Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

That communist community is a neighbor to the free market society, both of which are near the Valley of Unicorns, which resides under the rugged foothills of Sasquatch Mountain.


Later on in the thread, you make the distinction between a theoretical communist society and the actual dictator-based command economies. Above, you muddle the two. You cannot use the USSR as a both an example of a faux communist and a true communist society. Maybe I am misunderstanding you.

2ndGearRubber

My point was about the political cartoon posted about chomsky; accused of being a proponent of communism. When I used the word communism in the previous sentence, it is actually a bit of a misnomer.


1) The regimes listed are command economies headed by an oligarchy or dictator.

2) Chomsky has said that these command economies have tremendous economic growth potential over a short period of time. (which any 6th grader could chart eloquently for us)

3) So somehow chomsky likes mass murder?


That was the reason for listing the accomplishments of "communists", which are really just command economies.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

I never looked around, never second-guessed
Then I read some howard zinn now I'm always depressed
And now I can't sleep from years of apathy
All because I read a little noam chomsky

I'm eating vegetation, 'cause of fast food nation
I'm wearing uncomfortable shoes 'cause of globalization
I'm watching michael moore expose the awful truth
I'm listening to public enemy and reagan youth

I see no world peace 'cause of zealous armed forces
I eat no breath-mints 'cause their from de-hoofed horses
Now I can't believe; what an absolute failure
The president's laughing 'cause we voted for nader

cordycord

iTrader: (2)

Corporations don't have armies. Corporations can be hurt economically if they don't serve their constituents. You can still protest a corporation.

Up until last year you could still protest the President, but now that's a felony. When your kids grow up, how much less freedom will they enjoy?

Free trade and the miracle of compound interest (Einstein) are the cornerstones of personal wealth. However, with 0% FED borrowing rates the government has taken away one of them. Any attempt at free trade with this administration has been quashed. And now with an active program to increase energy prices, people have less mobility than just a few years ago. Less and less freedom...

cordycord

iTrader: (2)

Bye Bye Freedom

Consumer Spending in U.S. Climbs Even as Taxes Hurt Incomes - Bloomberg

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

Gotcha. That makes more sense.

I would have to concede, at least in China and the USSR, the standards of living and scientific advances did increase dramatically for many. It's hard to say whether they would have advanced more quickly in a more liberalized economy with a representative government (to mgeoffriau's point).

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

There is some validity to the argument that the imposition of a command economy on a previously impoverished nation often brings with it near-term gains in both economic productivity and standard of living.

In some ways, a command economy resembles a wartime economy in a free-market nation. In North America and the capitalist nations of western Europe, the periods immediately successive to the world wars saw dramatic increases in workforce efficiency and consumer purchasing power. These were the direct result of improvements in manufacturing technology and large capital expenditures made at the behest of the exchequer, which would not likely have occurred as rapidly to the same scale under a peacetime market economy.

It's also important to consider the state of the economy in a nation prior to the imposition of central planning. To impose Soviet-style communism on a nation such as present-day America would likely have a detrimental effect on productiveness and efficiency. But Russia prior to the Bolshevik Revolution was a place of turmoil and civil war, ruled in an autocratic fashion and bearing more than a small resemblance to a feudal-agrarian society. By comparison, a command-economy consolidated under the control of a single party was a vast organizational improvement.

For a society such as this, then, Marxist-Leninist communism may well represent a necessary transitional state, as a means of bootstrapping such a nation out of chaos and war, and preparing it to function under a modern market-driven economy. The Soviets simply got hung up on the idea of their form of communism as an end, rather than as a means, driven mostly by the trappings afforded to those entrusted with its care.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

I didn't realize that the first-amendment had been repealed.

If you mean HR-347, it's nothing new. Basically just a re-tread of 18 USC § 1752, which has been in effect since 1971, and doesn't really establish any new authority.

cordycord

iTrader: (2)

Eloquently stated. But don't forget the 70 million murdered or starved.

cordycord

iTrader: (2)

Never said that. But the rules are changing.

On the flip side, let's not forget those hippy/rapists in the "Occupy" movement. They trash the streets, **** on cop cars, steal, do drugs, with complicity from the government. Methinks that if they were having a sit-in to protest Obama, the results would have been different.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Oh, absolutely. I'm not speaking in support of Marxist-Leninist communism, at all. Merely making some neutral observations regarding its pros and cons in purely economic terms, and pointing out that its beneficial effects in this regard are neither unique nor absolute.



Hard to say, since there has never really been an organized protest against a sitting US President before, at least that I can think of.

I would imagine that the response against such an occurrence might not be so severe as you predict. Ordering that severe action be taken against "peaceful" protesters in such a context would be politically damning, both domestically an internationally.

2ndGearRubber

Ah, but if a foreign nation threatened to cut off the oil supply to BP (and indirectly us) wouldn't the US military be called upon? Or, rather, wouldn't the UN send their army (ie: the US)?


I'm all for personal freedom. I want a world where the vast majority of life decisions are left to people (mainly through economic voting). I think it's difficult to determine if a corporation can really be cut off by bad PR. Imagine Procter and Gamble suddenly being accused of insider trading? Or PPG, or General Electric. Would the country turn against their products? Not necessarily, when you see the scope and market share those companies control. You couldn't just say, I'll never buy anything from Dow Industrial. It's not possible.

And remember, the Idea that corporations only serve the constituents is kind of a double edged sword. Corporations are the definition of a psychopath. They care not for the effects of their actions (unless their actions end up harming themselves), and only serve their own interest. Which is making money for shareholders.



Blame every voting person since the 30's for the current scope of government. Imagine a race car, sliding off the track. We could have hit the brakes early, and we'd have been fine. Right now, we're hitting the brakes as the car is skidding through the gravel trap, hoping not to hit the wall. But instead of blaming those who decided not to brake early, we blame those currently standing on the pedal.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

This is an interesting concept, and one which I had never considered before.

A corporation is legally a person.

A person who is clinically diagnosed as a psychopath, and judged to pose a grave threat to their own safety or the safety of others, may be involuntarily committed.

2ndGearRubber

Opti

People act the same way, in economics its called rational self interest. It pretty much says people do whatever brings them utility (happiness), and its observable in the real world.

Its good for people to act like that (given that they are acting legally), it leads them to be productive in their search for utility.

I want a corporation to act like that, would you invest in a company that is not in the business of maximizing profits?

2ndGearRubber

If maximizing profits means dumping hazardous medical waste into the ocean, no. Or if maximizing profits means selling BS collections of bogus loans; or marketing cigarettes to children.......


People will act outside their own self interest, if they believe the good of the group will greater than their own.

EX: You shop at a small business, for the sake of helping the local economy. You pay more for basically the same product Amazon or Walmart may sell. Why, because you believe supporting small business is good for local economies.

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

People support local businesses because they believe a strong local economy will confer greater benefits than a slightly lower price. It's reasoned self-interest, not altruism.

2ndGearRubber

For me, can be hard to define the limit where utility to the user ends. Arguably, donating to charity has utility to the user. Even if it has no effect on them, other than a belief in helping others. Sure, it could help the economy indirectly.

See what I mean; it's hard (for me anyway) to conceptualize the line where utility ends and higher motivation begins.

triple88a

iTrader: (2)

LoL Obamas half brother running for president in Kenya.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

I did my grocery shopping at Walmart yesterday. They have avocados for 88c each over $1-1.50 each at other stores. Limes are 33c vs 50c.

They also employee a mother **** tons of people who would otherwise never be bale to get a job. My cashier couldn't even speak English....he gestured at everything. No joke.

altruism is technically slavery. I say this because I have self-esteem.