Midmyst
|
  |
| Joined: 19 Nov 2009 |
| Total Posts: 4803 |
|
|
| 18 Dec 2013 04:26 PM |
His name is iceskull750 and we met at the Italian Restaurant place. He thinks america is a horrible country, greece has a higher GDP than us, germany is the best country in the world because they are a socialist country, and that selfishness is bad. He consistently denies that socialist countries (real ones, like USSR) ever did anything wrong, and when he concedes a bit, he says it wasn't true socialism anyway.
He thinks I'm spreading lies and propaganda by teaching him about capitalism.
Just thought you should know in case you ever encounter him. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 18 Dec 2013 04:50 PM |
wow. just wow. The USSR had real Communism, I admit to it. Sadly, the it was Bolshevik Communism. Menshevik Communism is the best. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Telafight
|
  |
| Joined: 25 Jul 2011 |
| Total Posts: 10466 |
|
|
| 18 Dec 2013 06:00 PM |
"The USSR had real Communism, I admit to it."
The UsSR didn't have real communism.
It was not stateless, moneyless or classless. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Dralin
|
  |
| Joined: 19 Nov 2008 |
| Total Posts: 2572 |
|
|
| 18 Dec 2013 06:18 PM |
The USSR was led by Bolshevik Communism at first, which was relatively communist, followed by stalinism, which was totalitarian fascism disguised as communism, and finally, a mix between the two.
It depends which USSR he's talking about, because pre-Stalin USSR, Stalin USSR and post-Stalin USSR could almost be considered 3 separate countries. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 18 Dec 2013 06:22 PM |
It was not stateless, moneyless or classless. ---------- Sorry money is nessecary. Why? Because, it is a median of exchange between goods and services. Meaning if you have something I want and want say 100 chickens for it I would not be able to get it while if you wanted 100 dollars/yen/rubles then I could save it up, and not have to worry about some of my chickens dying.
Money is not an issue it is the practices on wallstreet that is and I think I would find Karl hard pressed to want to get rid of it. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Dralin
|
  |
| Joined: 19 Nov 2008 |
| Total Posts: 2572 |
|
|
| 18 Dec 2013 06:26 PM |
"Sorry money is nessecary. Why? Because, it is a median of exchange between goods and services. Meaning if you have something I want and want say 100 chickens for it I would not be able to get it while if you wanted 100 dollars/yen/rubles then I could save it up, and not have to worry about some of my chickens dying.
Money is not an issue it is the practices on wallstreet that is and I think I would find Karl hard pressed to want to get rid of it."
You seem to think that the only alternative to money is the barter system.
A State-sponsored credit system would be another alternative. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 18 Dec 2013 06:27 PM |
pre-Stalin USSR, Stalin USSR and post-Stalin USSR could almost be considered 3 separate countries. --------- Different economic/political systems =/= being a different country which is why we do not consider it as such. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 18 Dec 2013 06:30 PM |
A State-sponsored credit system would be another alternative. ---- Explain how a credit system is any different. It would just be a (most likely) digital form of currency. With a fancy name slapped on it. One way it would be different
Ex: I trade you 5 credits of a gallon of water (or 5 gallons of water) for your 9 credits of a dozen eggs (or 9 eggs).
[End of example] This is essentially the barter system updated.
Other than that I do not see a credit base system being any different than what we have now. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
Dralin
|
  |
| Joined: 19 Nov 2008 |
| Total Posts: 2572 |
|
|
| 18 Dec 2013 06:38 PM |
In more detail, it would be a State-sponsored system with fixed prices on nationalized products. Basic necessities would be free (rations, water, medical benefits etc.), but luxuries would cost credits (better food, furniture, improved lifestyle, etc.). Credits would be obtained by contributing to the State (employment), with more productive work being rewarded with more credits.
Basically, yes, it would be similar to the monetary system, but privatized commerce would be eliminated, thereby ensuring the better functioning of the State (no stock market that harms a country more than it helps it). |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 18 Dec 2013 06:43 PM |
His name is iceskull750 and we met at the Italian Restaurant place. He thinks america is a horrible country, greece has a higher GDP than us, germany is the best country in the world because they are a socialist country, and that selfishness is bad. He consistently denies that socialist countries (real ones, like USSR) ever did anything wrong, and when he concedes a bit, he says it wasn't true socialism anyway. ---------------------- Wat. Greece GDP: 249.1 billion USD (2012) (Source: Google) U.S.A. GDP: 15.68 trillion (Source: Google). Not that GDP means anything. I mean if I spend a bunch of money on cars, houses and etc But do not have the money to pay it off did I put myself in a better position by spending all this money, or did I make myself worse (the answer is obvious)?
You can not have a good GDP without it being backed by savings. Otherwise all you have is a bunch of debt that will never be paid off. Germany is not socialist, it hasn't been since 1945. Furthermore the West Capitalist side of Germany grew at a much faster rate than East Germany did under Socialism. So that is nonsensical.
To point out to everybody here is going to the no true scotsman fallacy the USSR had all 10 planks of communism, how was it not communist? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 18 Dec 2013 06:48 PM |
In more detail, it would be a State-sponsored system with fixed prices on nationalized products. Basic necessities would be free (rations, water, medical benefits etc.), but luxuries would cost credits (better food, furniture, improved lifestyle, etc.). Credits would be obtained by contributing to the State (employment), with more productive work being rewarded with more credits.
Basically, yes, it would be similar to the monetary system, but privatized commerce would be eliminated, thereby ensuring the better functioning of the State (no stock market that harms a country more than it helps it). -------------- So it is the same system we have in the United States. Aka Welfare/The Dollar. Corporate enterprise is the only thing different but, also non sensible. The State always is less efficent than corporate enterprise. During World War 2 we were making a huge investment into building more Destroyers and Aircraft Carriers. A man in New Oreleans seen this and stated he could do it at a better job and come out undercost. He did.
Then you have the Obama-care website fiasco, while google and apple never had problems like that. Or you have the entire economic system of the USSR which tanked. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Telafight
|
  |
| Joined: 25 Jul 2011 |
| Total Posts: 10466 |
|
|
| 18 Dec 2013 06:48 PM |
"To point out to everybody here is going to the no true scotsman fallacy the USSR had all 10 planks of communism, how was it not communist?"
It is not communist because it is not stateless, moneyless or classless. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Midmyst
|
  |
| Joined: 19 Nov 2009 |
| Total Posts: 4803 |
|
|
| 18 Dec 2013 06:51 PM |
Most communist countries called themselves socialism, because according to marxist theory, socialism is the stage in human history between capitalism and communism. They weren't in a communist society yet, but they were trying to achieve it.
But it's really just a technicality, and as it has been pointed out, they had all 10 planks of the communist manifesto. And practically everyone calls them communist countries nowadays.
So were they communist in the sense that they moneyless classless, or stateless? No. But they were trying to get there. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 18 Dec 2013 06:51 PM |
It is not communist because it is not stateless, moneyless or classless. -------- Communism doesn't have to have anarchy, says nothing about removing money and it had no classes. The median income was equivalent to 5,000 dollars. You're thinking of anarcho-communism. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
Dralin
|
  |
| Joined: 19 Nov 2008 |
| Total Posts: 2572 |
|
|
| 18 Dec 2013 06:56 PM |
"So it is the same system we have in the United States. Aka Welfare/The Dollar. Corporate enterprise is the only thing different but, also non sensible. The State always is less efficent than corporate enterprise. During World War 2 we were making a huge investment into building more Destroyers and Aircraft Carriers. A man in New Oreleans seen this and stated he could do it at a better job and come out undercost. He did.
Then you have the Obama-care website fiasco, while google and apple never had problems like that. Or you have the entire economic system of the USSR which tanked."
___
Well, ever since the 1800's, the US government and the US economy have pretty much been in an unhealthy relationship, basically due to inefficient, continual compromises made between Congress and the Presidency every time something slightly more important than a company bail-out comes up. So, economically, the US government operates far worse than other countries at directly controlling the market.
As for the fall of the USSR, Gorbachev pretty much single-handedly pulled that one off. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 18 Dec 2013 06:57 PM |
"100 dollars/yen/rubles" ....100 Rubles?
WHAT IN THE WORLD ARE YOU GOING TO BUY? A CANDY WRAPPER WITH POO STAINS ON IT?
Sie sind das Essen und wir sind die Jäger! |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 18 Dec 2013 06:59 PM |
WHAT IN THE WORLD ARE YOU GOING TO BUY? A CANDY WRAPPER WITH POO STAINS ON IT? -------------- You are weird in the fact that you chose rubles instead of yen. Rubles are worth a lot more than yen. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Midmyst
|
  |
| Joined: 19 Nov 2009 |
| Total Posts: 4803 |
|
|
| 18 Dec 2013 07:01 PM |
| Zelda is Russian, so it makes sense he would know more about the worthlessness of the ruble than of the yen. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 18 Dec 2013 07:06 PM |
Well, ever since the 1800's, the US government and the US economy have pretty much been in an unhealthy relationship, basically due to inefficient, continual compromises made between Congress and the Presidency every time something slightly more important than a company bail-out comes up. So, economically, the US government operates far worse than other countries at directly controlling the market.
As for the fall of the USSR, Gorbachev pretty much single-handedly pulled that one off ----------------- No. The Industrial Revolution disagrees with that. The United States wasn't under a trail of booms and busts. It was relatively stable 1945-1960s. Until we defaulted on our gold payments and recieved heavy inflation. Of course inflation became stabilized (although a group that calculates it the old way has it at 10%).
The real problem is during the 1970s-2010s we have been in a thing called wage repression where we are receiving less and less in wages which also happens to be what you buy goods with. Since this is putting a huge strain on supply and demand we pumped up the credit economy. Which has doubled the debt of American Households.
Which leads to the problem we have now; to much corporate reliance on the Fed. Remember to big to fail? Not letting them fail has just led to them becoming even bigger with a bigger reliance on the Fed. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Dralin
|
  |
| Joined: 19 Nov 2008 |
| Total Posts: 2572 |
|
|
| 18 Dec 2013 07:10 PM |
"No. The Industrial Revolution disagrees with that. The United States wasn't under a trail of booms and busts. It was relatively stable 1945-1960s. Until we defaulted on our gold payments and recieved heavy inflation. Of course inflation became stabilized (although a group that calculates it the old way has it at 10%).
The real problem is during the 1970s-2010s we have been in a thing called wage repression where we are receiving less and less in wages which also happens to be what you buy goods with. Since this is putting a huge strain on supply and demand we pumped up the credit economy. Which has doubled the debt of American Households.
Which leads to the problem we have now; to much corporate reliance on the Fed. Remember to big to fail? Not letting them fail has just led to them becoming even bigger with a bigger reliance on the Fed."
That's the point I'm trying to make. The US government has simply not been exceptional at running the economy, and has therefore relied too greatly on corporations, which causes rapid gains, followed by fluctuations in the market, followed by a failed compromise, followed by the usual radical change in the economic system, or, potentially (depending on the severity of the issue), a change of the government itself. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 18 Dec 2013 07:22 PM |
followed by fluctuations in the market, followed by a failed compromise, followed by the usual radical change in the economic system, or, potentially (depending on the severity of the issue), a change of the government itself. ------------------------ This is where we disagree. The drop in the markets is not irregular. You can not just have a boom and no 'bust'. The most recent crises was due to low interest rates (practically 0) and the irrationality of people. People wanted to make money so they bought a house. Pretty much everybody went along with this idea that housing prices will just go up for no apparent reason at all.
The fact that this stopped is not irregular. Actually it is good it stopped before it got even bigger. I mean banks were giving out liars loans, where the info they received was correct on their part but, they lied by giving them a loan they knew they could never pay back. Ontop of it they were throwing teaser rates on it. So this charde ending should have been obvious.
The other part we disagree on is a failed compromise. As we never attempted to compromise the U.S. Government never compromises. Instead in the economic sector we bail everything out and continue on. Nothing was changed at all.
It is doubtful that an economic or political change will occur take the great depression; nothing of the sort came out of it. Which was also a good example of nil compromises. As when Roosevelt came into office he didn't change hoovers policies that were placed he just expanded them and called it the 'new deal'. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Dralin
|
  |
| Joined: 19 Nov 2008 |
| Total Posts: 2572 |
|
|
| 18 Dec 2013 07:32 PM |
"This is where we disagree. The drop in the markets is not irregular. You can not just have a boom and no 'bust'. The most recent crises was due to low interest rates (practically 0) and the irrationality of people. People wanted to make money so they bought a house. Pretty much everybody went along with this idea that housing prices will just go up for no apparent reason at all.
The fact that this stopped is not irregular. Actually it is good it stopped before it got even bigger. I mean banks were giving out liars loans, where the info they received was correct on their part but, they lied by giving them a loan they knew they could never pay back. Ontop of it they were throwing teaser rates on it. So this charde ending should have been obvious.
The other part we disagree on is a failed compromise. As we never attempted to compromise the U.S. Government never compromises. Instead in the economic sector we bail everything out and continue on. Nothing was changed at all.
It is doubtful that an economic or political change will occur take the great depression; nothing of the sort came out of it. Which was also a good example of nil compromises. As when Roosevelt came into office he didn't change hoovers policies that were placed he just expanded them and called it the 'new deal'."
___
Actually, I agree with you on the fluctuation of the market. Corporations are led by individuals seeking one thing: money. And so, their decisions are based on making money; the development of a country being a bi-product. Of course, as you said, this results in the inevitable process of inflation and deflation.
I partially agree with you on the US government never compromising. Where I differ is that they continuously compromise with themselves (presidency and congress). Take ObamaCare for example. Sounded good at the start, but several compromises later and it's now an essentially non-functioning health care system.
Where I disagree with you is the inevitable total collapse of the US economic system (and I don't mean a temporary Great Depression of sorts). Eventually, the excessive reliance on corporations will be the death of the US market. Take a rock being skipped across a pond for example: no matter how high it reaches or how many times it skips, it eventually sinks to the bottom. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 18 Dec 2013 07:51 PM |
Corporations are led by individuals seeking one thing: money. And so, their decisions are based on making money; the development of a country being a bi-product. Of course, as you said, this results in the inevitable process of inflation and deflation.
I partially agree with you on the US government never compromising. Where I differ is that they continuously compromise with themselves (presidency and congress). Take ObamaCare for example. Sounded good at the start, but several compromises later and it's now an essentially non-functioning health care system.
Where I disagree with you is the inevitable total collapse of the US economic system (and I don't mean a temporary Great Depression of sorts). Eventually, the excessive reliance on corporations will be the death of the US market. Take a rock being skipped across a pond for example: no matter how high it reaches or how many times it skips, it eventually sinks to the bottom. --------------- While this maybe true the almost obsession with the racking up of wealth, doesn't result in the bi-product of the nations development. For big companies to appear they have always needed technological or financial innovation. Which is seen with big companies like HP, Dell, Walmart and Best Buy. Or if you go back to history the Rockefeller 'Empire' was entirely based on its financial innovation.
Which I guess leads back to the underlying issue being the entirety of Capitalism. But the question is are these technological innovations worth it? I would say yes. You now have things like Ultrabooks, Google Glass and etc that the Government has never attempted to invest in or develop at all.
Obamacare was never compromised on. It was passed in 2009 by a gargantuan democrat majority in the house, senate (and of course) the executive. There wasn't a single Republican vote for this bill. When they (The republicans) recovered they haven't been able to make any changes to it. The Executive Branch has only been using its power to delay the bill (if this is even constitutional.. but i digress) So there are no compromises.
The reliance on corporations is only a bad thing when you have excessive spending/irrational economic actions. Like trying to re-inflate the housing bubble, unfortunately we have both. Will it cause a revolution..? It could, it did in Germany. It just depends on how long it takes for the government to let the market restructure. Which won't happen till its to late in my opinion.
I just doubt the ability of the people to cause a successful revolution in a modern society. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|