Political/Current Events Random, Pics, and Videos Thread - Page 193 - Miata Turbo Forum -Boost cars, acquire cats.

Welcome to Miataturbo.net   Members
 


Current Events, News, Politics Keep the politics here.

Reply
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-01-2013, 10:16 AM   #3841
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,284
Total Cats: 177
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2ndGearRubber View Post
Again, I reiterate, there has NEVER been a communist government in the modern world. There have been dictators, hiding behind the veil of communism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Perez View Post
I'm not sure that "pure" communism has ever been, or will be, achievable. There seems to be something which is fundamental to the emotional behavior of humans which is incompatible with communism.
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 2ndGearRubber
If you think China, the USSR, or Cuba, are communists, you don't have the slightest idea what Marx was talking about. I don't dick-ride communism, or "communism" since the actions of modern "communists" aren't consistent with the original manifesto.

However, it does have a single advantage; massive increases in a nations economic power and average standard of living in a single generation. These are undeniable, but I don't think it makes up for the human rights violations in those same societies. Although, a stronger economy and higher standards of living seem like the kind of Machiavellian, ends justify the means, politics that often pop-up on this board.
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.
Scrappy Jack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 11:22 AM   #3842
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Pittsburgh PA
Posts: 1,172
Total Cats: 13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrappy Jack View Post
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.


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.
2ndGearRubber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 11:27 AM   #3843
Boost Czar

Thread Starter
iTrader: (60)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 70,179
Total Cats: 1,402
Default

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
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 11:48 AM   #3844
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
 
cordycord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,709
Total Cats: 126
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2ndGearRubber View Post
I think you're making the mistake of believing that corporations are not trying to accomplish the same things.
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 11:53 AM   #3845
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
 
cordycord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,709
Total Cats: 126
Default Income Drops the Most in 20 Years

Bye Bye Freedom

Consumer Spending in U.S. Climbs Even as Taxes Hurt Incomes - Bloomberg
cordycord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 12:26 PM   #3846
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,284
Total Cats: 177
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2ndGearRubber View Post
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.
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).

Scrappy Jack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 01:49 PM   #3847
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 24,680
Total Cats: 1,576
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrappy Jack View Post
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
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 02:13 PM   #3848
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 24,680
Total Cats: 1,576
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cordycord View Post
Up until last year you could still protest the President, but now that's a felony.
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.
Joe Perez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 06:10 PM   #3849
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
 
cordycord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,709
Total Cats: 126
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Perez View Post
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.
Eloquently stated. But don't forget the 70 million murdered or starved.
cordycord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 06:14 PM   #3850
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
 
cordycord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,709
Total Cats: 126
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Perez View Post
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.
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.
cordycord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 07:56 PM   #3851
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 24,680
Total Cats: 1,576
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cordycord View Post
Eloquently stated. But don't forget the 70 million murdered or starved.
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.



Quote:
Originally Posted by cordycord View Post
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.
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.
Joe Perez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 08:50 PM   #3852
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Pittsburgh PA
Posts: 1,172
Total Cats: 13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cordycord View Post
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...
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.
2ndGearRubber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 09:02 PM   #3853
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 24,680
Total Cats: 1,576
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2ndGearRubber View Post
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.
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.
Joe Perez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 10:08 PM   #3854
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Pittsburgh PA
Posts: 1,172
Total Cats: 13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Perez View Post
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.

Attached Thumbnails
Political/Current Events Random, Pics, and Videos Thread-35585527.jpg  
2ndGearRubber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 11:33 PM   #3855
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: DF-DUB
Posts: 630
Total Cats: 19
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2ndGearRubber View Post
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.


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?
Opti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 11:48 PM   #3856
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Pittsburgh PA
Posts: 1,172
Total Cats: 13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Opti View Post
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?

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.
2ndGearRubber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 02:28 AM   #3857
Crumple Zone Tester
iTrader: (6)
 
mgeoffriau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Jackson, MS
Posts: 7,490
Total Cats: 373
Default

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.
mgeoffriau is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 07:58 AM   #3858
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Pittsburgh PA
Posts: 1,172
Total Cats: 13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mgeoffriau View Post
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.

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.
2ndGearRubber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 08:13 AM   #3859
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
triple88a's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 8,876
Total Cats: 486
Default

LoL Obamas half brother running for president in Kenya.
triple88a is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 09:42 AM   #3860
Boost Czar

Thread Starter
iTrader: (60)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 70,179
Total Cats: 1,402
Default

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.
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Project Gemini - Turbo Civic on the Cheap Full_Tilt_Boogie Build Threads 53 12-07-2016 05:52 PM
OTS Bilstein to motorsports ASN conversion stoves Suspension, Brakes, Drivetrain 5 04-21-2016 04:00 PM
Going back to stock. Need some 1.6 parts. Trent WTB 2 10-01-2015 01:15 PM
Leaky Wilwoods mx592 Suspension, Brakes, Drivetrain 1 10-01-2015 01:45 AM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:05 PM.