 12:33 AM
i'm not saying that people are morons. i'm saying that you can't complain about other people swallowing propaganda when you've done the exact same.
please get your terms right.
And I'm saying this is nothing more than a paranoid accusation. You've still provided no evidence that I've been "swallowing propaganda" when my views contradict almost everything we watch and read in the media.


the newspapers are not socialist. socialism is an entirely different economic system to capitalism. things like the nhs, extensive benefits, an income-based tax system....these are not in existence to do away with capitalism, they are in existence to make capitalism "fairer" (whether you agree with them or not). this is called social democracy, and by definition, social democracy is a capitalist ideal. not pure capitalist, not extreme capitalist, but capitalist rather than socialist. no mainstream media outlets are in favour of pulling down the economic system and replacing it with socialism. many are in favour of the welfare state and advocate social democracy, but that IS capitalism.
and what does "liberal" mean? the extreme right and extreme left can both claim that term and everything in between always claims that term. calling the media "liberal to socialist" is not only meaningless, but it avoids the issue that i was raising. left-leaning or not, the media is capitalist.
That IS where you are wrong. A welfare state that only interferes with 50% of the economy is a liberal system. It consists of both capitalist and socialist aspects. I stopped reading and watching British media after calls for nationalizing banks, capping private sector pay and returning to a 1970s labour model where trade unions hold the nation to ransom. This leans far more towards socialism than capitalism.



erm, ok. the vast majority of protest is peaceful and certainly has nothing to do with anarchy. and as has already been said, you criticise me for implying that people are moronic and followers (when i never said any such thing), before yourself saying that people have no free will and only protest as they are following their basic animal instinct. organised, peaceful protest is about as far removed from anarchy as you can get, by the way.
condoning demonstrations againt wars, pay cuts, etc is different from condoning illegal actions simply because one is legal and the other is not. indeed, sometimes legal demonstrations take place to voice anger at illegal actions, such as the war in iraq.
Like I said (I'm repeating myself over and over again), in a truly democratic society, I will always condemn protesting when people have official peaceful means to resolve issues. Not once have I ever seen a protest in a western nation with rational demands. No matter what the government does, there will always be a minority finding an excuse to complain about something. Peaceful protesting shouldn't be made illegal, but in a proven democratic society I will never respect it.


if people worked harder and complained less, we'd still have 19th century sweatshops, we'd still have people living on a pittance, we'd still have high rates of death by curable illnesses in the "1st world", we'd still have only a handful of people able to vote, women would still be second class citizens, blacks would still be slaves.....i could go on forever. yet you think it is better that people shut up, work unquestioningly (again, an argument which proves you are the one who thinks that people are moronic), and get on with things, even where things are clearly wrong and unfair?
Because those were NOT proven democratic societies. A system in which certain minorities have no say is not democratic. I would completely condone protesting in Cuba, North Korea, Iran or any society in which totalitarian regime was enforced on the people. Comparing 21st century protests on bankers pay to 19th century fights for black rights is nonsensical.

Jimnik
05-06-2012, 12:37 AM
Oh yeah man, capitalism is soooooo much better.
Enron, ABN AMRO, Vestia, etc, anyone?

The Rich, Fortunate & Lucky grabbing grabbing grabbing the CASH oh yeah. And nothing's going to stop them.
You get fired as a banker -> no problem, you'll get hired in no-time again to do the same lousy job for 10,000 euro a month, once again.
You get fired as a blue collar worker -> ah damn mate. That sucks. Good luck in getting an unemployment-fee, eh? If you're over 45 years of age, don't even ever bother about trying getting a new job again, as hard as you try. :wavey:

The losers - aka the normal people, only can :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: at it all.

Yeah socialism - imho, just trying to have a mite more truly equal distribution of luck, talent and resorces among folks, indeed sucks. :o
End the Sarcasm Alert.

Who are you folks opposing to this principle, all sorority's kids???
You should move to a socialist country. No greed, just millions of people starving to death and dissidents tortured in concentration camps. But as long as bankers aren't making millions, that's clearly all that matters.

fast_clay
05-06-2012, 12:46 AM
I don't get this thread at all.
The current global money crisis is due to overexerting CAPITALISM more than anything else. Power to the Money Grabbers, oh yeah! :rocker2: :help:

What the hell is wrong with the concept of thought of a just-a-bit fairer distribution of cash and opportunities between all, and a bit more of protection to those who haven't been the luckiest around?
Why is that so frightning to some - read: the Rich & Famous Lucky -, as I see over here in this thread?

A bit more compassion and a bit more equal sharing of chances, why the hell is campainging for a little more socialist distribution of chances and cash so frightning to those who already benefit so much because of their talents?

I don't get it.
If this post designates me as a commie - well so be it. :ras:

i don't think there is anything wrong with this thought at all... i used to think this way too... maybe one day still might...

but, looking at the current predicament as objectively as i can i would say that it is not capitalism we live in at the moment... capitalism was never even given a chance the moment you burn regulations by the truckload and allow criminals aka banksters responsible for pushing hundreds of millions into poverty worldwide to walk off scot free - all while some prick slaps you with a €160 for a late parking fine...

the modern western plutocracy is not really capitalism - although capitalism was an important tool in the rise of the creature we know today...

i do sympathise with you post though sunset, because the power structure in today's world scarily resembles the power structures during feudal ages...

Sunset of Age
05-06-2012, 01:01 AM
^^ Thanks fast-clay, you seem to have understood my point.

Once again - I'm not claiming that socialism is a 'better' system than capitalism.
My point is just that I feel that the common folks seem to get f*cked in whatever system, and my personal aim is just to battle for the common folks to get their fair share in knowledge, chances for improvement in their personal situations, and hence, cash.

With the current money crisis and rather ugly right-winged popularism in politics in Europe going on at the moment over here (ugh... remember the 1930's? the elders in my family sure do! :help:), yes, I sympathasize for a more left-winged opposition, be it socialism - I don't care.
I oppose to the current 'richer-get-richer'-politics.
That makes me a 'socialist'? Okay. :)

Lopez
05-06-2012, 01:05 AM
As an economics student who's looked quite a bit into the crisis, I can confidently say that it had very little to do with capitalism and everything to do with non-transparent financial instruments and thus a gross misinterpretation of risk combined with poor incentive systems and a faulty way of how credit agencies work. On a free market, this crisis wouldn't have happened.

Besides, capitalism is a word often misused. At it's core, it means that people have the right to own property and machines used for production. Almost every country in the world is capitalist.

Now, it's altogether a different question how much a state should be a part of the economy and society and where in the society should the state take part.

Sunset of Age
05-06-2012, 01:19 AM
^^ Interesting comments, Lopez.
Food-for-thought. I won't say I disagree. :)

Still nothing will stop me from aiding my clients to help them around with their financial problems in this rather SHARK-kind of a society. ;)
Uh yeah, Eat-the-Rich. :toothy:
That's my job. ;)

Lopez
05-06-2012, 01:26 AM
^^ Interesting comments, Lopez.
Food-for-thought. I won't say I disagree. :)

Still nothing will stop me from aiding my clients to help them around with their financial problems in this rather SHARK-kind of a society. ;)
Uh yeah, Eat-the-Rich. :toothy:
That's my job. ;)

I thought you were a biologist or something :p. Didn't know you were Robin Hood :devil:

Sunset of Age
05-06-2012, 01:33 AM
I thought you were a biologist or something :p. Didn't know you were Robin Hood :devil:

Medical Biologist, MSc. obtained in 1986, Utrecht University, NL.
Lawyer, LLM obtained in 2002, Utrecht University Law School, NL.

Robin Hood - ever since my birth. :toothy:
Or rather - Maid Marian. :D :hatoff:

No kidding though, my current job is helping out folks who have become totally fucked up in their current financial situation.
That might well explain why I have these so-called 'socialist' tendencies nowadays. ;)

Lopez
05-06-2012, 01:44 AM
Medical Biologist, MSc. obtained in 1986, Utrecht University, NL.
Lawyer, LLM obtained in 2002, Utrecht University Law School, NL.

Robin Hood - ever since my birth. :toothy:
Or rather - Maid Marian. :D

Career switch, bold move :yeah:

Anyways I've explained my views about the issue a few pages before. The state should do certain things but then be as small as possible once these things are arranged (education, healthcare, police to name a few).

The problem with high income tax is that it really doesn't even affect the really rich since one can only become rich through capital such as being a successful entrepreneur. Thus, high income taxes actually hit the middle class the most since it makes it difficult to create wealth through work alone and it also dicincentivises pay raises etc...

High capital gains tax is also problematic because capital is one of the building blocks of a nation's GDP. To achieve GDP growth you need growth in capital, human capital or level of technology. High capital gains tax drives capital away from a nation.

There is a strong correlation with many positive effects to a society and the level of economic freedom within that society. I can dig out the information if you'd like. They include things like smaller absolute poverty and higher life expectancy and higher overall happiness IIRC.

Sunset of Age
05-06-2012, 02:01 AM
Career switch, bold move :yeah:
I had to. I was a total failure in medical cancer research, all of my research attempts at getting my PhD were a complete disaster. :help:
Never mind the fact that some 99% of my colleagues at that time ended up being computer programmers anyhows. :lol:
A career as a biologist? haha, no way. Too bad nobody tells you so when you're 17 years of age.

Anyways I've explained my views about the issue a few pages before. The state should do certain things but then be as small as possible once these things are arranged (education, healthcare, police to name a few).

The problem with high income tax is that it really doesn't even affect the really rich since one can only become rich through capital such as being a successful entrepreneur. Thus, high income taxes actually hit the middle class the most since it makes it difficult to create wealth through work alone and it also dicincentivises pay raises etc...

High capital gains tax is also problematic because capital is one of the building blocks of a nation's GDP. To achieve GDP growth you need growth in capital, human capital or level of technology. High capital gains tax drives capital away from a nation.

There is a strong correlation with many positive effects to a society and the level of economic freedom within that society. I can dig out the information if you'd like. They include things like smaller absolute poverty and higher life expectancy and higher overall happiness IIRC.
Yep, I see your points, and they are true, unfortunately...
Whatever that, it won't help me stop at my attempts to try as much as I can to help the folks who've been a mite lesser lucky with their talents to achieve themselves getting themselves a 'better' living.
It's the only thing I can do. :)

Funny thing is, my BF comes from a very rich posh family, and his sister is... a spokeslady for the Socialist Party in my country. She feels she just has to.
No wonder we get along rather well. :D

Topspindoctor
05-06-2012, 02:32 AM
i fully disagree. for starters, it's a moral duty to to rise up to unfairness and injustice and to that regard the people have the power to demand the government for change or even to overthrow the ones in power if their political stances are too far away from the people's basic aspirations.

fortunately history shows us that humanity doesn't share your values. otherwise who knows? europe might still be ruled by feudal kings and your country would still be a british colony....

i might reply to your other post tomorrow

Incorrect. Those with power will always take advantage of those without power no matter how advanced a particular society is. It's a basic survival mechanism to cull the weak. What you suggest is mere wishful thinking rather than reality. At the end of the day we're still animals - except we're ripping out each other's throat in a more civilized manner.

Shinoj
05-06-2012, 08:51 AM
I disagree. When the autocracies do get out of hand, people do decide to act against it and no matter how much stronger the government is, it will be overthrown. Case in point is Libya and Egypt.

Shinoj
05-06-2012, 08:54 AM
As some posters have already written, essence is not about names and ready-made ideological concepts, it is about actual situation and government policy in particular case (country) in particular time.

The goal should be to find the right balance between freedom and solidarity. Nordic counties are probably the closest to that, which doesn't mean that their model can be applied successfully everywhere because of cultural differences.

Today it is easy to bash socialism and so with good reason. But I don't think it's fair to forget role of socialism in fight against colonialism and fascism/nazism. Also in some counties socialism (or so-called socialism, as I explained in the first paragraph) gave good results - China before socialism was devastated prey of colonial powers (UK, Japan). Now they are becoming the biggest economy in the world and their people have the highest level of human rights than ever in their very long history (things should always be observed in their context, not in some ideologically imposed artificial context of "universal" human rights).

Also, capitalism apologist seed to forget that numerous failed states in Africa, Latin America and Asia are capitalist countries. They always point on one dozen of richest countries where it is hard to say how much of their wealth is due to capitalism and hard work and how much due to colonialism and plunder.

Things seems to be more gray and blear than apologist of any paper concept (capitalism, socialism) would like to admit.

Very good post.:yeah:

Dougie
05-06-2012, 04:23 PM
You should move to a socialist country. No greed, just millions of people starving to death and dissidents tortured in concentration camps. But as long as bankers aren't making millions, that's clearly all that matters.

This is the attitude that is so common nowadays, even if it´s a totally ridicilous one. Anyone who even dares to suggest that maybe some more left-wing policies in certain areas might not be so wrong is instantly labeled as someone who supports concentration camps and is a fan of Stalins USSR or whatever. Its not black and white, you know.

As an economics student who's looked quite a bit into the crisis, I can confidently say that it had very little to do with capitalism and everything to do with non-transparent financial instruments and thus a gross misinterpretation of risk combined with poor incentive systems and a faulty way of how credit agencies work. On a free market, this crisis wouldn't have happened.

Besides, capitalism is a word often misused. At it's core, it means that people have the right to own property and machines used for production. Almost every country in the world is capitalist.

Now, it's altogether a different question how much a state should be a part of the economy and society and where in the society should the state take part.

All the reasons you listed are completely true, but aren´t those reasons made possible by the extreme form of capitalism? Im not saying it´s the capitalism itself that is to blame, but a capitalist system is the system under which these things got to develop as far as they did. The roots of the crisis go back to the 80´s, when the goverment regulation was lessened, and the argument was exactly the free market. "Let the markets operate, the market will fix itself".

What could have prevented the crsisis would have been exactly that regulation, transparency, investor responsibility etc. It might have prevented that over-aggressive risk taking and bad incentive systems. And Im not talking about communism, but I think its clear that the state needs to play a certain role. Is it an ideal situation? Far form it, but nothing ever is.

Chris 84
05-06-2012, 05:20 PM
And I'm saying this is nothing more than a paranoid accusation. You've still provided no evidence that I've been "swallowing propaganda" when my views contradict almost everything we watch and read in the media.



That IS where you are wrong. A welfare state that only interferes with 50% of the economy is a liberal system. It consists of both capitalist and socialist aspects. I stopped reading and watching British media after calls for nationalizing banks, capping private sector pay and returning to a 1970s labour model where trade unions hold the nation to ransom. This leans far more towards socialism than capitalism.




Like I said (I'm repeating myself over and over again), in a truly democratic society, I will always condemn protesting when people have official peaceful means to resolve issues. Not once have I ever seen a protest in a western nation with rational demands. No matter what the government does, there will always be a minority finding an excuse to complain about something. Peaceful protesting shouldn't be made illegal, but in a proven democratic society I will never respect it.



Because those were NOT proven democratic societies. A system in which certain minorities have no say is not democratic. I would completely condone protesting in Cuba, North Korea, Iran or any society in which totalitarian regime was enforced on the people. Comparing 21st century protests on bankers pay to 19th century fights for black rights is nonsensical.

1st paragraph - if you say so. you are totally wrong, but what's the point in arguing with you on that when you'll never admit to it?

2nd paragraph - "a liberal system" makes no sense. a liberal economic system means absolutely nothing. it could be absolutely anything. however, liberty as a political idea generally stems from the rise of the middle classes and the rise of capitalism. you totally fail to understand the economy in general and capitalism and socialism in particular if you are of the opinion that a capitalist system with certain welfare concessions is more socialist than capitalist. it is truly baffling that you claim that.

3rd/4th paragraph - demonstrating IS an official, peaceful method of resolving things. it is a key part of any democracy, and to argue otherwise is simply blind. you still haven't answered the question that i asked of you when i said that you yourself had said "there is more to a democratic system than voting every 4 or 5 years". what else is there? surely demonstrating is one thing?

as regards your final point, the american civil rights movement comes to mind. that wasn't so long ago. blacks could vote at that time. your argument means that you are saying all the people who took part in civil rights demonstrations in the 60s, which led to greater fairness, etc, were in the wrong and were nothing but a bunch of whiners and complainers.

in any event, what is a proven democracy? is it whatever you say it is? is a totalitarian state whatever you define such a state as? is it democratic that when more people vote for one presidential candidate than his opponent, the opponent still gets elected?

rocketassist
05-06-2012, 06:58 PM
Yeah socialism is shit. That's why Francois Hollande is set to become the new president of France :lol:

Echoes
05-06-2012, 07:07 PM
He clearly implied in YOUR country that he was not a socialist. :D The left liberalized the economy in France under President Mitterrand.

Confirming my assumption that socialism is incompatible with political/philosophical left. :angel:

Chris 84
05-06-2012, 07:20 PM
Yeah socialism is shit. That's why Francois Hollande is set to become the new president of France :lol:

He clearly implied in YOUR country that he was not a socialist. :D The left liberalized the economy in France under President Mitterrand.

Confirming my assumption that socialism is incompatible with political/philosophical left. :angel:

the french socialist party are far from socialist. social democrats, sure. further left-leaning than sarkozy (or the tories, labour, republicans, democrats, etc), sure....but hardly far left firebrands.

Lopez
05-06-2012, 07:41 PM
All the reasons you listed are completely true, but aren´t those reasons made possible by the extreme form of capitalism? Im not saying it´s the capitalism itself that is to blame, but a capitalist system is the system under which these things got to develop as far as they did. The roots of the crisis go back to the 80´s, when the goverment regulation was lessened, and the argument was exactly the free market. "Let the markets operate, the market will fix itself".

Well, yes and no I think. As I said, at it's core capitalism just means that people can own things. You could just as easily say that this crisis happened under a democratic system and thus democracy is to blame.

This was a bubble, which tend to happen every now and then. The problem with the fixed income market as a whole is that it is HUGE compared to the stock market and yet there are few players. The market is thus not as effective as the stock exchanges, not by a long shot. The bubble was thus inflated to a huge size before it burst.

What actually could have prevented the whole mess would have been credit agencies that actually do their job, so there perhaps a government agency could do a better job since it couldn't be bullied by its customers. In that sense regulation would have improved things in my opinion.

Put it another way: as long as risk is priced properly, everything is ok. Regulation might help, especially in the huge and relatively ineffective fixed income markets.

Yeah socialism is shit. That's why Francois Hollande is set to become the new president of France :lol:

As if that's an argument :rolleyes:

scoobs
05-06-2012, 07:41 PM
Allez Hollande!

abraxas21
05-06-2012, 08:01 PM
As an economics student who's looked quite a bit into the crisis, I can confidently say that it had very little to do with capitalism and everything to do with non-transparent financial instruments and thus a gross misinterpretation of risk combined with poor incentive systems and a faulty way of how credit agencies work. On a free market, this crisis wouldn't have happened.

how come?

on a free market the government would have a limited degree (if any) of intervetion and regulation over the financial market. after all, isn't deregulation and the lack of government intervention one of the main points of a 'free market' economy?

the crisis went on to show the failure of the market to set the porper incentives and asure the transparency of their instruments, as you claim. then again, if the "free market" fails when it comes to settting the proper rules to play ball, it's evident for me that the state should step in and play as referee in the field.

abraxas21
05-06-2012, 08:07 PM
Incorrect. Those with power will always take advantage of those without power no matter how advanced a particular society is. It's a basic survival mechanism to cull the weak. At the end of the day we're still animals - except we're ripping out each other's throat in a more civilized manner.
i actually agree with that.

What you suggest is mere wishful thinking rather than reality.
not at all. you seem to believe that i advocate the existance of an ideal trouble-free world but i've never even presented that argument. i simply argued that people have the moral duty to rise up against injustice and history shows that in many ocassions they have.

Lopez
05-06-2012, 08:30 PM
how come?

on a free market the government would have a limited degree (if any) of intervetion and regulation over the financial market. after all, isn't deregulation and the lack of government intervention one of the main points of a 'free market' economy?

the crisis went on to show the failure of the market to set the porper incentives and asure the transparency of their instruments, as you claim. then again, if the "free market" fails when it comes to settting the proper rules to play ball, it's evident for me that the state should step in and play as referee in the field.

Perhaps I misspoke. What I meant is that on an efficient market, this wouldn't have happened. Usually, one of the properties of a free market is efficiency.

scoobs
05-06-2012, 08:37 PM
how come?

on a free market the government would have a limited degree (if any) of intervetion and regulation over the financial market. after all, isn't deregulation and the lack of government intervention one of the main points of a 'free market' economy?

the crisis went on to show the failure of the market to set the porper incentives and asure the transparency of their instruments, as you claim. then again, if the "free market" fails when it comes to settting the proper rules to play ball, it's evident for me that the state should step in and play as referee in the field.
The crisis would still have happened - an unregulated free market combined with the human instincts of greed and over-reach means that bubbles and their bursting are inevitable.

What would have been different in a pure free market situation is that the politicians wouldn't have felt compelled to bail the banks out to protect the entire financial system. The banks would collapsed with all the associated consequences, but it would at least have been free market. Since that level of free market is politically impossible, the governments used taxpayer money (and international borrowing to be repaid by the taxpayer) to prop up the financial system. A few short years later the banks are back to business as usual, huge profits and big salaries for the top managers and the risk takers on the trading floor, while the rest of us pick up the bill and deal with the consequences of the austerity imposed to pay for all the debt we have to repay.

rocketassist
05-06-2012, 09:17 PM
Just hope we take a leaf out of the French's book and kick out the worst government I have ever seen since I've been alive at the first time of asking.

Echoes
05-06-2012, 09:41 PM
And bring on Nigel Farage instead. :yeah::worship:

Echoes
05-06-2012, 10:30 PM
i don't think it's fair to say that "capitalists hate local traditions and nations". they just don't normally consider them in their so called technical analysis and choose to focus on the decisions and freedom of the individual in particular. i'd say that in modern times this is a typical behaviour of all right wingers -not just the purely capitalist ones, or libertarians as some call them in the USA- as opposed to left leaning blokes who tend to center their analysis on society in general.


They don't consider them in their analysis. Perhaps as a form of despise? I haven't studied economics but I think I can safely that they're globalist, just like communists (two sides of the same coin). If one nation has a restricting social code and and an expensive workforce, they'll relocate elsewhere, typically in China, nowadays. And they become nomadic predators. Relocation is the typical example of this. Chris Lasch showed that the ideal of Progress brought by the Enlightenment of the 18th century (that liberals/libertarians - which is the same for me - are seeking) despised local particularisms that pre-determined the individuals. Being nomadic/off-ground/citizen of humanity is for them some sort of a liberation from any kinds of determinisms.

I agree with the Ron Paul quote mentioned above about socialists who cannot represent the idea of Revolution. Only I'm not a Revolutionary. :lol: The American and French Revolutions carried the fundamentals of liberalism, and were made in blood (mostly the French one).




[...] in most cases, be it in europe or the USA (but more in the USA), the rich end up more protected than the poor. if that's what we understand today for "capitalism system", then it is evidently an idea extracted of the right wing agenda.

In today's world, yes. But I insist, in the 19th century, the liberals were the leftwingers (sort of a Movement, Progress Party) and the conservative, the rightwinger (Order, Reaction Party). Socialists did not want to be involved in their discussions. Perhaps it's because the "Rich" were still the nobiliary aristocracy but I've seen more interesting social theories in the conservative camp of that time than in the liberal camp.

Michéa argued that, in France, the turning point was the Dreyfus affair in the 1890's when the Left defended the innocent Jewish captain while the Right defended the Army. The socialists at first did not wish to be involved in this 'bourgeois' affair but then it became such a huge scandal that out of "common decency", they just couldn't help defending the poor innocent captain. And that's how they started calling themselves the Left and kept on doing so for the whole 20th century. But by the 80's when it became apparent that the communist regime of the USSR was a failure, the Left was back to their roots: Progress and Liberalism.

By the way the term 'liberalism' in the English language is associated with the political 'left', which is quite telling, actually. In the French language, it would rather be associated with the political 'right'.



as for libertarians (or semi-pure capitalists, whichever term you like best), i mostly see them as clueless. i don't think they fully grasp the complexities of the world's markets and how badly things would be if some of their ideas were implemented. i wouldn't tag them as right wingers, though.

I fully agree. And it's safe to say that libertarianism is a UTOPIA ! Just as disconnected from reality as communism was. And that can be why it "never was given a chance".

Gagsquet
05-06-2012, 11:00 PM
The crisis would still have happened - an unregulated free market combined with the human instincts of greed and over-reach means that bubbles and their bursting are inevitable.


Partially Wrong. In a total free and unregulated market, the crisis wouldn't have happened. Free and unregulated market = information pure and perfect (3rd condition of the pure and perfect competition). Mostly all the malfunctioning of the current capitalism is linked to the asymmetry of the information. In his book The finance power, André Orléan explained that this asymmetry of the information between economic agent is the core of the capitalism problems because it leads to a "self-referential mimicry". Agent do not copy the other people thinking they are better informed (informational mimicry) but only the trend of the market. This is the kind of comportment which caused the crisis. But considering information pure and perfect is not possible, financial capitalism is doomed to repeated crisis.

Sunset of Age
05-06-2012, 11:36 PM
Well, yes and no I think. As I said, at it's core capitalism just means that people can own things. You could just as easily say that this crisis happened under a democratic system and thus democracy is to blame.

This was a bubble, which tend to happen every now and then. The problem with the fixed income market as a whole is that it is HUGE compared to the stock market and yet there are few players. The market is thus not as effective as the stock exchanges, not by a long shot. The bubble was thus inflated to a huge size before it burst.

What actually could have prevented the whole mess would have been credit agencies that actually do their job, so there perhaps a government agency could do a better job since it couldn't be bullied by its customers. In that sense regulation would have improved things in my opinion.

Put it another way: as long as risk is priced properly, everything is ok. Regulation might help, especially in the huge and relatively ineffective fixed income markets.

Well said.
Just a slight addition - it's not just the government agencies or the bankers who are to blame for the mess we're in right now.
A rather large part of the 'common folks' who are now in trouble with their sky rocketing-high mortagages and other loans are to blame themselves as well. Unfortunately they believed in the various hypes that certain markets would never plummet again - the internet bubble, and in my country in particular, the highly misjudged hype of real estate prices to 'never ever' go down again. A massive mistake as it's turning out to be right now. Many households have a horrible debt because of that right now, and... it's getting worse every month. Real estate prices are going down the drain by the minute. :help:

Those with a slight sense of history might remember the notorious 17th century Dutch Tulip Bulbs Mania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania). Read it, it's kinda funny actually.
It's rather confronting how it resembles the hypes of the current 20-21th centuries. :o
History repeats, no matter whether it concerns internet hypes, real estate prices or ... tulip bulbs.

This merely to illustrate that a slight bit of governmental regulation on the 'free market' might not be a bad thing at all, even if it's a so-called 'socialist' principle. Unfortunately the institutions who should have done so in my country have been caught napping the past decade or so. :zzz:

Allez Hollande!

:yeah:

Jimnik
05-06-2012, 11:59 PM
you are totally wrong, but what's the point in arguing with you on that when you'll never admit to it?
You are totally wrong. Why will you never admit to it?

What are you 8 years old? You seriously think you're making a convincing rational argument here?


2nd paragraph - "a liberal system" makes no sense. a liberal economic system means absolutely nothing. it could be absolutely anything. however, liberty as a political idea generally stems from the rise of the middle classes and the rise of capitalism. you totally fail to understand the economy in general and capitalism and socialism in particular if you are of the opinion that a capitalist system with certain welfare concessions is more socialist than capitalist. it is truly baffling that you claim that.
Stop embarrassing yourself. If you don't know what liberalism is then stop pretending to know what you're talking about.


3rd/4th paragraph - demonstrating IS an official, peaceful method of resolving things. it is a key part of any democracy, and to argue otherwise is simply blind. you still haven't answered the question that i asked of you when i said that you yourself had said "there is more to a democratic system than voting every 4 or 5 years". what else is there? surely demonstrating is one thing?
Referendums, local elections, bi-elections, debates, conferences - any of these ring a bell? Again, you should educate yourself on democracy/politics before pretending to know what you're saying.


as regards your final point, the american civil rights movement comes to mind. that wasn't so long ago. blacks could vote at that time. your argument means that you are saying all the people who took part in civil rights demonstrations in the 60s, which led to greater fairness, etc, were in the wrong and were nothing but a bunch of whiners and complainers.

in any event, what is a proven democracy? is it whatever you say it is? is a totalitarian state whatever you define such a state as? is it democratic that when more people vote for one presidential candidate than his opponent, the opponent still gets elected?
Doesn't matter how long ago it was, people protesting in various nations because they do not have democratic means to resolve their issue. Blacks, women, homosexuals not receiving equal rights in society is obviously non democratic. If you don't trust the electoral process in UK, America or any other western country, you should move to a country you do trust. Unless you think every country is unfair in which case you don't trust anyone and you're probably a hopeless case of obsessive paranoia.

You're obviously very sensitive on this protesting issue. Have you been involved in demonstrations yourself? You seem to be trying to convince yourself it was the right thing to do.

Jimnik
05-07-2012, 12:03 AM
This is the attitude that is so common nowadays, even if it´s a totally ridicilous one. Anyone who even dares to suggest that maybe some more left-wing policies in certain areas might not be so wrong is instantly labeled as someone who supports concentration camps and is a fan of Stalins USSR or whatever. Its not black and white, you know.
If my attitude is "so common nowadays" why are libertarian parties never getting more than 10% in any western election?

The paranoia of liberal Europeans never ceases to amaze.

Sri
05-07-2012, 12:15 AM
Just hope we take a leaf out of the French's book and kick out the worst government I have ever seen since I've been alive at the first time of asking.

Sarkozy was a joke, but isn't the British economy doing well under Cameron?

Obviously people don't matter and policies do, haven't you had enough during the decade of Labour? What's their solution to the economy? More spending? :cool:

Jimnik
05-07-2012, 12:30 AM
Labour doesn't have a solution. Their departing finance minister practically admitted they would have committed the same austerity as the coalition had they been reelected.

Governments have one of two choices these days:

1. Increase spending until the debt destroys the economy
2. Cut spending and lose the election

Jimnik
05-07-2012, 12:33 AM
And bring on Nigel Farage instead. :yeah::worship:
This.

Won't happen though. Polls show just as many Lib Dems defecting to Labour as Tories defecting to UKIP.

Ed "The Shred" Miliband will be the next PM.

Sri
05-07-2012, 01:58 AM
This.

Won't happen though. Polls show just as many Lib Dems defecting to Labour as Tories defecting to UKIP.

Ed "The Shred" Miliband will be the next PM.
That cartoon? Really!? :lol:

PS: Don't worry, we've had worse here in India..

Lopez
05-07-2012, 07:03 AM
A rather large part of the 'common folks' who are now in trouble with their sky rocketing-high mortagages and other loans are to blame themselves as well.

This is very true... I mean even if you got great loan terms why would you want to own several houses? Especially if your job isn't making that much money. I read a great book about the crisis called "The Big Short" and there it was mentioned for example that two sisters who were foreign born nannies (or maids) together owned like five apartments in New York :rolleyes:.

If it's too good to be true, it probably is. It's not like these loans didn't have the terms in the contracts. Read the effing paper before you sign it! How the f*ck would you be able to afford five houses when in reality, you can barely own one?

Sadly, I think that personal money and savings management is very poorly taught at the high school and vocational school level, in some cases even at the university level.

rocketassist
05-07-2012, 12:51 PM
Sarkozy was a joke, but isn't the British economy doing well under Cameron?

Obviously people don't matter and policies do, haven't you had enough during the decade of Labour? What's their solution to the economy? More spending? :cool:

No, sensible spending. Unlike the ConDems who threw money at bailing out Greece.

Unemployment right now is higher than at any point during the 13 years under Labour, which were far from perfect, but are better than what we have now.

fast_clay
05-07-2012, 02:05 PM
If it's too good to be true, it probably is. It's not like these loans didn't have the terms in the contracts. Read the effing paper before you sign it! How the f*ck would you be able to afford five houses when in reality, you can barely own one?


so far as I know mate, banks provide a service to the people... and it is actually the banks responsibility to ensure that a loan can be guaranteed... :confused: ... that is actually their core role in society, to determine what is good business... in it's very essence, that is their job...

it is wrong to blame the people for the systematic increase of debt... very wrong...

Lopez
05-07-2012, 03:52 PM
so far as I know mate, banks provide a service to the people... and it is actually the banks responsibility to ensure that a loan can be guaranteed... :confused: ... that is actually their core role in society, to determine what is good business... in it's very essence, that is their job...

it is wrong to blame the people for the systematic increase of debt... very wrong...

Banks are businesses and they do indeed provide a service, i.e. they provide money immediately in exchange for money in the future. Of course those guys are idiots who are offering loans to people who can never afford them but I'd say it's stupid to take a loan that you can't afford as well.

Chris 84
05-07-2012, 07:56 PM
You are totally wrong. Why will you never admit to it?

What are you 8 years old? You seriously think you're making a convincing rational argument here?

no, i was drawing a line under it. i think one thing, you think another. i made my argument. you will never agree with me, that's all.


Stop embarrassing yourself. If you don't know what liberalism is then stop pretending to know what you're talking about.

i do know what liberalism is. categorising an economic system as "liberal" makes no sense. it could mean practically anything. if anything it has laissez-faire connotations.

Referendums, local elections, bi-elections, debates, conferences - any of these ring a bell? Again, you should educate yourself on democracy/politics before pretending to know what you're saying.

bi-elections? :lol: and you want me to educate myself? what are bi-elections? both heterosexual and homosexual? it is by-election or bye-election. i guess you learn something new every day :)

my honours degree in law and politics suggests that i know a fair amount about the subject.

here's the thing. debates, conferences and local elections have no direct effect on government policy. referenda are called when parliament calls for them. by-elections are called only when an MP resigns/dies, etc. where the public has a grievance, none of these features of a democracy can have a direct effect on government policy, with the exception of referenda, which in most countries are only called if government decides to call for them. if you are saying that democracy is not purely voting once every 4-5 years, then sure....but in terms of holding government to account and influencing policy, none of the features you mention are very relevant.

Doesn't matter how long ago it was, people protesting in various nations because they do not have democratic means to resolve their issue. Blacks, women, homosexuals not receiving equal rights in society is obviously non democratic. If you don't trust the electoral process in UK, America or any other western country, you should move to a country you do trust. Unless you think every country is unfair in which case you don't trust anyone and you're probably a hopeless case of obsessive paranoia.

the economic system ensures that not everyone has equal rights. from birth some people are hugely advantaged and some hugely disadvantaged. to me, economic rights are more important than liberal rights.
the argument "if you don't like it, then leave" is the very attitude perpetuated by the ruling classes in order to isolate and ridicule those who want change. people who want change and believe in change should fight for it.

You're obviously very sensitive on this protesting issue. Have you been involved in demonstrations yourself? You seem to be trying to convince yourself it was the right thing to do.

it doesn't enter into my head that demonstrating could ever be wrong. as long as people operate within the law, then i don't see why anyone would have a problem with it. i'm not sensitive about it, particularly, i just regard it as being as important a democratic right as the right to vote.

This.

Won't happen though. Polls show just as many Lib Dems defecting to Labour as Tories defecting to UKIP.

Ed "The Shred" Miliband will be the next PM.

supporting ukip says a lot about you. a xenophobic, homophobic, nationalistic, and a home for failed tories and failed chat show hosts is thankfully all that it will ever be.

Dougie
05-07-2012, 08:07 PM
This is very true... I mean even if you got great loan terms why would you want to own several houses? Especially if your job isn't making that much money. I read a great book about the crisis called "The Big Short" and there it was mentioned for example that two sisters who were foreign born nannies (or maids) together owned like five apartments in New York :rolleyes:.

If it's too good to be true, it probably is. It's not like these loans didn't have the terms in the contracts. Read the effing paper before you sign it! How the f*ck would you be able to afford five houses when in reality, you can barely own one?

Sadly, I think that personal money and savings management is very poorly taught at the high school and vocational school level, in some cases even at the university level.

I read the Big Short as well, pretty shocking stuff. The american consumers can certainly look at the mirror, but theyre not the only ones. The whole scam ( I´d say thats the right word) was based on the assumption that house prices would keep rising forever. If they did, banks would have had nothing to worry about even if they´re customers would default. As we all know, it didn´t quite work that way. In retrospect, who the hell would think house prices would keep rising forever??? Well, pretty many financial institutions, it turns out.

Yes, the consumers didnt have a clue, but they were also purposely misled. The banks did they´re best to convince them it was the smart thing to do, and offered them cheap interest rates for one year ( for example), after which the rates went up, and the customers were screwed.

Gagsquet
05-07-2012, 08:15 PM
In the neoclassical view, people are supposedly aware of what they are signing and all the consequences. :lol: disconnected of the reality these clowns. :lol: and that's precisely theories of these bunch of clowns which rule our world.

fast_clay
05-07-2012, 08:40 PM
In the neoclassical view, people are supposedly aware of what they are signing and all the consequences. :lol: disconnected of the reality these clowns. :lol: and that's precisely theories of these bunch of clowns which rule our world.

The neoclassical models the west has run upon for decades take neither the role of credit, debt nor banks into account :spit: shocking logic when you consider 97% of money creation is by banks, through bad loans, cheap money... pretty much forcing debt upon society.

No one is really educated about it. Why? Well, when banks hires, fires and controls the issues in the mainstream media, well, it is not in their best interest to run stories against the status quo. Everyone is in debt, and it binds everyone to the same master.

Most university education in the field of economics is pretty much totally useless if enough time hasn't been spent studying non-orthodox economic models, which will be where the new global powers will turn to for future models - that attitude is reflected in the harvard economic students walking out of class a few weeks ago in protest at the narrow, ageing introductory course that doesn't preach anything but the neoclassical view.

Give me control of a nation's money supply and I care not who makes her laws.
Mayer Amschel Rothschild ~ 1744 - 1812

Gagsquet
05-07-2012, 09:05 PM
Pure neoclassical vision is anyway in a pretty bad state at the moment. I am really interested in New Keynesian economics which make a coherent synthesis of neoclassical contribution but rejecting absurdities of this school of thought like the perfect rationality of agent, the efficiency of the market and the rejection of the State intervention. Economists like Krugman,Stiglitz or Akerlof should be reforming our stupid current financial system rather than being stick to write editorials in the NYT.

Sunset of Age
05-07-2012, 10:05 PM
I read the Big Short as well, pretty shocking stuff. The american consumers can certainly look at the mirror, but theyre not the only ones. The whole scam ( I´d say thats the right word) was based on the assumption that house prices would keep rising forever. If they did, banks would have had nothing to worry about even if they´re customers would default. As we all know, it didn´t quite work that way. In retrospect, who the hell would think house prices would keep rising forever??? Well, pretty many financial institutions, it turns out.
Pretty much like what is happening in my country right now.
For about 15 years the hype has been that house prices would only keep on rising - yeah, like 'forever' Again, nothing being learnt from history. Another complicating factor in this matter is that we have a rather ridiculous regulation over here that allows you to distract your debts from your income tax - so what happened? Many folks tried to get themselves a mortage as high as possible for this very reason... :o
Looks like that legislation is about to change now, but I think it should have happened some 10 years ago already, when economy was still booming.

Yes, the consumers didnt have a clue, but they were also purposely misled. The banks did they´re best to convince them it was the smart thing to do, and offered them cheap interest rates for one year ( for example), after which the rates went up, and the customers were screwed.
Exactly the same over here. People were encouraged by the banks to get high mortages on houses which they couldn't really afford at all. Of course, many fell for it, as consumentism and 'keeping up with the Jones's' apparently gets more and more 'important' in our current money-and-status driven society.
Well I know who eventually got the last laugh, but it's a bit :scared: :rolleyes: to now be the person who's helping out those who laughed at me for such a very long time...

fast_clay
05-08-2012, 01:10 AM
Pure neoclassical vision is anyway in a pretty bad state at the moment. I am really interested in New Keynesian economics which make a coherent synthesis of neoclassical contribution but rejecting absurdities of this school of thought like the perfect rationality of agent, the efficiency of the market and the rejection of the State intervention. Economists like Krugman,Stiglitz or Akerlof should be reforming our stupid current financial system rather than being stick to write editorials in the NYT.

Keynes' own great body of work was hijacked from it's natural path, is good to see it getting a rework. I'd be wary of Krugman though, doesn't think private debt in a fiat system plays a significant role in the economy and has copped a bollocking recently - but, really, what is required now is open, honest dialogue from all different ideologies... and the longer the very broken neoclassical models continue the more they will be ignored in the future.

Jimnik
05-08-2012, 04:57 AM
No, sensible spending. Unlike the ConDems who threw money at bailing out Greece.
:haha: Like they were doing under Brown?

Labour would have thrown money at Greece too, probably even more money.

Sri
05-08-2012, 05:01 AM
No, sensible spending. Unlike the ConDems who threw money at bailing out Greece.

Unemployment right now is higher than at any point during the 13 years under Labour, which were far from perfect, but are better than what we have now.

I think austerity and 'sensible spending' are the same thing.

There are some places where spending will boost growth, for example Germany and Singapore have excellent funding options for technology startups that are based there and hire locals. That comes at an expense to the tax payer but creates more jobs, employment and revenue.

orangehat
05-08-2012, 05:13 AM
I think austerity and 'sensible spending' are the same thing.

There are some places where spending will boost growth, for example Germany and Singapore have excellent funding options for technology startups that are based there and hire locals. That comes at an expense to the tax payer but creates more jobs, employment and revenue.

:lol:

Start-up and Singapore should never be in the same sentence.
The education system does not encourage start-ups (try as they might) due to long-ingrained social views + the rigid bankruptcy laws also make start-ups very risky. One failed venture = (virtually) doomed for life.

Singapore has also been having tremendous problems with immigrants lately, lots of locals complaining they can't find a job due to so much foreigners taking up the jobs.

Not to mention that the Singapore government is quite a heavy spender.
They don't tax you much in terms of income tax, but look at their taxation on other things, like cars. You currently have to pay at least $64,000 (about $50,000 USD) to buy a piece of paper (Certificate of Entitlement) before you can buy a car. (i.e. the cheapest car will cost you about $100,000 at least).

The economic system has been favouring the rich in Singapore very much over the last few years, about to get even worse in the short run, with public transportation and other social spending hitting plateaus while other prices keep spiralling.

Lastly, if you want to talk about spending-induced growth, Singapore is definitely not the place to start. Low propensity to consume = poor multiplier effect.

Sri
05-08-2012, 05:17 AM
:lol:

Start-up and Singapore should never be in the same sentence.
The education system does not encourage start-ups (try as they might) due to long-ingrained social views + the rigid bankruptcy laws also make start-ups very risky. One failed venture = (virtually) doomed for life.

Singapore has also been having tremendous problems with immigrants lately, lots of locals complaining they can't find a job due to so much foreigners taking up the jobs.

Not to mention that the Singapore government is quite a heavy spender.
They don't tax you much in terms of income tax, but look at their taxation on other things, like cars. You currently have to pay at least $64,000 (about $50,000 USD) to buy a piece of paper (Certificate of Entitlement) before you can buy a car. (i.e. the cheapest car will cost you about $100,000 at least).

The economic system has been favouring the rich in Singapore very much over the last few years, about to get even worse in the short run, with public transportation and other social spending hitting plateaus while other prices keep spiralling.
I'm advising a Singapore based startup as we speak. Here's what I understand happens:

If a technology startup raises more than $100K by any accredited PE firm, the Govt. will provide relief up to $1 million as long as the startup promises to hire locals and maintain a bulk of their operations in Singapore.

Of course can they do better, sure. But compare that to India where the Govt. is finding new ways to tax startups, that's just stupid. :lol:

orangehat
05-08-2012, 05:21 AM
I'm advising a Singapore based startup as we speak. Here's what I understand happens:

If a technology startup raises more than $100K by any accredited PE firm, the Govt. will provide relief up to $1 million as long as the startup promises to hire locals and maintain a bulk of their operations in Singapore.

Of course can they do better, sure. But compare that to India where the Govt. is finding new ways to tax startups, that's just stupid. :lol:

I've heard of that rule but it's not everyday some person comes up with $100k.

Plus I'm pretty sure the $1 million is hung up by more strings than a marionette.

Jimnik
05-08-2012, 05:39 AM
i do know what liberalism is. categorising an economic system as "liberal" makes no sense. it could mean practically anything. if anything it has laissez-faire connotations.
On the one hand it makes no sense, on the other you associate it with laissez-faire policy. In other words you still don't know what liberalism is.


here's the thing. debates, conferences and local elections have no direct effect on government policy. referenda are called when parliament calls for them. by-elections are called only when an MP resigns/dies, etc. where the public has a grievance, none of these features of a democracy can have a direct effect on government policy, with the exception of referenda, which in most countries are only called if government decides to call for them. if you are saying that democracy is not purely voting once every 4-5 years, then sure....but in terms of holding government to account and influencing policy, none of the features you mention are very relevant.
So what's your solution? Forget the democratic system, resolve issues through protests. Maybe count the number of people that take to the streets or measure the size of the banners. Better yet, measure the cost of economic disruption.

I can't believe I'm the one defending democracy here. I've always said it's far from perfect but compared to what you're suggesting I'm very glad for the system we live in.


the argument "if you don't like it, then leave" is the very attitude perpetuated by the ruling classes in order to isolate and ridicule those who want change. people who want change and believe in change should fight for it.
Scary thing is Stalin and Mao uttered very similar words. This is precisely the attitude that incites hate, destruction, insanity and suffering. The day I see people like you "fighting for change" will be the day I finally agree to take to the streets if only to fight you.


it doesn't enter into my head that demonstrating could ever be wrong. as long as people operate within the law, then i don't see why anyone would have a problem with it. i'm not sensitive about it, particularly, i just regard it as being as important a democratic right as the right to vote.
Obviously we strongly disagree here. I'll let protesting be legal but only to uphold the principles of freedom and that's as far as I go.


supporting ukip says a lot about you. a xenophobic, homophobic, nationalistic, and a home for failed tories and failed chat show hosts is thankfully all that it will ever be.
:lol: What's the difference between xenophobic and nationalistic? Or did you run out of cheap false accusations?

No doubt you've presumed I support all of UKIP's policies just because I would vote for them (which I can't because I'm not British). Strange attitude from someone who rants about party manifestos not containing voters' priorities.

Chris 84
05-08-2012, 08:02 PM
On the one hand it makes no sense, on the other you associate it with laissez-faire policy. In other words you still don't know what liberalism is.

you describe a social democratic-capitalist economic system as liberal. it is not a term i would ever use to describe an economic system. the word "liberal" when used to do with the economy has laissez-faire connotations. that doesn't mean that someone describing a super-capitalist economy as "liberal" would be making much sense.

as far as not knowing what liberalism is, to be honest, it means different things to different people. the right claims it, the left claims it, and everything in between claims it. i know what my understanding of it is, and i can usually fathom an understanding of it when other people use the word. like i said above, i just wouldn't use it as a label for an economic system.

So what's your solution? Forget the democratic system, resolve issues through protests. Maybe count the number of people that take to the streets or measure the size of the banners. Better yet, measure the cost of economic disruption.

I can't believe I'm the one defending democracy here. I've always said it's far from perfect but compared to what you're suggesting I'm very glad for the system we live in.

i'm not suggesting anything. i'm not suggesting that protests and demonstrations should have more power. i am merely defending the right of people to protest (although you also concede that it should be allowed) and defending the people who do protest, who you refer to as whiners, malcontents and anarchists. i'm not saying that there aren't some people who regularly protest against everything under the sun, for whom i have little time, but the majority of people on mass protests are people who feel passionately about an issue and wish to raise that and let their feelings be known. demonstrations are a medium through which the average person can show how they feel about something, i'm not saying that they should be more than that.
likewise i wasn't criticising the democratic processes that you mentioned. just stating that demonstrations are somewhat different in how they can affect things.

Scary thing is Stalin and Mao uttered very similar words. This is precisely the attitude that incites hate, destruction, insanity and suffering. The day I see people like you "fighting for change" will be the day I finally agree to take to the streets if only to fight you.

i didn't mean literally. i mean that if people care about something, it is much healthier for a democracy and potentially better for them in general if they pursue an issue through whatever legal means are on offer (such as casting a vote even) rather than shrugging their shoulders and deciding that they can't do anything about the way things are.

:lol: What's the difference between xenophobic and nationalistic? Or did you run out of cheap false accusations?

No doubt you've presumed I support all of UKIP's policies just because I would vote for them (which I can't because I'm not British). Strange attitude from someone who rants about party manifestos not containing voters' priorities.

nationalism isn't necessarily a negative thing and many people claim to be nationalists or nationalistic. xenophobia is a fear/dislike of foreigners, etc and is clearly a negative thing.
i didn't say or think that you supported everything that they stand for. however, i find some of their views so distasteful that i would take a negative view of someone who could overlook those views because they agree with ukip on other matters.

and by the way, im not criticising party manifestos for not including everything. it is impossible to predict what is going to happen over a 4 or 5 year term in office, so as long as a party doesn't go directly against their manifesto, then they can do what they like. they just have to bear in mind that people haven't voted for them on those grounds, and should be held to account and scrutinised more closely in those instances.

scoobs
05-08-2012, 08:06 PM
Sarkozy was a joke, but isn't the British economy doing well under Cameron?

Obviously people don't matter and policies do, haven't you had enough during the decade of Labour? What's their solution to the economy? More spending? :cool:

Thanks to Cameron's policies, an economy was growing again when he was elected has returned to recession.

rocketassist
05-08-2012, 10:07 PM
:haha: Like they were doing under Brown?

Labour would have thrown money at Greece too, probably even more money.

Keep blaming him for the current government's utter failure while we continue to slide into recession and alienate the working classes.

Gagsquet
05-08-2012, 10:13 PM
She doesn't want to witness the Cameron's failure anymore.

http://www.gifshare.com/uploads/images/20071024/full_size/7848_southparkqueensuicide.gif

Jimnik
05-08-2012, 11:17 PM
you describe a social democratic-capitalist economic system as liberal. it is not a term i would ever use to describe an economic system. the word "liberal" when used to do with the economy has laissez-faire connotations. that doesn't mean that someone describing a super-capitalist economy as "liberal" would be making much sense.
Liberalism is centrist policy. It combines aspects of both capitalism and socialism. The fact you associate it with laissez-faire underlines how left-wing you are.

You seem to confuse it with libertarianism, a radically different ideology.


i'm not suggesting anything. i'm not suggesting that protests and demonstrations should have more power. i am merely defending the right of people to protest (although you also concede that it should be allowed) and defending the people who do protest, who you refer to as whiners, malcontents and anarchists. i'm not saying that there aren't some people who regularly protest against everything under the sun, for whom i have little time, but the majority of people on mass protests are people who feel passionately about an issue and wish to raise that and let their feelings be known. demonstrations are a medium through which the average person can show how they feel about something, i'm not saying that they should be more than that.
likewise i wasn't criticising the democratic processes that you mentioned. just stating that demonstrations are somewhat different in how they can affect things.
I never said protesting should be illegal but I'm glad at least I don't have to repeat myself anymore.


i didn't mean literally. i mean that if people care about something, it is much healthier for a democracy and potentially better for them in general if they pursue an issue through whatever legal means are on offer (such as casting a vote even) rather than shrugging their shoulders and deciding that they can't do anything about the way things are.
"Shrugging their shoulders." Yes, that's obviously what I'm suggesting here.

On the other hand, if people are too stupid to use the democratic tools they have on offer, then maybe they should just stick to shoulder shrugging. Better than trying to draw attention to themselves on the streets.


nationalism isn't necessarily a negative thing and many people claim to be nationalists or nationalistic. xenophobia is a fear/dislike of foreigners, etc and is clearly a negative thing.
i didn't say or think that you supported everything that they stand for. however, i find some of their views so distasteful that i would take a negative view of someone who could overlook those views because they agree with ukip on other matters.
Besides wanting to exit the EU (which I don't even support and isn't remotely xenophobic) which policies constitute "xenophobia"? If you think UKIP is distasteful, you should check out the BNP.


and by the way, im not criticising party manifestos for not including everything. it is impossible to predict what is going to happen over a 4 or 5 year term in office, so as long as a party doesn't go directly against their manifesto, then they can do what they like. they just have to bear in mind that people haven't voted for them on those grounds, and should be held to account and scrutinised more closely in those instances.
People have the freedom to scrutinize parties as much as they want but mostly they choose not to. The vast majority of protesters don't even endeavor or consider the possibility. Whether peaceful or not, they would simply rather take to the streets than use official means to scrutinize politics. This is why their actions merit zero respect in proven democratic societies. The thrill of marching and chanting with banners comes just as naturally to people as greed, lust, wrath and other basic animal instincts. No rationality, just pure apathy and self-gratification.

Jimnik
05-08-2012, 11:26 PM
Keep blaming him for the current government's utter failure while we continue to slide into recession and alienate the working classes.
Poor "working classes". Always suffering.

I wonder what constitutes "working class" these days since the definition seems to change every few years. Soon the unemployed will join the club.

abraxas21
05-09-2012, 02:31 AM
it's fitting that jimmy, being a yank, is also a chelsea tard.

easily the most disgusting english footie team ever. and that's saying a lot considering most english squads suck

Topspindoctor
05-09-2012, 02:44 AM
Poor "working classes". Always suffering.

I wonder what constitutes "working class" these days since the definition seems to change every few years. Soon the unemployed will join the club.

Working class = average middle class that are always being ripped off by crook governments.

You can't tax enemployed trash because they have nothing to take. You can't tax the super rich because they are too few and too influential. So the final solution is to destroy the average working Joe, by constantly raising interest rates, raising taxes etc. Constantly being taken up the ass by governments who introduce bullshit like carbon tax (while 3rd world countries are free to pollute as they please) is idiotic beyong belief.

Sooner or later once the middle class is totally ruined, the politically correct governments will realize what they've done. But by then it will be too late. In the next few years the world will plunge into a recession that will make the days after WW2 seem like golden age unless drastic measures aren't taken quickly -- and knowning the corrupted governments of today, they won't be.

Jimnik
05-09-2012, 07:23 AM
Nice rant.

As a libertarian I certainly agree with the crook government part.

Jimnik
05-09-2012, 07:25 AM
it's fitting that jimmy, being a yank, is also a chelsea tard.

easily the most disgusting english footie team ever. and that's saying a lot considering most english squads suck
:haha:

Mate, everything you say is a lot.

peribsen
05-09-2012, 09:13 AM
Liberalism is centrist policy. It combines aspects of both capitalism and socialism. The fact you associate it with laissez-faire underlines how left-wing you are.
You seem to confuse it with libertarianism, a radically different ideology.

It's depressing to see just how very little historical perspective many people have these days. One really despairs soemtimes.

EddceLLent
05-09-2012, 10:36 AM
Thanks to Cameron's policies, an economy was growing again when he was elected has returned to recession.

Such nonsense. It seems that now they're no longer in power, the left can retreat to their idealist roots where they're most comfortable. A place where there's lots of lovely free money to give to anyone who wants it and a magic button can be pressed that will result in economic growth. In the meantime they can continue the divisive line of trying to get the general public to despise the wealthy in society.

I'm sorry, but if all government spending was truly an "investment" as Labour always claimed, then why did we ever end up with a deficit in the first place? Government has NO MONEY, and if they keep taking money from society in taxes and "investing" it then we're literally going to have nothing left.

I'm so sick of all this claptrap about "austerity isn't working" .....when the only solution proposed by those peddling this lunacy is to SPEND MORE TAXPAYER MONEY - WHICH WOULD FURTHER NECESSITATE AUSTERITY MEASURES. I'm glad this French dude got in, now we can see just how (in)effective his socialist policies are (although i'm guessing he'll probably back down and say Merkel stole his mojo or something).

A reflection of humanity itself, growth will come only as a result of increased confidence. Public spending right now is not going to increase confidence, it'd appear desperate, it'd appear that they've only done it because nothing else appears to be working.

The solution lies in encouraging the private sector - but we're never going to succeed in doing that when some seem so intent on demonising them.

scoobs
05-09-2012, 11:23 AM
Such nonsense. It seems that now they're no longer in power, the left can retreat to their idealist roots where they're most comfortable. A place where there's lots of lovely free money to give to anyone who wants it and a magic button can be pressed that will result in economic growth. In the meantime they can continue the divisive line of trying to get the general public to despise the wealthy in society.

I'm sorry, but if all government spending was truly an "investment" as Labour always claimed, then why did we ever end up with a deficit in the first place? Government has NO MONEY, and if they keep taking money from society in taxes and "investing" it then we're literally going to have nothing left.

I'm so sick of all this claptrap about "austerity isn't working" .....when the only solution proposed by those peddling this lunacy is to SPEND MORE TAXPAYER MONEY - WHICH WOULD FURTHER NECESSITATE AUSTERITY MEASURES. I'm glad this French dude got in, now we can see just how (in)effective his socialist policies are (although i'm guessing he'll probably back down and say Merkel stole his mojo or something).

A reflection of humanity itself, growth will come only as a result of increased confidence. Public spending right now is not going to increase confidence, it'd appear desperate, it'd appear that they've only done it because nothing else appears to be working.

The solution lies in encouraging the private sector - but we're never going to succeed in doing that when some seem so intent on demonising them.
It's not nonsense, it is fact. Go look at the GDP figures for 2010. You will see the economy was growing. Now it is not. The right love to retreat from facts that are inconvenient, however, that is not my problem

Austerity is necessary - AFTER growth has been restored. Austerity in a weak, non-growing economy turns a recession into a depression as it sucks what little confidence and demand there is from the system. We need to do what Lamont and Clark did in the 90s - policies for growth and THEN squeeze spending when growth returns. It worked then. It does work. The right refuse to believe the economic evidence and insist on hiding behind austerity dogma.

Echoes
05-09-2012, 09:42 PM
nationalism isn't necessarily a negative thing and many people claim to be nationalists or nationalistic. xenophobia is a fear/dislike of foreigners, etc and is clearly a negative thing.
i didn't say or think that you supported everything that they stand for. however, i find some of their views so distasteful that i would take a negative view of someone who could overlook those views because they agree with ukip on other matters.

and by the way, im not criticising party manifestos for not including everything. it is impossible to predict what is going to happen over a 4 or 5 year term in office, so as long as a party doesn't go directly against their manifesto, then they can do what they like. they just have to bear in mind that people haven't voted for them on those grounds, and should be held to account and scrutinised more closely in those instances.

Nationalism is a political movement that considers the nation as an absolute which the citizens should serve and bow to. JFK's quote: "Think of what you can do for the nation before thinking of what the nation can do for you" is typically nationalistic. Conscription is also the ultimate nationalistic act (thanks the French Revolution).

Xenophobia is the fear of foreigners.

It's not the same. Both are negative and none (as far as I know) apply to Farage.

The positive version of nationalism is independentism or sovereignism. Emmanuel Todd (who is a leftwinger but whom I really respect as an intellectual, he's brilliant) even coined the term "nationism" to refer to the belief in the existence of nations and borders.

I support Farage because of the EU exit and strictly for this. If a leftwinger also advocates EU exit, I would support him too. for the moment I see none. The French so-called "nationalists" (FN) are only remotely concerned with Europe. They'd rather keep their populist rants on immigration (which is linked with the EU, but they don't seem to realize this) and on moral values. They are MEP but they're always absent. So actually, they just get their 6000€/months and that's it. For them, the EU is just one topic among others. In my opinion, it should be the KEY topic of an election. Only Farage understood that. He's done a great job at the Euro Parliament.

I mean, let's just imagine General de Gaulle moving to London in June 1940. Many French patriots join him. Would you believe these people saying: "My general, I'd like to fight on your side but before I'd like to ask your opinion on gay marriage or the right for women to vote or should be increase taxes or cut spendings or what do you think of our coal mines near Valenciennes or this or that." Come on !

When I made the comparison between the Nazi regime and the EU here, Jimnik said I was a German nostalgitard who thinks Hitler's ideas were good in theory. :lol: In any case, it's not my fault if Mr Barroso considered the EU as an Empire. He's made that comparison before me. And from viewpoint, it's just the same, we have to fight for independence and popular sovereignty, whoever the enemy might be.

In France, they have François Asselineau. But unfortunately, he isn't media-friendly. :( While he's brilliant too. He's some sort of a French Farage. And he's got a gaullist approach to politics, which he's much more socially oriented than Farage's liberalism/libertarianism.

Jimnik
05-09-2012, 10:07 PM
It's not nonsense, it is fact. Go look at the GDP figures for 2010. You will see the economy was growing. Now it is not. The right love to retreat from facts that are inconvenient, however, that is not my problem

Austerity is necessary - AFTER growth has been restored. Austerity in a weak, non-growing economy turns a recession into a depression as it sucks what little confidence and demand there is from the system. We need to do what Lamont and Clark did in the 90s - policies for growth and THEN squeeze spending when growth returns. It worked then. It does work. The right refuse to believe the economic evidence and insist on hiding behind austerity dogma.
Brown ran a 12% budget deficit - the largest in the UK's history. The only way he could fail to deliver positive GDP growth with that much spending would have been to flush the money down the toilet.

Austerity is ALWAYS necessary. When will people learn even governments can't grow money off trees.

Chris 84
05-10-2012, 01:14 PM
Liberalism is centrist policy. It combines aspects of both capitalism and socialism. The fact you associate it with laissez-faire underlines how left-wing you are.

You seem to confuse it with libertarianism, a radically different ideology

i'm not confusing it with anything. the word "liberal" regarding the economy is something i've only heard in america and it makes little sense to me. a "liberal economy" is a term sometimes used by those who are talking about laissez-faire style policies. you mock me for failing to understand liberalism, but i can assure you that the narrow definition of liberalism in relation to the economy that you give is not something which is universally thought.

Poor "working classes". Always suffering.

I wonder what constitutes "working class" these days since the definition seems to change every few years. Soon the unemployed will join the club.

"working classes" as a term always included anyone who had the ability to work, therefore unemployed people have always counted. you are right though, the term's definition has changed over the years. that is largely because the industrial society about which marx was writing, has largely disappeared. people cannot be categorised in the same manner as they could in the mid-late 19th century.

It's depressing to see just how very little historical perspective many people have these days. One really despairs soemtimes.

indeed.

Such nonsense. It seems that now they're no longer in power, the left can retreat to their idealist roots where they're most comfortable. A place where there's lots of lovely free money to give to anyone who wants it and a magic button can be pressed that will result in economic growth. In the meantime they can continue the divisive line of trying to get the general public to despise the wealthy in society.

I'm sorry, but if all government spending was truly an "investment" as Labour always claimed, then why did we ever end up with a deficit in the first place? Government has NO MONEY, and if they keep taking money from society in taxes and "investing" it then we're literally going to have nothing left.

I'm so sick of all this claptrap about "austerity isn't working" .....when the only solution proposed by those peddling this lunacy is to SPEND MORE TAXPAYER MONEY - WHICH WOULD FURTHER NECESSITATE AUSTERITY MEASURES. I'm glad this French dude got in, now we can see just how (in)effective his socialist policies are (although i'm guessing he'll probably back down and say Merkel stole his mojo or something).

A reflection of humanity itself, growth will come only as a result of increased confidence. Public spending right now is not going to increase confidence, it'd appear desperate, it'd appear that they've only done it because nothing else appears to be working.

The solution lies in encouraging the private sector - but we're never going to succeed in doing that when some seem so intent on demonising them.

the left hasn't been in power in the uk for decades. blair largely carried on thatcherite policies. top rate of income tax was lower under him than thatcher, PFIs, which labour always vehemently opposed when out of office were increased exponentially, etc.

Nationalism is a political movement that considers the nation as an absolute which the citizens should serve and bow to. JFK's quote: "Think of what you can do for the nation before thinking of what the nation can do for you" is typically nationalistic. Conscription is also the ultimate nationalistic act (thanks the French Revolution).

Xenophobia is the fear of foreigners.

It's not the same. Both are negative and none (as far as I know) apply to Farage.

The positive version of nationalism is independentism or sovereignism. Emmanuel Todd (who is a leftwinger but whom I really respect as an intellectual, he's brilliant) even coined the term "nationism" to refer to the belief in the existence of nations and borders.

I support Farage because of the EU exit and strictly for this. If a leftwinger also advocates EU exit, I would support him too. for the moment I see none. The French so-called "nationalists" (FN) are only remotely concerned with Europe. They'd rather keep their populist rants on immigration (which is linked with the EU, but they don't seem to realize this) and on moral values. They are MEP but they're always absent. So actually, they just get their 6000€/months and that's it. For them, the EU is just one topic among others. In my opinion, it should be the KEY topic of an election. Only Farage understood that. He's done a great job at the Euro Parliament.

I mean, let's just imagine General de Gaulle moving to London in June 1940. Many French patriots join him. Would you believe these people saying: "My general, I'd like to fight on your side but before I'd like to ask your opinion on gay marriage or the right for women to vote or should be increase taxes or cut spendings or what do you think of our coal mines near Valenciennes or this or that." Come on !

When I made the comparison between the Nazi regime and the EU here, Jimnik said I was a German nostalgitard who thinks Hitler's ideas were good in theory. :lol: In any case, it's not my fault if Mr Barroso considered the EU as an Empire. He's made that comparison before me. And from viewpoint, it's just the same, we have to fight for independence and popular sovereignty, whoever the enemy might be.

In France, they have François Asselineau. But unfortunately, he isn't media-friendly. :( While he's brilliant too. He's some sort of a French Farage. And he's got a gaullist approach to politics, which he's much more socially oriented than Farage's liberalism/libertarianism.

i agree, nationalism and xenophobia isn't the same. people can claim to be nationalist without expecting a universally negative response, whereas nobody who wants political support will ever claim to be xenophobic.

xenophobia is certainly a criticism commonly used against ukip, mainly because of their views on "britishness", immigration, islam and europe. personally, i think that the latter is unfair as there are perfectly valid reasons not to be part of the eu, but the other three are certainly areas where i am distinctly uneasy with what ukip says.

personally, as someone with leftist views, i am opposed to the eu as well. first and foremost it is a free trade zone, and despite doing some work which should be applauded (by those on the left), it is also a barrier to change. moreover, the eu lacks the democratic legitimacy that it needs to make the far-reaching deicisons which it does.

Jimnik
05-10-2012, 11:20 PM
i'm not confusing it with anything. the word "liberal" regarding the economy is something i've only heard in america and it makes little sense to me. a "liberal economy" is a term sometimes used by those who are talking about laissez-faire style policies. you mock me for failing to understand liberalism, but i can assure you that the narrow definition of liberalism in relation to the economy that you give is not something which is universally thought.
I can assure you either you're living under a rock or your flag is very misleading. I'm finding it difficult to believe you're studying politics when you can't make sense of a very basic term. Liberalism is used every day all over the English speaking world. The Liberal Democrats are the centrist party of the UK, as are the Liberals in Australia. But in reality almost every major political party in the western world is closer to liberalism than any other ideology. The most commonly used term in politics, you should probably get a grip on it.


"working classes" as a term always included anyone who had the ability to work, therefore unemployed people have always counted. you are right though, the term's definition has changed over the years. that is largely because the industrial society about which marx was writing, has largely disappeared. people cannot be categorised in the same manner as they could in the mid-late 19th century.
This is exactly what I mean, almost EVERYONE fits into that category, short of new-born infants, severe handicaps and old age pensioners. By your definition billionaire bankers, monarchs, politicians, unemployed beggars, even certain animals and sophisticated robots would all be considered working class.

duchuy89
05-11-2012, 06:34 AM
I hate Socialism!

orangehat
05-12-2012, 02:59 AM
For all you austerity people:

http://www.americablog.com/2012/05/austerity-crushes-uk-economy-more-than.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Americablog+%28AMERICAblog%29

Chris 84
05-12-2012, 11:11 PM
I can assure you either you're living under a rock or your flag is very misleading. I'm finding it difficult to believe you're studying politics when you can't make sense of a very basic term. Liberalism is used every day all over the English speaking world. The Liberal Democrats are the centrist party of the UK, as are the Liberals in Australia. But in reality almost every major political party in the western world is closer to liberalism than any other ideology. The most commonly used term in politics, you should probably get a grip on it.



This is exactly what I mean, almost EVERYONE fits into that category, short of new-born infants, severe handicaps and old age pensioners. By your definition billionaire bankers, monarchs, politicians, unemployed beggars, even certain animals and sophisticated robots would all be considered working class.

i don't study it. i have a degree in it. i managed to get my head around it to the extent that i got an honours degree in the subject whilst doing countless essays on liberalism and on the economy. so whilst you may disagree with how i perceive the term, i've managed quite well enough by defining it in the manner that i've already explained to you. and yes, "liberal" is a widely used term, but it tells you very little about a political party's views on the economy. the liberal in liberal democrats is to do with rights, liberties, etc....it doesn't relate to the economy. many parties which proclaim themselves to be liberal are centrists, but some are form the left and some from the right.

ok, i exaggerated a little. maybe "everyone who has the ability to work and who requires to work to make a living". that would rule out monarchs and landed gentry, etc. but like i said, i agree with you.

Echoes
05-13-2012, 02:18 PM
xenophobia is certainly a criticism commonly used against ukip, mainly because of their views on "britishness", immigration, islam and europe. personally, i think that the latter is unfair as there are perfectly valid reasons not to be part of the eu, but the other three are certainly areas where i am distinctly uneasy with what ukip says.

personally, as someone with leftist views, i am opposed to the eu as well. first and foremost it is a free trade zone, and despite doing some work which should be applauded (by those on the left), it is also a barrier to change. moreover, the eu lacks the democratic legitimacy that it needs to make the far-reaching deicisons which it does.

What do they say about "Britishness"? I'd rather believe "Britishness" exists if I were a Brit.

Immigration should be clamped down in times of crisis, and more particularly illegal immigration. I don't say I'm glad to say this, it's a more of a pragmatic measure. Of course, it shouldn't concern students, those who marry a "national" or those who come with a contract because there are some sectors where demand>supply but generally speaking, if we don't have jobs to offer, we can't decently welcome them. If that overall economic situation changes, then we can start welcoming migrants again. Well that's my opinion, at least. What makes me feel uneasy, is those who believe immigration clampdown is the key. In my opinion, it's an issue that should be discussed, but one issue among others.

I know a bit about Farage's view on Islam and I have to say that I disagree with him. He talked about the burqa ban. I am in favour of the burqa ban but for the same reason. He mentions such things as secularism and Ladies' right. In my view, it's just demagogical. Burqa should be banned for safety reasons. Everyone should be identifiable any moment. The rest is just hot air. And it doesn't only concern burqa (masks like those of the "Anonymous" should be banned for the same reason).


I fully agree with your last paragraph. But I'm still wondering who on the left in Britain, is Eurosceptic. Galloway, perhaps? On the continent, the leftist are always smoking us out with their belief we can "change" that Europe and making it more "social". This is obviously impossible since we have to negotiate with 26 other countries. All we need do is exit. Perhaps we need a coalition government for this just like you had in 1940 (and the French in 1945).

Chris 84
05-13-2012, 08:03 PM
What do they say about "Britishness"? I'd rather believe "Britishness" exists if I were a Brit.

Immigration should be clamped down in times of crisis, and more particularly illegal immigration. I don't say I'm glad to say this, it's a more of a pragmatic measure. Of course, it shouldn't concern students, those who marry a "national" or those who come with a contract because there are some sectors where demand>supply but generally speaking, if we don't have jobs to offer, we can't decently welcome them. If that overall economic situation changes, then we can start welcoming migrants again. Well that's my opinion, at least. What makes me feel uneasy, is those who believe immigration clampdown is the key. In my opinion, it's an issue that should be discussed, but one issue among others.

I know a bit about Farage's view on Islam and I have to say that I disagree with him. He talked about the burqa ban. I am in favour of the burqa ban but for the same reason. He mentions such things as secularism and Ladies' right. In my view, it's just demagogical. Burqa should be banned for safety reasons. Everyone should be identifiable any moment. The rest is just hot air. And it doesn't only concern burqa (masks like those of the "Anonymous" should be banned for the same reason).


I fully agree with your last paragraph. But I'm still wondering who on the left in Britain, is Eurosceptic. Galloway, perhaps? On the continent, the leftist are always smoking us out with their belief we can "change" that Europe and making it more "social". This is obviously impossible since we have to negotiate with 26 other countries. All we need do is exit. Perhaps we need a coalition government for this just like you had in 1940 (and the French in 1945).

they use rhetoric about "britishness" being "diluted" by multi culturalism, etc. personally, as a scot who supports scottish independence and an independent ireland, naturally i'm not particularly a lover of "britishness". however, the whole notion of britishness doesn't make much sense to me. from what i've seen, even the scots who are pro-union tend to be less inclined to salute the union jack, pledge allegiance to the crown, etc, etc. apart from that, regional differences in england (and throw in wales into the bargain) would make me question whether there actually is something that we can term "britishness" and if there is such a thing, then despite my passport saying british, i'm sadly lacking of this quality.

i can see the logic behind your views on immigration, etc, but i always feel that political parties have a duty to make their point in ways which are less likely to inflame the public. we've had attacks on immigrants, asylum seekers, etc, and racism hurled at people following inflammatory front pages of tabloids, etc. i think that anyone who puts the focal point of our troubles on these people and on religious groups are dangerous. i'm certainly not saying that ukip are the worst for that, but they certainly tread that line.

i guess galloway is the only one. in scotland we had the scottish socialist party which gained some ground in the scottish elections and could have been a major player in an independent country. however, they imploded, leaving nothing behind. galloway's "coalition" is a mish-mash affair which is basically a front for the socialist workers party to recruit new members whilst providing galloway with a platform. it is pretty much an irrelevant and worthless body. in the past, the left wing of the labour party was euro sceptic, but nowadays the left of the labour party isnt very left anyway :lol:

Echoes
05-20-2012, 06:20 PM
Oh OK I see I've underestimated the separatist movement in Scotland. :D

I'm also in favour of an Irish reunion and I have sympathies for all Gaelic nations. But I mistrust the SNP because of their group at the Euro Parliament.

They are a member of the EFA (European Free Alliance), which means those parties who advocate a Europe of regions, and thereby undermining the power of the member states which are sandwiched between Europe and the regions.

EFA is led by Eric Defoort who is also a member of the N-VA (Flemish separatists). The leader of the N-VA, Bart De Wever, is the guy who perfectly understood what I've stated above (about the sandwich). For example, he thinks that the Belgian Foreign policy should be a matter of the EU (so for the Baroness ! lol). He wants Belgium to disappear without we be conscious of it. That means he does NOT want Flemish independance - unlike many think - since he wants her to pledge allegiance to the EU.

In this party you also have a Catalan separatist party and a Basque party who are both Franco-Spanish, seeking to create a Euroregion astride on the administrative border between France and Spain, border that is bound to disappear in the long run. These Euroregions are promoted by the Association of European Border Regions (AEBR, which gets subsidies from the EU, of course), led by Mr Karl-Heinz Lambertz, who is the Minister-President of the small German-speaking community of Belgium. It's all scary to me, actually.


So I would say I very much like to see an independent Scotland but I'd rather have a truly independent Britain than a "Europeist" Scotland. ;)

Jimnik
10-23-2013, 03:09 AM
I hate Socialism!
Me too. :)

B-Nard
10-26-2013, 05:10 AM
I hate working, therefore, I love socialism, too.

JamieBlake
10-26-2013, 12:52 PM
Pure socialism is not possible and therefore all the tries to apply it in real life suck, but capitalism mixed with socialism like they do in Canada or the Nordic countries works and it puts the shit that USA and its pure capitalism are to shame.

Jimnik
10-26-2013, 06:12 PM
Pure socialism is not possible and therefore all the tries to apply it in real life suck, but capitalism mixed with socialism like they do in Canada or the Nordic countries works and it puts the shit that USA and its pure capitalism are to shame.
Canada is more capitalist than USA.

JamieBlake
10-26-2013, 07:49 PM
Canada is more capitalist than USA.

Lol what, they have a good healthcare system.

Jimnik
10-27-2013, 08:26 PM
Lol what, they have a good healthcare system.
Canada's healthcare is good, USA's is better, but that's not the point. Ever since the recession, Bush and Obama meddled so much with the economy America can barely hold it's position in the world's top 10 of economic freedom. Property rights and financial regulation are now more oppressive than ever and big bail-outs are stretching fiscal and monetary freedom almost to breaking point.

Har-Tru
10-27-2013, 10:24 PM
Freedom, bitches!

Freedom to let the accident of your birth determine how hard it will be for you to succeed in life.

buddyholly
10-27-2013, 11:06 PM
Canada's healthcare is good, USA's is better, but that's not the point. Ever since the recession, Bush and Obama meddled so much with the economy America can barely hold it's position in the world's top 10 of economic freedom. Property rights and financial regulation are now more oppressive than ever and big bail-outs are stretching fiscal and monetary freedom almost to breaking point.

Who says Canada's is good? Have you experienced it for yourself?

It is no good saying, "well it is free", - we all pay for it. And what we get are lots of doctors who are very inexperienced and do little else than make referrals to specialists for anything other than a simple prescription. Unfortunately the referral is usually a three month minimum wait. Not good when you have an itchy skin condition. And if the specialist prescribes a drug or cream, there is no followup for at least 3 months. In my case the cream was making things worse, but I was afraid to stop using it and my next appointment was still 10 weeks away.

Yet these prescription writers are paid a doctor's fee per visit. It is in their selfish interest to get you out the door in the least time and move on to the next patient - and next payment from the taxpayers. And the easiest way to do that is give you a referral, without even bothering to attempt a proper diagnosis.

The medical profession is a monopoly, there is nowhere else to go outside the self policing government system, and they do not want to change it. It could mean less time on the golf course.

buddyholly
10-27-2013, 11:22 PM
Freedom, bitches!

Freedom to let the accident of your birth determine how hard it will be for you to succeed in life.
Births are not accidents. People should only have children if they are prepared to provide them with what is needed to succeed in life.

Jimnik
10-27-2013, 11:29 PM
Who says Canada's is good? Have you experienced it for yourself?
Come on man. There are 200 countries in the world, most of them with pretty shit primitive healthcare systems. Would you really put Canada down with the worst of them?

buddyholly
10-28-2013, 12:07 AM
Come on man. There are 200 countries in the world, most of them with pretty shit primitive healthcare systems. Would you really put Canada down with the worst of them?
I never said that. Nor anything like that. I said the service is not good value for the taxpayers' money that goes into it. Any business where employees have no fear of losing their jobs will inevitably suffer from poor performance.

Jimnik
10-28-2013, 02:07 AM
I never said that. Nor anything like that. I said the service is not good value for the taxpayers' money that goes into it. Any business where employees have no fear of losing their jobs will inevitably suffer from poor performance.
Yea I know but my comment was just a generalized "Canada's healthcare is good" ie compared to most of the world. I'm sure it could be better.

Shinoj
10-28-2013, 06:37 AM
But who gives someone the authority to say this is good this is bad.. If a Country like Soviet Union like was so successful why in the Earth do the Capitalist Bandwagoners keep on Harking that our system is good and so on.

There is so much Racism, Lack of Respect towards others Privacies, US Snooping on Other Peoples Mails etc, in Capitalist Countries, Why on Earth they think their System is Good.

Punky
10-28-2013, 07:16 AM
But who gives someone the authority to say this is good this is bad.. If a Country like Soviet Union like was so successful why in the Earth do the Capitalist Bandwagoners keep on Harking that our system is good and so on.

There is so much Racism, Lack of Respect towards others Privacies, US Snooping on Other Peoples Mails etc, in Capitalist Countries, Why on Earth they think their System is Good.

if ur this that ur country or my country or china or ANY other country in the world do not snoop or Spy against other countrys even their friends then ur very naive

everyone Eavesdropping After everyone, everyone spies on everyone

Shinoj
10-28-2013, 07:32 AM
if ur this that ur country or my country or china or ANY other country in the world do not snoop or Spy against other countrys even their friends then ur very naive

everyone Eavesdropping After everyone, everyone spies on everyone


I doubt if any other country interferes so much in Others Affairs as much as US does. I gave an Example of Email, but there are so many reports stating US Navy has a presence in Indian Ocean, Its harassment and pursuit of that Australian Citizen who was a whistleblower, cant remember his name, United States support to Al Quaeda to establish itself just because it was against Soviet Union, Its agenda against Cuba and the List goes on and on.

Punky
10-28-2013, 07:39 AM
I doubt if any other country interferes so much in Others Affairs as much as US does. I gave an Example of Email, but there are so many reports stating US Navy has a presence in Indian Ocean, Its harassment and pursuit of that Australian Citizen who was a whistleblower, cant remember his name, United States support to Al Quaeda to establish itself just because it was against Soviet Union, Its agenda against Cuba and the List goes on and on.

i was talking about spy and Eavesdropping

Shinoj
10-28-2013, 07:41 AM
i was talking about spy and Eavesdropping

So ? I stated an opinion and it was you who quoted it ? You should talk my opinion than me talking about yours.

Punky
10-28-2013, 07:43 AM
So ? I stated an opinion and it was you who quoted it ? You should talk my opinion than me talking about yours.

i agree with u that it mind other ppls Business more then others but others do it also

everyone spy

Har-Tru
10-28-2013, 11:13 AM
Births are not accidents. People should only have children if they are prepared to provide them with what is needed to succeed in life.

Obviously I meant it from the perspective of the person being born. Births are a lottery. Nobody chooses to be born to a disfunctional, uneducated family living in a poor neighbourhood. Yet that person is bound to pay for the consequences of that, and is much more likely to have a more difficult life than those who were lucky enough (not smart, talented or hard-working enough) to be born to rich, cultivated families in the upper-class part of town.

buddyholly
10-28-2013, 12:20 PM
But who gives someone the authority to say this is good this is bad.. If a Country like Soviet Union like was so successful why in the Earth do the Capitalist Bandwagoners keep on Harking that our system is good and so on.
.
Did you really mean to say that the Soviet Union was successful? I would enjoy reading the parameters you used to reach that conclusion.

Dmitry Verdasco
10-29-2013, 03:12 AM
Fuck those socialists and all their damn taxes

Shinoj
10-29-2013, 09:50 AM
Achievements of Soviet Union


First of All without the Efforts of Soviet Union, the Axis Powers led by Hitler would have inflicted Massive Further Damage to Entire World. It was majorly due to the Battle of Stalingrad that Hitler suffered Major Losses and eventually he couldnt recover from that. That itself is a Massive Achievement

It was one of the Founders of United Nations


Scientific and Technological Achievements

It launched the First Ever Artificial Satellite,Sputnik,It sent the First dog, Man,Woman into Space and many more Firsts in Space. the List is quite Long Actually. And it could be very well said that it was one of the Pioneer of Space technology and all the things related to it.


Between 1960 and 1989, the growth rate of per capita income in the Soviet Union was slightly above the world average


In the Energy Sector, Soviet was very well Established and at its peak it was the largest producer and second largest exporter of crude oil, surpassed only by Saudi Arabia.
It was only due to United States Policy which forced Saudi Arabia to lower its value of Crude oil so that Crude Oil belonging to Soviet did have much value.


Soviets scientists were among the world's best-trained specialists in several areas, such as energy physics, selected areas of medicine, mathematics, welding and military technologies


Soviet rail transport was the largest and most intensively used in the world; it was also better developed than most of its Western counterparts

Soviets HealthCare was world renowned. The Healthcare was owned by the state and all the citizens had free Access to any Healthcare Insititution anywhere in USSR.Its Life expectancy was better than United States for a long time after the World War II.


The Soviet merchant fleet was one of the largest in the world


Did you really mean to say that the Soviet Union was successful? I would enjoy reading the parameters you used to reach that conclusion.


You could argue over the means how they achieved it; because of iron Hand and Strict Cetralization and minimum Common mans interference but all these things are Success.

buddyholly
10-29-2013, 10:29 AM
Achievements of Soviet Union


First of All without the Efforts of Soviet Union, the Axis Powers led by Hitler would have inflicted Massive Further Damage to Entire World. It was majorly due to the Battle of Stalingrad that Hitler suffered Major Losses and eventually he couldnt recover from that. That itself is a Massive Achievement

It was one of the Founders of United Nations


Scientific and Technological Achievements

It launched the First Ever Artificial Satellite,Sputnik,It sent the First dog, Man,Woman into Space and many more Firsts in Space. the List is quite Long Actually. And it could be very well said that it was one of the Pioneer of Space technology and all the things related to it.


Between 1960 and 1989, the growth rate of per capita income in the Soviet Union was slightly above the world average


In the Energy Sector, Soviet was very well Established and at its peak it was the largest producer and second largest exporter of crude oil, surpassed only by Saudi Arabia.
It was only due to United States Policy which forced Saudi Arabia to lower its value of Crude oil so that Crude Oil belonging to Soviet did have much value.


Soviets scientists were among the world's best-trained specialists in several areas, such as energy physics, selected areas of medicine, mathematics, welding and military technologies


Soviet rail transport was the largest and most intensively used in the world; it was also better developed than most of its Western counterparts

Soviets HealthCare was world renowned. The Healthcare was owned by the state and all the citizens had free Access to any Healthcare Insititution anywhere in USSR.Its Life expectancy was better than United States for a long time after the World War II.


The Soviet merchant fleet was one of the largest in the world





You could argue over the means how they achieved it; because of iron Hand and Strict Cetralization and minimum Common mans interference but all these things are Success.
Well, that is one fabulous list of achievements. Especially the achievement of having oil in the ground and the amazing news that they led the world in welding.
Now I am completely confused as to why the Soviet Union imploded.
I would really like to see those numbers on the world beating per capita income growth. Can you give me a link please? I am curious because Wikipedia shows a graph of numbers from the Official Soviet Statistics office that indicates that the Soviet economy declined every decade from the 50's until the final collapse.
Oh wait, I see your statement that the growth rate of per capita income was slightly above world average was taken word for word from the same Wikipedia article. Unfortunately you did not continue the quote that then tried to account for why it was a failure.

And I am still amazed that people keep repeating that the Soviet Union defeated Hitler and saved the world from barbarism. The fact is that Hitler and the Soviet Union were buddies in barbarism, until Hitler decided to turn on his Soviet buddies. The Soviet Union did not decide to stop Hitler, it was actually helping Hitler.

buddyholly
10-29-2013, 11:12 AM
Yea I know but my comment was just a generalized "Canada's healthcare is good" ie compared to most of the world. I'm sure it could be better.
A new report has just come out. The average wait time to see a medical specialist and receive treatment is now more than 18 weeks, 42 weeks if you live in PEI.

So my dissatisfaction is not on the quality of the treatment, but the unavailability. The report states that while spending more and more per capita, these wait times are way longer than in other countries with universal health care, such as Australia, Sweden and Switzerland.
And as the amount of money poured into health care increases annually, so does the wait time.
Health care is now becoming just another government bureaucracy, collapsing under the weight of its own ineptitude.

Shinoj
10-29-2013, 11:30 AM
Well, that is one fabulous list of achievements. Especially the achievement of having oil in the ground and the amazing news that they led the world in welding.
Now I am completely confused as to why the Soviet Union imploded.
I would really like to see those numbers on the world beating per capita income growth. Can you give me a link please? I am curious because Wikipedia shows a graph of numbers from the Official Soviet Statistics office that indicates that the Soviet economy declined every decade from the 50's until the final collapse.
Oh wait, I see your statement the the growth rate of per capita income was slightly above world average was taken word for word from the same Wikipedia article. Unfortunately you did not continue the quote that tried to account for why it was a failure.

Why? Those arent Achivements for you?

Well, i am not sure how you implied Welding but they have led the World in Space technology,health care,Defense,Energy Sector,Rail Transport in various times. That is a formidable list.

Look you have asked about achievements i have stated them. Now why they have declined is a completely different matter.

buddyholly
10-29-2013, 12:10 PM
Why? Those arent Achivements for you?

Well, i am not sure how you implied Welding but they have led the World in Space technology,health care,Defense,Energy Sector,Rail Transport in various times. That is a formidable list.

Look you have asked about achievements i have stated them. Now why they have declined is a completely different matter.
I did not "imply" welding. You included it in your list of Soviet scientific triumphs. But I see that is just another sentence you sifted from the Wikipedia article? I am sure they did not lead the world in health care, ever. Not when they were actively terminating the health of their subjects by executing them by the millions. Medical advances are of little benefit to the people if they are not available to the people.
As for space technology, they sent up a Sputnik, probably mostly due to the efforts of non Soviets trapped behind the Iron Curtain, Kennedy told the US to catch up and within a few years the Soviets were out of the picture.

And then there is your claim that the Soviet rail system was the largest and most intensively used in the world. Yes, true. BECAUSE THERE WERE NO ROADS!!!!

By your measuring stick you may as well claim that at various times Adam led the world in life expectancy.

Shinoj
10-29-2013, 12:28 PM
I did not "imply" welding. You included it in your list of Soviet scientific triumphs. But I see that is just another sentence you sifted from the Wikipedia article? I am sure they did not lead the world in health care, ever. Not when they were actively terminating the health of their subjects by executing them by the millions.
As for space technology, they sent up a Sputnik, probably mostly due to the efforts of non Soviets trapped behind the Iron Curtain, Kennedy told the US to catch up and within a few years the Soviets were out of the picture.

By your measuring stick you may as well claim that at various times Adam led the world in life expectancy.

Okay.. Welding was not my focus on the list of achievements. But if it is there then i do not see a problem in it. As there are so many much more achievements on which you could have focussed. But you did not do it as it did not suit you.

Look.. Terminating their own Citizens has nothing to do with HealthCare. You are trying to mix Up the Two.

As far as i see it, If a citizen can Access Hospitals in his Country for free that is a good achievement. Not that i know about the quality of the Doctors and treatment.

And terminating their own citizens has probably to do with their official policy of suppressing any Rebellion.

And whatever you have uttered about Kennedy told them to catch up and they were ahead of USSR. Proof? As far as i am seeing it you are utterring Pro-Capitalist Agenda as much as they uttered their Communist Agenda. There is not much Difference from a Neutral Point of View.

But yes, USSR were mighty and Successfull.

buddyholly
10-29-2013, 12:36 PM
And whatever you have uttered about Kennedy told them to catch up and they were ahead of USSR. Proof? As far as i am seeing it you are utterring Pro-Capitalist Agenda as much as they uttered their Communist Agenda. There is not much Difference from a Neutral Point of View.



Proof? Have you been hiding under a rock since 1969? Or do you believe the moon landing was filmed in Hollywood?

buddyholly
10-29-2013, 12:42 PM
Okay.. Welding was not my focus on the list of achievements. But if it is there then i do not see a problem in it. As there are so many much more achievements on which you could have focussed. But you did not do it as it did not suit you.


.

I just focused on the achievements YOU chose. However, I suspect you just hastily lifted the sentences from Wikipedia without even fully being aware of their content.

Shinoj
10-29-2013, 01:22 PM
Proof? Have you been hiding under a rock since 1969? Or do you believe the moon landing was filmed in Hollywood?

So?

USSR did so many things in Space technology which you have conveniently ignored. Do You really believe your Old Greying IQ Cells are shared by Others.

Very Conveniently you ignore whatever i have written and just choose to focus on what you are saying.

buddyholly
10-29-2013, 01:55 PM
Very Conveniently you ignore whatever i have written and just choose to focus on what you are saying.
EVERYTHING I have written has been in response to what YOU have written. I think you are in denial.

But you did not write it anyway. You copied it word for word from Wikipedia, often out of context and apparently sometimes not even bothering to read what you, yourself, plagiarized.

Shinoj
10-29-2013, 03:26 PM
EVERYTHING I have written has been in response to what YOU have written. I think you are in denial.

But you did not write it anyway. You copied it word for word from Wikipedia, often out of context and apparently sometimes not even bothering to read what you, yourself, plagiarized.

Look you said USSR's Space Program was over taken very comfortable once Kennedy said this and that.

And i can list you down around 20 Achievements of Soviet Union in the Space Technology. And thats where it ends. US in no way was way superior than Soviet in Space technology.

SO what i took it from a Reliable Source like Wikipedia. Now Dont tell me that you were personal Assistant of Kennedy or you were one of the Astronauts. What you saw on TV or heard from your Friends, i took the information from Wikipedia. Whats the Deal there.

buddyholly
10-29-2013, 06:57 PM
SO what i took it from a Reliable Source like Wikipedia. Now Dont tell me that you were personal Assistant of Kennedy or you were one of the Astronauts. What you saw on TV or heard from your Friends, i took the information from Wikipedia. Whats the Deal there.
The race was to put a man on the moon. The US gave the Soviets a head start and then roared past them. And that is where it ends. USA 1 - Soviets 0.

What you need to read more about is the number of Soviet failures. Rockets were exploding all over the place.
But their space programme was conducted in secrecy. Successes were only announced after the fact. Their string of failures was never mentioned. All that came out after the collapse of the Soviet Union. They never put a man on the moon because every single one of their rockets that were tested for that purpose failed.

Don't you think that if the Soviet Union was a great success we would be seeing the results of that today, instead of having seen it collapse from the inside?

Jimnik
10-29-2013, 10:53 PM
Achievements of the Soviet Union

Off the top of my head:

Seizure of land and personal property.
Abolition of democracy.
Abolition of free press, free speech and free assembly.
Abolition of religion, culture and free thought.
Interrogation, torture and murder of dissidents.
Forced labour and human sacrifice for the sake of road and rail construction.
Economic mis-management, neglect and corruption.
Mass starvation, mal-nutrition and poverty.
Military expansionism and imperialism.
Shutting in and surveillance of its own citizens.
Sureveillance, espionage and theft of foreign ideas.

manadrainer
11-03-2013, 07:52 PM
Achievements of the Soviet Union

Off the top of my head:

Seizure of land and personal property.
Abolition of democracy.
Abolition of free press, free speech and free assembly.
Abolition of religion, culture and free thought.
Interrogation, torture and murder of dissidents.
Forced labour and human sacrifice for the sake of road and rail construction.
Economic mis-management, neglect and corruption.
Mass starvation, mal-nutrition and poverty.
Military expansionism and imperialism.
Shutting in and surveillance of its own citizens.
Sureveillance, espionage and theft of foreign ideas.


This x 1000.

It's beyond me how some people still look at USSR as something good. They were just as bad as Hitler's Nazi Germany.

I know nobody talks about it but while Hitler was killing 6 millions jews, Stalin killed 10 millions Kulaks...

Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App (http://www.verticalsports.com/mobile)

buddyholly
11-03-2013, 10:07 PM
This x 1000.

It's beyond me how some people still look at USSR as something good. They were just as bad as Hitler's Nazi Germany.

I know nobody talks about it but while Hitler was killing 6 millions jews, Stalin killed 10 millions Kulaks...

Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App (http://www.verticalsports.com/mobile)

Some people still want to believe that communism could be something good.. But it always ends up something like you describe above.
It is quite obvious that so called communist societies have actually been the most dictatorial. And perfectly obvious that communism can only function by an elite clique keeping the masses subjugated by eliminating all human rights, yet claiming to serve the masses. Communism is just another word for unnatural.