Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
is obama the worst president ever or worst leader ever?
23 views
Skip to first unread message
quiet_lad
May 17, 2012, 7:00:34 PM5/17/12
to
8trilliion spent with 0 to show and huge infaltion woa nelly bailouts goldman sschas buds corpoarte hadnout solyandra all apls rich and all dems retireding got payout
Shawn Wilson
May 17, 2012, 11:14:51 PM5/17/12
to
On May 17, 4:00 pm, quiet_lad <gavcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 8trilliion spent with 0 to show and huge infaltion woa nelly bailouts goldman sschas buds
> corpoarte hadnout solyandra all apls rich and all dems retireding got payout
Well, what level is he? And what class? He seems to have a pretty
> 8trilliion spent with 0 to show and huge infaltion woa nelly bailouts goldman sschas buds
> corpoarte hadnout solyandra all apls rich and all dems retireding got payout
high charisma, so that's OK. Does he have the leadership feat? Any
other useful feats?
Alcore
May 18, 2012, 10:49:27 AM5/18/12
to
Wow,
On Thursday, May 17, 2012 6:00:34 PM UTC-5, quiet_lad wrote:
> 8trilliion spent with 0 to show and huge infaltion woa nelly bailouts goldman sschas buds corpoarte hadnout solyandra all apls rich and all dems retireding got payout
Two flamebait threads started by you in a row. Your life is pretty empty of meaning isn't it?
On Thursday, May 17, 2012 6:00:34 PM UTC-5, quiet_lad wrote:
> 8trilliion spent with 0 to show and huge infaltion woa nelly bailouts goldman sschas buds corpoarte hadnout solyandra all apls rich and all dems retireding got payout
Justisaur
May 18, 2012, 3:46:26 PM5/18/12
to
On May 18, 7:49 am, Alcore <alc...@uurth.com> wrote:
>
> Two flamebait threads started by you in a row. Your life is pretty empty of meaning isn't it?
Ahhhhh, it almost feels like usenet again!
>
> Two flamebait threads started by you in a row. Your life is pretty empty of meaning isn't it?
- Justisaur
Myrmidon
May 18, 2012, 6:12:32 PM5/18/12
to
In article <2526bda0-21f7-420d-b57a-
b2c84c...@t2g2000pbg.googlegroups.com>, just...@gmail.com says...
Bring back Terry Austin! <Wait? Too soon?>
Myrmidon :)
--
(I'm tempted to make a comment about "do farm animals count," if
only because I haven't gotten any email death threats in a while,
but I'm kinda busy at work right now, so I'll refrain.)
- Terry Austin
b2c84c...@t2g2000pbg.googlegroups.com>, just...@gmail.com says...
Myrmidon :)
--
(I'm tempted to make a comment about "do farm animals count," if
only because I haven't gotten any email death threats in a while,
but I'm kinda busy at work right now, so I'll refrain.)
- Terry Austin
tussock
May 19, 2012, 4:07:39 AM5/19/12
to
currency as they see fit and deflate the resultant chaos back into normality
through assorted taxes, trying to keep the economy steady, rather than doing
crazy-assed booms and busts like it did all through the 19th century. The
"deficit" is a meaningless number that everyone pays rather too much
attention to. Bush shouldn't have run such a big one, but Obama should
probably be running it bigger.
As growth is nowhere and spending low, they have to keep running a big
deficit just to prevent total economic collapse. Ideally they'd fix the
underlying problems, but as no one agrees what they are let alone how to
change any of them, that can't really happen.
Inflation is just there to help everyone recover debts created in the
boom. Again, it's so that "money" doesn't come off the books and crash the
economy.
Payouts for failure? Yeh, people are self-interested dicks. That's the
whole basis of modern economic theories.
--
tussock
Rast
May 22, 2012, 9:05:20 PM5/22/12
to
tussock wrote...
> rather than doing
> crazy-assed booms and busts like it did all through the 19th century.
Like the housing bubble and the dotcom bubble?
> crazy-assed booms and busts like it did all through the 19th century.
Tetsubo
May 23, 2012, 7:34:33 AM5/23/12
to
--
Tetsubo
Deviant Art: http://ironstaff.deviantart.com/
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/tetsubo57
tussock
May 24, 2012, 2:30:59 AM5/24/12
to
Tetsubo wrote:
> Rast wrote:
great depression wasn't the first time crops rotted in the fields while
people starved because no one could figure out how to pay anyone to harvest
food for people with no money to buy it.
No money because there was no work. Because no one had money to buy
anything. Because there was no work. ....
Failure to allocate essential resources. Bad news. Like if the housing
bubble had meant there was no gas at the pump and no bread at the shop and
all the factories had to close indefinitely. Like Russia in '98, though at
least they kept bread on the shelves, strictly rationed as it was.
Note that part of the solution to that is modern engineering where shit
is designed to break every few years, so you have to buy another one,
charging artificially high prices for parts so it's cheaper than
maintenance. Stuff should basically last forever now, but then you'd have
everything you'd ever need in a couple years and the economy would crash as
people stopped buying.
--
tussock
> Rast wrote:
>> tussock wrote:
>>> rather than doing crazy-assed booms and busts like it did all
>>> through the 19th century.
>>
>> Like the housing bubble and the dotcom bubble?
>
> Or the impending student loan bubble...
They've got nothing on the crashes of old, from what I've read. The
>>> rather than doing crazy-assed booms and busts like it did all
>>> through the 19th century.
>>
>> Like the housing bubble and the dotcom bubble?
>
> Or the impending student loan bubble...
great depression wasn't the first time crops rotted in the fields while
people starved because no one could figure out how to pay anyone to harvest
food for people with no money to buy it.
No money because there was no work. Because no one had money to buy
anything. Because there was no work. ....
Failure to allocate essential resources. Bad news. Like if the housing
bubble had meant there was no gas at the pump and no bread at the shop and
all the factories had to close indefinitely. Like Russia in '98, though at
least they kept bread on the shelves, strictly rationed as it was.
Note that part of the solution to that is modern engineering where shit
is designed to break every few years, so you have to buy another one,
charging artificially high prices for parts so it's cheaper than
maintenance. Stuff should basically last forever now, but then you'd have
everything you'd ever need in a couple years and the economy would crash as
people stopped buying.
--
tussock
Tetsubo
May 24, 2012, 7:35:31 AM5/24/12
to
towards a socialist system. One where people are more important than
profits.
Shawn Wilson
May 24, 2012, 2:06:12 PM5/24/12
to
On May 24, 4:35 am, Tetsubo <tets...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Or we stop the capitalism train wreck in its tracks and start moving
> towards a socialist system. One where people are more important than
> profits.
Capitalism made the West the most prosperous society in human
> Or we stop the capitalism train wreck in its tracks and start moving
> towards a socialist system. One where people are more important than
> profits.
history. Socialism rendered societies incapable of even feeding
themselves (USSR, China, North Korea, etc).
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
May 24, 2012, 3:03:31 PM5/24/12
to
claimed. The powerful USA of the 20th century combined capitalism with
governmental oversight and control that reduced abuses seen in the 1800s
with the "robber barons and added a very much socialist set of safety
nets for the common folk, while the USSR and related groups took
socialist words and concepts and used them to put a socialist face over
a much more familiar set of corrupt central rulers.
Socialism approaches have their place, as do capitalist approaches.
Going for just one or just the other will spell disaster.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Tetsubo
May 24, 2012, 3:24:19 PM5/24/12
to
did. It's a strange world when *Nixon* is more progressive than the
Democratic President.
Shawn Wilson
May 24, 2012, 3:42:31 PM5/24/12
to
On May 24, 12:03 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
there was no government intervention to speak of then.
> combined capitalism with
> governmental oversight and control that reduced abuses seen in the 1800s
> with the "robber barons
One person famously pointed out-
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/135399/cheery-capitalism/jonah-goldberg#
“Did Vanderbilt keep any of you down,” challenged Atkinson, “by saving
you $2.75 on a barrel of flour, while he was making 14 cents?”
It was/is popular for people to deride the 'robber barons', and
compare 19th century working conditions to 20th century ones, but...
Those 'hellish' 19th century factory jobs were no worse than, and in
many ways superior to any available alternatives. Don't think farm
labor was either easier or safer. People took those 'hellish' factory
jobs because they were *better* jobs than their alternatives, even
with the risks. If not in safety, certainly in reliability and
security. Farming was/is a *bad* job.
People, especially union leaders/organizers and government like to
claim that improvements in working conditions track back to them, but
this is false. Working conditions (including safety) are just one
more element in the competition of one employer against another for
good employees. Unions and government didn't create better conditions
so much as they ran to the head of the parade, and pretended to lead
it. The competition of one employer against another is the most
powerful factor in worker's favor.
> and added a very much socialist set of safety
> nets for the common folk, while the USSR and related groups took
> socialist words and concepts and used them to put a socialist face over
> a much more familiar set of corrupt central rulers.
So Soviets, et al, are inherently evil? Racism is the refuge of the
scoundrel. Ask yourself rather why the efforts of so many people (as
average, typical, well meaning, educated and intelligent in every
respect as any other large group from anywhere) with socialist beliefs
led to such poor results IN SO MANY DIFFERENT COUNTRIES over such a
long period of time. Stalin doesn't explain or justify China, North
Korea, Cambodia or Romania (to name just four of dozens). What is it
about socialism that attracts totalitarianism and oppression? Why is
is that supposedly 'evil' and 'selfish' capitalism leads to prosperity
and freedom for everyone while 'generous' socialism leads to
oppression, mass murder and famine?
> Socialism approaches have their place, as do capitalist approaches.
> Going for just one or just the other will spell disaster.
No. Capitalism produces prosperity and freedom. Socialism does not
and can not. GM cannot oppress me. I can do business instead with
Ford or Toyota if they get out of line. I cannot switch government so
easily. Government will send men with guns to force me to do their
will. Wal-Mart won't.
<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> > Capitalism made the West the most prosperous society in human
> > history. Socialism rendered societies incapable of even feeding
> > themselves (USSR, China, North Korea, etc).
>
> Of course, in both cases neither one was exactly what the label
> claimed. The powerful USA of the 20th century
Note that growth was higher in the 19th century than the 20th, and
> > Capitalism made the West the most prosperous society in human
> > history. Socialism rendered societies incapable of even feeding
> > themselves (USSR, China, North Korea, etc).
>
> Of course, in both cases neither one was exactly what the label
> claimed. The powerful USA of the 20th century
there was no government intervention to speak of then.
> combined capitalism with
> governmental oversight and control that reduced abuses seen in the 1800s
> with the "robber barons
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/135399/cheery-capitalism/jonah-goldberg#
“Did Vanderbilt keep any of you down,” challenged Atkinson, “by saving
you $2.75 on a barrel of flour, while he was making 14 cents?”
It was/is popular for people to deride the 'robber barons', and
compare 19th century working conditions to 20th century ones, but...
Those 'hellish' 19th century factory jobs were no worse than, and in
many ways superior to any available alternatives. Don't think farm
labor was either easier or safer. People took those 'hellish' factory
jobs because they were *better* jobs than their alternatives, even
with the risks. If not in safety, certainly in reliability and
security. Farming was/is a *bad* job.
People, especially union leaders/organizers and government like to
claim that improvements in working conditions track back to them, but
this is false. Working conditions (including safety) are just one
more element in the competition of one employer against another for
good employees. Unions and government didn't create better conditions
so much as they ran to the head of the parade, and pretended to lead
it. The competition of one employer against another is the most
powerful factor in worker's favor.
> and added a very much socialist set of safety
> nets for the common folk, while the USSR and related groups took
> socialist words and concepts and used them to put a socialist face over
> a much more familiar set of corrupt central rulers.
scoundrel. Ask yourself rather why the efforts of so many people (as
average, typical, well meaning, educated and intelligent in every
respect as any other large group from anywhere) with socialist beliefs
led to such poor results IN SO MANY DIFFERENT COUNTRIES over such a
long period of time. Stalin doesn't explain or justify China, North
Korea, Cambodia or Romania (to name just four of dozens). What is it
about socialism that attracts totalitarianism and oppression? Why is
is that supposedly 'evil' and 'selfish' capitalism leads to prosperity
and freedom for everyone while 'generous' socialism leads to
oppression, mass murder and famine?
> Socialism approaches have their place, as do capitalist approaches.
> Going for just one or just the other will spell disaster.
and can not. GM cannot oppress me. I can do business instead with
Ford or Toyota if they get out of line. I cannot switch government so
easily. Government will send men with guns to force me to do their
will. Wal-Mart won't.
Rast
May 24, 2012, 3:53:09 PM5/24/12
to
tussock wrote...
> art of the solution to that is modern engineering where shit
> is designed to break every few years, so you have to buy another one,
> charging artificially high prices for parts so it's cheaper than
> maintenance. Stuff should basically last forever now, but then you'd have
> everything you'd ever need in a couple years and the economy would crash as
> people stopped buying.
This is what economists really believe.
> is designed to break every few years, so you have to buy another one,
> charging artificially high prices for parts so it's cheaper than
> maintenance. Stuff should basically last forever now, but then you'd have
> everything you'd ever need in a couple years and the economy would crash as
> people stopped buying.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
May 24, 2012, 3:54:53 PM5/24/12
to
On 5/24/12 3:42 PM, Shawn Wilson wrote:
> On May 24, 12:03 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> On May 24, 12:03 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
>> and added a very much socialist set of safety
>> nets for the common folk, while the USSR and related groups took
>> socialist words and concepts and used them to put a socialist face over
>> a much more familiar set of corrupt central rulers.
>
>
> So Soviets, et al, are inherently evil?
Where do you get that? Corrupt central rulers instead of socialism,
>> nets for the common folk, while the USSR and related groups took
>> socialist words and concepts and used them to put a socialist face over
>> a much more familiar set of corrupt central rulers.
>
>
> So Soviets, et al, are inherently evil?
which would have a perfect distribution of materials to The People, no
one having any more than anyone else. That'll happen ANY time someone
tries to initiate a "pure socialist" regime, reguardless of where.
Shawn Wilson
May 24, 2012, 4:07:24 PM5/24/12
to
Shawn Wilson
May 24, 2012, 4:12:37 PM5/24/12
to
On May 24, 12:54 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
than anyone else. The question is not 'why do Russians end up with
evil and corrupt regimes?', but 'why do socialist countries end up
with evil and corrupt regimes'? It is the socialism they they have in
common.
> Corrupt central rulers instead of socialism,
There is no 'instead of'. Why does socialism favor totalitarian
oppression?
> which would have a perfect distribution of materials to The People, no
> one having any more than anyone else.
It is a straightforward calculus problem to prove that the allocation
of wealth resulting from perfect capitalism is as efficient as humanly
possible.
<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> >> and added a very much socialist set of safety
> >> nets for the common folk, while the USSR and related groups took
> >> socialist words and concepts and used them to put a socialist face over
> >> a much more familiar set of corrupt central rulers.
>
> > So Soviets, et al, are inherently evil?
>
> Where do you get that?
"the USSR and related groups took socialist words and concepts and
used them to put a socialist face over a much more familiar set of
corrupt central rulers."
People are people. Russians are no more inherently evil and corrupt
> >> and added a very much socialist set of safety
> >> nets for the common folk, while the USSR and related groups took
> >> socialist words and concepts and used them to put a socialist face over
> >> a much more familiar set of corrupt central rulers.
>
> > So Soviets, et al, are inherently evil?
>
> Where do you get that?
"the USSR and related groups took socialist words and concepts and
used them to put a socialist face over a much more familiar set of
corrupt central rulers."
than anyone else. The question is not 'why do Russians end up with
evil and corrupt regimes?', but 'why do socialist countries end up
with evil and corrupt regimes'? It is the socialism they they have in
common.
> Corrupt central rulers instead of socialism,
oppression?
> which would have a perfect distribution of materials to The People, no
> one having any more than anyone else.
of wealth resulting from perfect capitalism is as efficient as humanly
possible.
Tetsubo
May 24, 2012, 4:26:33 PM5/24/12
to
On 5/24/2012 4:12 PM, Shawn Wilson wrote:
>
>
> It is a straightforward calculus problem to prove that the allocation
> of wealth resulting from perfect capitalism is as efficient as humanly
> possible.
>
>
>
Ha. Haha. Hahahahahahahahahahaha! Oh man. You actually put that in
>
>
> It is a straightforward calculus problem to prove that the allocation
> of wealth resulting from perfect capitalism is as efficient as humanly
> possible.
>
>
>
digital form. For the ages.
Shawn Wilson
May 24, 2012, 4:49:17 PM5/24/12
to
On May 24, 12:24 pm, Tetsubo <tets...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I'd be happy if we had the bloody tax rates on the wealthy that Nixon
> did. It's a strange world when *Nixon* is more progressive than the
> Democratic President.
Do you want to roll back the US economy to Nixon levels too??? Give
> I'd be happy if we had the bloody tax rates on the wealthy that Nixon
> did. It's a strange world when *Nixon* is more progressive than the
> Democratic President.
up 40 years of economic growth and technological advancement?
Shawn Wilson
May 24, 2012, 4:47:20 PM5/24/12
to
On May 24, 1:26 pm, Tetsubo <tets...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > It is a straightforward calculus problem to prove that the allocation
> > of wealth resulting from perfect capitalism is as efficient as humanly
> > possible.
>
> Ha. Haha. Hahahahahahahahahahaha! Oh man. You actually put that in
> digital form. For the ages.
Uh, it is an actual exercise in economics courses at the graduate
> > It is a straightforward calculus problem to prove that the allocation
> > of wealth resulting from perfect capitalism is as efficient as humanly
> > possible.
>
> Ha. Haha. Hahahahahahahahahahaha! Oh man. You actually put that in
> digital form. For the ages.
level to compare capitalism to a perfect (ie omniscient and quasi-
omnipotent) central planner. Your ignorance doesn't make it
disappear. It is useful because the math with a perfect central
planner is somewhat easier. And if you already know the outcomes are
exactly the same...
D.J.
May 24, 2012, 6:54:57 PM5/24/12
to
bribes from them and refuse to tax them.
.
JimP.
--
Brushing aside the thorns so I can see the stars.
http://www.linuxgazette.net/ Linux Gazette
http://www.drivein-jim.net/ Drive-In movie theaters
http://story.drivein-jim.net/ A story Feb, 2011
D.J.
May 24, 2012, 6:55:50 PM5/24/12
to
Math doesn't always work in the real world.
Shawn Wilson
May 24, 2012, 8:07:59 PM5/24/12
to
On May 24, 3:54 pm, D.J. <pongbill...@cableone.net> wrote:
> >> I'd be happy if we had the bloody tax rates on the wealthy that Nixon
> >> did. It's a strange world when *Nixon* is more progressive than the
> >> Democratic President.
>
> >Do you want to roll back the US economy to Nixon levels too??? Give
> >up 40 years of economic growth and technological advancement?
>
> No, just tax the trillionaires.
Aren't any. t x 0 = 0.
> >> I'd be happy if we had the bloody tax rates on the wealthy that Nixon
> >> did. It's a strange world when *Nixon* is more progressive than the
> >> Democratic President.
>
> >Do you want to roll back the US economy to Nixon levels too??? Give
> >up 40 years of economic growth and technological advancement?
>
> No, just tax the trillionaires.
> And punish those politiciains who take
> bribes from them and refuse to tax them.
what government spends, and that's what needs to be raised.
Rast
May 24, 2012, 8:12:13 PM5/24/12
to
Shawn Wilson wrote...
window bullshit.
> > This is what economists really believe.
>
>
> No, they don't.
>
They just a few years ago gave Krugman a Nobel for that same broken-
>
>
> No, they don't.
>
window bullshit.
Shawn Wilson
May 24, 2012, 8:13:41 PM5/24/12
to
On May 24, 3:55 pm, D.J. <pongbill...@cableone.net> wrote:
> >Uh, it is an actual exercise in economics courses at the graduate
> >level to compare capitalism to a perfect (ie omniscient and quasi-
> >omnipotent) central planner. Your ignorance doesn't make it
> >disappear. It is useful because the math with a perfect central
> >planner is somewhat easier. And if you already know the outcomes are
> >exactly the same...
>
> First, imagine a spherical cow.
>
> Math doesn't always work in the real world.
Actually it does. All you need is a correct model. Now, if you can
> >Uh, it is an actual exercise in economics courses at the graduate
> >level to compare capitalism to a perfect (ie omniscient and quasi-
> >omnipotent) central planner. Your ignorance doesn't make it
> >disappear. It is useful because the math with a perfect central
> >planner is somewhat easier. And if you already know the outcomes are
> >exactly the same...
>
> First, imagine a spherical cow.
>
> Math doesn't always work in the real world.
actually demonstrate your hypothesis is correct in a rigorous fashion
people will be interested.
In that you are effectively arguing with a Nobel Prize winner (Solow)
in his baliwick, and no smart asses looking to make their bones have
ever managed to break him, you have an uphill struggle ahead of you...
The real world demands more than you blythely shouting "is not!".
If socialism 'worked' socialist countries would not be notoriously
fucked up.
Shawn Wilson
May 24, 2012, 8:26:20 PM5/24/12
to
On May 24, 5:12 pm, Rast <ra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > This is what economists really believe.
>
> > No, they don't.
>
> They just a few years ago gave Krugman a Nobel for that same broken-
> window bullshit.
'They' is a Swedish committee, not the general opinion of economists.
> > > This is what economists really believe.
>
> > No, they don't.
>
> They just a few years ago gave Krugman a Nobel for that same broken-
> window bullshit.
tussock
May 24, 2012, 10:49:53 PM5/24/12
to
Shawn Wilson wrote:
socialism, eh, and that the real world is always a mix of it all because the
extremes are all retarded.
--
tussock
> Tetsubo wrote:
>
>> Or we stop the capitalism train wreck in its tracks and start moving
>> towards a socialist system. One where people are more important than
>> profits.
>
> Capitalism made the West the most prosperous society in human
> history. Socialism rendered societies incapable of even feeding
> themselves (USSR, China, North Korea, etc).
You know you can have centrally-planned capitalism and market-lead
>
>> Or we stop the capitalism train wreck in its tracks and start moving
>> towards a socialist system. One where people are more important than
>> profits.
>
> Capitalism made the West the most prosperous society in human
> history. Socialism rendered societies incapable of even feeding
> themselves (USSR, China, North Korea, etc).
socialism, eh, and that the real world is always a mix of it all because the
extremes are all retarded.
--
tussock
tussock
May 24, 2012, 10:25:53 PM5/24/12
to
D. J. wrote:
> Math doesn't always work in the real world.
The math works fine. It's the assumptions behind the numbers you throw
> Math doesn't always work in the real world.
at it that can fail. Unless you do anything undefined, like divide by zero,
which is surprising easy to do in the real world.
--
tussock
Tetsubo
May 25, 2012, 7:57:39 AM5/25/12
to
On 5/24/2012 6:55 PM, D.J. wrote:
> On Thu, 24 May 2012 13:47:20 -0700 (PDT), Shawn Wilson
> <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 24, 1:26 pm, Tetsubo<tets...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> It is a straightforward calculus problem to prove that the allocation
>>>> of wealth resulting from perfect capitalism is as efficient as humanly
>>>> possible.
>>>
>>> Ha. Haha. Hahahahahahahahahahaha! Oh man. You actually put that in
>>> digital form. For the ages.
>>
>>
>> Uh, it is an actual exercise in economics courses at the graduate
>> level to compare capitalism to a perfect (ie omniscient and quasi-
>> omnipotent) central planner. Your ignorance doesn't make it
>> disappear. It is useful because the math with a perfect central
>> planner is somewhat easier. And if you already know the outcomes are
>> exactly the same...
>
> First, imagine a spherical cow.
>
> Math doesn't always work in the real world.
That was beautiful. Kudos.
> On Thu, 24 May 2012 13:47:20 -0700 (PDT), Shawn Wilson
> <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 24, 1:26 pm, Tetsubo<tets...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> It is a straightforward calculus problem to prove that the allocation
>>>> of wealth resulting from perfect capitalism is as efficient as humanly
>>>> possible.
>>>
>>> Ha. Haha. Hahahahahahahahahahaha! Oh man. You actually put that in
>>> digital form. For the ages.
>>
>>
>> Uh, it is an actual exercise in economics courses at the graduate
>> level to compare capitalism to a perfect (ie omniscient and quasi-
>> omnipotent) central planner. Your ignorance doesn't make it
>> disappear. It is useful because the math with a perfect central
>> planner is somewhat easier. And if you already know the outcomes are
>> exactly the same...
>
> First, imagine a spherical cow.
>
> Math doesn't always work in the real world.
> .
> JimP.
tussock
May 25, 2012, 2:13:46 PM5/25/12
to
Shawn Wilson wrote:
> If socialism 'worked' socialist countries would not be notoriously
> fucked up.
Just look at those Scandinavian countries where you don't even own the
> If socialism 'worked' socialist countries would not be notoriously
> fucked up.
land your own house sits on, and you're not allowed to build a fence around
it because it's fucking public land, bitches. My how they suffer, with the
best education, health, happiness, lifespan, sense of wellbeing and
security, lack of wars, low crime rates, low recidivism, open drug policies,
good relations with neighbor states, and fuck all religious people.
Damn that socialism. The poor, poor swedes. If only they understood the
world the same way Shawn Wilson did. Like an economist. Who isn't.
--
tussock
Tetsubo
May 25, 2012, 3:24:48 PM5/25/12
to
Keith Davies
May 25, 2012, 4:51:49 PM5/25/12
to
Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 5/25/2012 2:13 PM, tussock wrote:
>> Shawn Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> If socialism 'worked' socialist countries would not be notoriously
>>> fucked up.
>>
>> Just look at those Scandinavian countries where you don't even own the
>> land your own house sits on, and you're not allowed to build a fence around
>> it because it's fucking public land, bitches. My how they suffer, with the
>> best education, health, happiness, lifespan, sense of wellbeing and
>> security, lack of wars, low crime rates, low recidivism, open drug policies,
>> good relations with neighbor states, and fuck all religious people.
>>
>> Damn that socialism. The poor, poor swedes. If only they understood the
>> world the same way Shawn Wilson did. Like an economist. Who isn't.
>>
>
> Poor bastards. How do they make it through the day?
Drugs.
> On 5/25/2012 2:13 PM, tussock wrote:
>> Shawn Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> If socialism 'worked' socialist countries would not be notoriously
>>> fucked up.
>>
>> Just look at those Scandinavian countries where you don't even own the
>> land your own house sits on, and you're not allowed to build a fence around
>> it because it's fucking public land, bitches. My how they suffer, with the
>> best education, health, happiness, lifespan, sense of wellbeing and
>> security, lack of wars, low crime rates, low recidivism, open drug policies,
>> good relations with neighbor states, and fuck all religious people.
>>
>> Damn that socialism. The poor, poor swedes. If only they understood the
>> world the same way Shawn Wilson did. Like an economist. Who isn't.
>>
>
> Poor bastards. How do they make it through the day?
Legally-available, reasonably-priced, reliable drugs.
Keith
--
Keith Davies "chain letter and chain mail...
keith....@kjdavies.org not the same thing, right?"
KJD-IMC: http://www.kjd-imc.org -- Naomi
Echelon: http://www.echelond20.org
D.J.
May 25, 2012, 5:49:17 PM5/25/12
to
On Fri, 25 May 2012 14:25:53 +1200, tussock <sc...@clear.net.nz>
wrote:
But spherical cows don't exist.
I had to minor in math for my bachelors degree, but I didn't have to
get to math classes that declared such things as spherical cows... for
which I am very glad. I would have spent so much time lauging at such
an absurdity, I would have likekly flunked.
Well... I do know for some calculations it is necessary... but I would
still ahve laughed.
wrote:
I had to minor in math for my bachelors degree, but I didn't have to
get to math classes that declared such things as spherical cows... for
which I am very glad. I would have spent so much time lauging at such
an absurdity, I would have likekly flunked.
Well... I do know for some calculations it is necessary... but I would
still ahve laughed.
D.J.
May 25, 2012, 5:49:49 PM5/25/12
to
On Fri, 25 May 2012 07:57:39 -0400, Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net>
wrote:
wrote:
>On 5/24/2012 6:55 PM, D.J. wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 May 2012 13:47:20 -0700 (PDT), Shawn Wilson
>> <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On May 24, 1:26 pm, Tetsubo<tets...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> It is a straightforward calculus problem to prove that the allocation
>>>>> of wealth resulting from perfect capitalism is as efficient as humanly
>>>>> possible.
>>>>
>>>> Ha. Haha. Hahahahahahahahahahaha! Oh man. You actually put that in
>>>> digital form. For the ages.
>>>
>>>
>>> Uh, it is an actual exercise in economics courses at the graduate
>>> level to compare capitalism to a perfect (ie omniscient and quasi-
>>> omnipotent) central planner. Your ignorance doesn't make it
>>> disappear. It is useful because the math with a perfect central
>>> planner is somewhat easier. And if you already know the outcomes are
>>> exactly the same...
>>
>> First, imagine a spherical cow.
>>
>> Math doesn't always work in the real world.
>
> That was beautiful. Kudos.
Danke.
>> On Thu, 24 May 2012 13:47:20 -0700 (PDT), Shawn Wilson
>> <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On May 24, 1:26 pm, Tetsubo<tets...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> It is a straightforward calculus problem to prove that the allocation
>>>>> of wealth resulting from perfect capitalism is as efficient as humanly
>>>>> possible.
>>>>
>>>> Ha. Haha. Hahahahahahahahahahaha! Oh man. You actually put that in
>>>> digital form. For the ages.
>>>
>>>
>>> Uh, it is an actual exercise in economics courses at the graduate
>>> level to compare capitalism to a perfect (ie omniscient and quasi-
>>> omnipotent) central planner. Your ignorance doesn't make it
>>> disappear. It is useful because the math with a perfect central
>>> planner is somewhat easier. And if you already know the outcomes are
>>> exactly the same...
>>
>> First, imagine a spherical cow.
>>
>> Math doesn't always work in the real world.
>
> That was beautiful. Kudos.
tussock
May 26, 2012, 4:38:07 AM5/26/12
to
Keith Davies wrote:
per capita, some of the lowest rates in the world, mind-altering drugs are
mostly a tourist thing, and the only countries that find it a problem are
the ones the tourists are from, who miss out on all the revenue.
Prohibition? Ha! My country too, be nice if evidence was more popular
than puritanism around the world.
Secretly, they're mostly happy because the political parties and major
press organisations agreed in the 60's to stop using crime as a
sensationalist political tool or sales promotion. Fucking socialists, trying
to make people happy when they could be profiting from widespread misery.
--
tussock
> Tetsubo wrote:
>> tussock wrote:
>>> Shawn Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>>> If socialism 'worked' socialist countries would not be notoriously
>>>> fucked up.
>>>
>>> Just look at those Scandinavian countries where you don't even own
>>> the land your own house sits on, and you're not allowed to build a fence
>>> around it because it's fucking public land, bitches. My how they suffer,
>>> with the best education, health, happiness, lifespan, sense of wellbeing
>>> and security, lack of wars, low crime rates, low recidivism, open drug
>>> policies, good relations with neighbor states, and fuck all religious
>>> people.
>>>
>>> Damn that socialism. The poor, poor swedes. If only they understood
>>> the world the same way Shawn Wilson did. Like an economist. Who isn't.
>>
>> Poor bastards. How do they make it through the day?
>
> Drugs.
>
> Legally-available, reasonably-priced, reliable drugs.
The most awesome thing of all is they have less addicts than the US does
>> tussock wrote:
>>> Shawn Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>>> If socialism 'worked' socialist countries would not be notoriously
>>>> fucked up.
>>>
>>> Just look at those Scandinavian countries where you don't even own
>>> the land your own house sits on, and you're not allowed to build a fence
>>> around it because it's fucking public land, bitches. My how they suffer,
>>> with the best education, health, happiness, lifespan, sense of wellbeing
>>> and security, lack of wars, low crime rates, low recidivism, open drug
>>> policies, good relations with neighbor states, and fuck all religious
>>> people.
>>>
>>> Damn that socialism. The poor, poor swedes. If only they understood
>>> the world the same way Shawn Wilson did. Like an economist. Who isn't.
>>
>> Poor bastards. How do they make it through the day?
>
> Drugs.
>
> Legally-available, reasonably-priced, reliable drugs.
per capita, some of the lowest rates in the world, mind-altering drugs are
mostly a tourist thing, and the only countries that find it a problem are
the ones the tourists are from, who miss out on all the revenue.
Prohibition? Ha! My country too, be nice if evidence was more popular
than puritanism around the world.
Secretly, they're mostly happy because the political parties and major
press organisations agreed in the 60's to stop using crime as a
sensationalist political tool or sales promotion. Fucking socialists, trying
to make people happy when they could be profiting from widespread misery.
--
tussock
tussock
May 26, 2012, 4:48:50 AM5/26/12
to
D. J. wrote:
> But spherical cows don't exist.
You can assume a more complex shape for your cow model, but it's
> But spherical cows don't exist.
unlikely to provide significantly more true answers despite taking thousands
of hours more to process any data.
It's like that for future climate models. Trying to figure exactly how
the climate will change involves testing millions of combinations of ideas
on an extremely simplified model of earth to see which ones are worth a
closer look. Finding which exponents across which ranges could have produced
what we already know of history, give or take.
--
tussock
Tetsubo
May 26, 2012, 4:24:31 AM5/26/12
to
the corporations.... *sob*
Shawn Wilson
May 26, 2012, 12:14:37 PM5/26/12
to
On May 24, 7:49 pm, tussock <sc...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
> > Capitalism made the West the most prosperous society in human
> > history. Socialism rendered societies incapable of even feeding
> > themselves (USSR, China, North Korea, etc).
>
> You know you can have centrally-planned capitalism
No, you can't. By definition.
> > Capitalism made the West the most prosperous society in human
> > history. Socialism rendered societies incapable of even feeding
> > themselves (USSR, China, North Korea, etc).
>
> You know you can have centrally-planned capitalism
> and market-lead
> socialism, eh,
Likewise- no. You obviously don't know what either means.
> and that the real world is always a mix of it all because the
> extremes are all retarded.
Socialism > totalitarianism, multiple famines, slow economic growth,
general poverty.
Capitalism > prosperity, no famines, rapid growth.
Extreme capitalism (19th century US, post WWII Hong Kong, some others)
> Greatest (and sustained) growth.
We can be more subtle and do statistical analysis of growth v levels
of government intervention in the economy. What do we see? More
government > less growth.
Tetsubo
May 26, 2012, 12:20:02 PM5/26/12
to
On 5/26/2012 12:14 PM, Shawn Wilson wrote:
>
> Capitalism> prosperity, no famines, rapid growth.
>
> Extreme capitalism (19th century US, post WWII Hong Kong, some others)
>> Greatest (and sustained) growth.
I'm not sure if you are an actual economist. But I know you aren't a
>
> Capitalism> prosperity, no famines, rapid growth.
>
> Extreme capitalism (19th century US, post WWII Hong Kong, some others)
>> Greatest (and sustained) growth.
historian. Capitalism is exploitation of the masses by the elite. And it
has lead to misery. Time and again. Just as it is now. We need to apply
some socialist reforms. plus a great deal more regulation. Prosecuting
the people that started the Recession would also be a good step. the
politicians that loosened the financial regulations as well. Make sure
that the system is fair to all, not just the top 1%.
Shawn Wilson
May 26, 2012, 12:19:04 PM5/26/12
to
On May 25, 11:13 am, tussock <sc...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
> > If socialism 'worked' socialist countries would not be notoriously
> > fucked up.
>
> Just look at those Scandinavian countries where you don't even own the
> land your own house sits on, and you're not allowed to build a fence around
> it because it's fucking public land, bitches. My how they suffer, with the
> best education, health, happiness, lifespan, sense of wellbeing and
> security, lack of wars, low crime rates, low recidivism, open drug policies,
> good relations with neighbor states, and fuck all religious people.
Funny, how people defending socialism ALWAYS go to Scandinavia, but
> > If socialism 'worked' socialist countries would not be notoriously
> > fucked up.
>
> Just look at those Scandinavian countries where you don't even own the
> land your own house sits on, and you're not allowed to build a fence around
> it because it's fucking public land, bitches. My how they suffer, with the
> best education, health, happiness, lifespan, sense of wellbeing and
> security, lack of wars, low crime rates, low recidivism, open drug policies,
> good relations with neighbor states, and fuck all religious people.
never any other socialist countries? Why is that? Why not North
Korea? Is North Korea not socialist? How about France? Or Greece?
Anyway... Compared to the US average, Scandinavia is *poor*. Want to
live like a Scandinavian? First, take all your money, and all your
income, put in in a pile, and burn every sixth bill...
> Damn that socialism. The poor, poor swedes. If only they understood the
> world the same way Shawn Wilson did. Like an economist. Who isn't.
aren't poor either... It has more to do with Swedish culture than
Swedish socialism.
Shawn Wilson
May 26, 2012, 1:08:02 PM5/26/12
to
On May 26, 9:20 am, Tetsubo <tets...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > Extreme capitalism (19th century US, post WWII Hong Kong, some others)
> >> Greatest (and sustained) growth.
>
> I'm not sure if you are an actual economist. But I know you aren't a
> historian. Capitalism is exploitation of the masses by the elite.
No, it isn't. That particular bit of nonsense is mere Socialist
> > Extreme capitalism (19th century US, post WWII Hong Kong, some others)
> >> Greatest (and sustained) growth.
>
> I'm not sure if you are an actual economist. But I know you aren't a
> historian. Capitalism is exploitation of the masses by the elite.
propaganda. And if Socialists knew their ass from a hole in the
ground about economics their countries would not be so amazingly
fucked up. I mean, there were over a hundred socialist countries once
upon a time and you have to cherry pick Sweden to find one that could
even manage to feed itself...
GM (or Wal-Mart, or any other business), in the real world, CANNOT
exploit me. I do not have to interact with them at all, ever. I, on
the other hand, can exploit their competition with Chrysler and Toyota
to my maximum gain. I don't have to care whether GM beneits or not,
my only concern is whether *I* benefit.
I cannot similarly choose not to interact with government. Government
can and does exploit people. Government will send men with guns to
enforce their will, whatever it may be.
You want a system based on exploitation of the masses by the elite?
That's Socialism.
> And it
> has lead to misery.
the world. The Us has never had a famine. Neither has any other
capitalist country. Socialist ones had them all the time. You might
want to ask yourself why that was. It wasn't 'bad wealther'. The Us
does not have a magical wealther machine.
> Time and again. Just as it is now. We need to apply
> some socialist reforms. plus a great deal more regulation. Prosecuting
> the people that started the Recession would also be a good step. the
> politicians that loosened the financial regulations as well. Make sure
> that the system is fair to all, not just the top 1%.
their expoitation of their power to the detriment of the people that
set up the system for failure.
It was government increasing the amount of money available to chase
the limited stock of low cost housing that created the housing bubble,
along with subsidizing the poor business judgement of Fannie-Mae and
Freddie-Mac by guaranteeing their (worthless) bonds.
When that house of cards collapsed and took the financial sector down
with it, government made the situation *worse* by increasing spending,
which promised future tax increases to repay it, which discouraged
productive (and taxable...) activity, and bailing out companies that
had made bad business decisions rather than simply letting them go out
of business, freeing their resources to allow better run businesses to
acquire them to expand to fill the void.
On top of that government enacted massive intrusions into business
practices (Sorbanes-Oaxley, and Frank-Dodd) that further weakened the
economy. All this leading to the current stag-cession.
It was *socialist* principles that wrecked the economy, not
capitalism.
Loren Pechtel
May 26, 2012, 2:27:39 PM5/26/12
to
On Sat, 26 May 2012 09:19:04 -0700 (PDT), Shawn Wilson
<ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 25, 11:13 am, tussock <sc...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>
>> > If socialism 'worked' socialist countries would not be notoriously
>> > fucked up.
>>
>> Just look at those Scandinavian countries where you don't even own the
>> land your own house sits on, and you're not allowed to build a fence around
>> it because it's fucking public land, bitches. My how they suffer, with the
>> best education, health, happiness, lifespan, sense of wellbeing and
>> security, lack of wars, low crime rates, low recidivism, open drug policies,
>> good relations with neighbor states, and fuck all religious people.
>
>
>Funny, how people defending socialism ALWAYS go to Scandinavia, but
>never any other socialist countries? Why is that? Why not North
>Korea? Is North Korea not socialist? How about France? Or Greece?
>
>Anyway... Compared to the US average, Scandinavia is *poor*. Want to
>live like a Scandinavian? First, take all your money, and all your
>income, put in in a pile, and burn every sixth bill...
And remember there is oil up there. Without it things would be worse.
<ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 25, 11:13 am, tussock <sc...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>
>> > If socialism 'worked' socialist countries would not be notoriously
>> > fucked up.
>>
>> Just look at those Scandinavian countries where you don't even own the
>> land your own house sits on, and you're not allowed to build a fence around
>> it because it's fucking public land, bitches. My how they suffer, with the
>> best education, health, happiness, lifespan, sense of wellbeing and
>> security, lack of wars, low crime rates, low recidivism, open drug policies,
>> good relations with neighbor states, and fuck all religious people.
>
>
>Funny, how people defending socialism ALWAYS go to Scandinavia, but
>never any other socialist countries? Why is that? Why not North
>Korea? Is North Korea not socialist? How about France? Or Greece?
>
>Anyway... Compared to the US average, Scandinavia is *poor*. Want to
>live like a Scandinavian? First, take all your money, and all your
>income, put in in a pile, and burn every sixth bill...
D.J.
May 26, 2012, 3:50:24 PM5/26/12
to
On Sat, 26 May 2012 09:19:04 -0700 (PDT), Shawn Wilson
<ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 25, 11:13 am, tussock <sc...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>
>> > If socialism 'worked' socialist countries would not be notoriously
>> > fucked up.
>>
>> Just look at those Scandinavian countries where you don't even own the
>> land your own house sits on, and you're not allowed to build a fence around
>> it because it's fucking public land, bitches. My how they suffer, with the
>> best education, health, happiness, lifespan, sense of wellbeing and
>> security, lack of wars, low crime rates, low recidivism, open drug policies,
>> good relations with neighbor states, and fuck all religious people.
>
>
>Funny, how people defending socialism ALWAYS go to Scandinavia, but
>never any other socialist countries? Why is that? Why not North
>Korea? Is North Korea not socialist? How about France? Or Greece?
North Korea is Deranged Dictatorship claiming to be something else.
<ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 25, 11:13 am, tussock <sc...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>
>> > If socialism 'worked' socialist countries would not be notoriously
>> > fucked up.
>>
>> Just look at those Scandinavian countries where you don't even own the
>> land your own house sits on, and you're not allowed to build a fence around
>> it because it's fucking public land, bitches. My how they suffer, with the
>> best education, health, happiness, lifespan, sense of wellbeing and
>> security, lack of wars, low crime rates, low recidivism, open drug policies,
>> good relations with neighbor states, and fuck all religious people.
>
>
>Funny, how people defending socialism ALWAYS go to Scandinavia, but
>never any other socialist countries? Why is that? Why not North
>Korea? Is North Korea not socialist? How about France? Or Greece?
Certanily not socialist.
Socialism is nothing more than a government donig things for the
populace. Like building highways, safety standards, product safety,
toy safety. Terrible deads, according to some idjits.
Communism and Nazism, in spite of claims on telly, are not socialism.
They are dictatorships.
Tetsubo
May 26, 2012, 4:27:40 PM5/26/12
to
additional knowledge.
Keith Davies
May 26, 2012, 4:53:16 PM5/26/12
to
Shawn Wilson
May 26, 2012, 5:17:48 PM5/26/12
to
On May 26, 12:50 pm, D.J. <pongbill...@cableone.net> wrote:
> >Funny, how people defending socialism ALWAYS go to Scandinavia, but
> >never any other socialist countries? Why is that? Why not North
> >Korea? Is North Korea not socialist? How about France? Or Greece?
>
> North Korea is Deranged Dictatorship claiming to be something else.
> Certanily not socialist.
Uh, in what way are you claiming that North Korea is NOT socialist?
> >Funny, how people defending socialism ALWAYS go to Scandinavia, but
> >never any other socialist countries? Why is that? Why not North
> >Korea? Is North Korea not socialist? How about France? Or Greece?
>
> North Korea is Deranged Dictatorship claiming to be something else.
> Certanily not socialist.
And... why did socialism devolve into deranged dictatorship then? Is
the possibility of socialism devolving into deranged dictatorship
sufficient to convince you that socialism is a very bad idea? You
can't have deranged dictatorship without strong government, and
socialism is predicated on strong government.
> Socialism is nothing more than a government donig things for the
> populace. Like building highways, safety standards, product safety,
> toy safety. Terrible deads, according to some idjits.
imposing its control on the economy.
> Communism and Nazism, in spite of claims on telly, are not socialism.
> They are dictatorships.
fascism, and fascism, communism and sociamilsm are all pretty much the
same thing. Nazi is short for "national socialism" and the Nazis
economic policies were purely socialist.
Nicole Massey
May 26, 2012, 6:34:05 PM5/26/12
to
"Shawn Wilson" <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115d913-425e-4f85...@to5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
On May 25, 11:13 am, tussock <sc...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
> > If socialism 'worked' socialist countries would not be notoriously
> > fucked up.
>
> Just look at those Scandinavian countries where you don't even own the
> land your own house sits on, and you're not allowed to build a fence
> around
> it because it's fucking public land, bitches. My how they suffer, with the
> best education, health, happiness, lifespan, sense of wellbeing and
> security, lack of wars, low crime rates, low recidivism, open drug
> policies,
> good relations with neighbor states, and fuck all religious people.
Funny, how people defending socialism ALWAYS go to Scandinavia, but
never any other socialist countries? Why is that?
---
> > If socialism 'worked' socialist countries would not be notoriously
> > fucked up.
>
> Just look at those Scandinavian countries where you don't even own the
> land your own house sits on, and you're not allowed to build a fence
> around
> it because it's fucking public land, bitches. My how they suffer, with the
> best education, health, happiness, lifespan, sense of wellbeing and
> security, lack of wars, low crime rates, low recidivism, open drug
> policies,
> good relations with neighbor states, and fuck all religious people.
Funny, how people defending socialism ALWAYS go to Scandinavia, but
never any other socialist countries? Why is that?
It's also interesting that folks always point to a country that has a
smaller population than most states in the United States. 9.5 million
(roughly) and 98% ethnically pure tends to make for a lot less friction.
Sweden is also touted as the answer for socialized medicine by folks who
don't want to face the spectre of the British and Canadian systems.
And in case someone down the thread didn't catch it, Socialism is only a
less strict form of communism. Control is an independent dynamic from
economic policy, though sometimes that tail wags the whole pack of dogs. The
problem is centralized power structures, and Socialism, Fascism, and
Communism are economic systems (not govvernmental systems) that tend to put
a lot of control in the hands of an oligarchy instead of a demarchy, often
resulting in massed revolt and the institution of an orloardchy until things
can settle down.
And just in case someone forgot, this is probably all way off topic and the
result of troll spoor, so we've all taken the bait and are sullied with it.
D.J.
May 26, 2012, 7:13:14 PM5/26/12
to
North Korea has been deranged for many years. Not just the present
leadership. They claim to be communists, they are more psycho than
anything else.
Socialism is anything the government does for the populace. Anything.
Good or bad.
No, the Nazis made policies to help their dictatorship. Their name for
themselves doesn't make them socialists.
Shawn Wilson
May 26, 2012, 7:41:20 PM5/26/12
to
On May 26, 4:13 pm, D.J. <pongbill...@cableone.net> wrote:
> >Socialism is predicated on exactly the same sort of control as
> >fascism, and fascism, communism and sociamilsm are all pretty much the
> >same thing. Nazi is short for "national socialism" and the Nazis
> >economic policies were purely socialist.
> >Socialism is predicated on exactly the same sort of control as
> >fascism, and fascism, communism and sociamilsm are all pretty much the
> >same thing. Nazi is short for "national socialism" and the Nazis
> >economic policies were purely socialist.
> No, the Nazis made policies to help their dictatorship. Their name for
> themselves doesn't make them socialists.
Their economic policies did though. Socialists don't like it, but
> themselves doesn't make them socialists.
Nazis were actually socialists. Certainly more socialist in every way
than Sweden.
For that matter the Nazis were also Left wing. Communists only
started claimign they wre right win after June 22, 1941...
Rast
May 26, 2012, 8:34:09 PM5/26/12
to
Tetsubo wrote...
The Soviets had elites too, and they exploited their masses much harder
than anywhere else, to the tune of tens of millions shot and starved.
> Capitalism is exploitation of the masses by the elite.
No, that's just what elites do. They do it under any political system.
The Soviets had elites too, and they exploited their masses much harder
than anywhere else, to the tune of tens of millions shot and starved.
Rast
May 26, 2012, 8:34:10 PM5/26/12
to
Shawn Wilson wrote...
EU has less crime than the US? Proof that gun control works!
EU has longer average life expectancy? Proof that socialized medicine
works! (never mind that the US has had socialized medicine since long
before Obama)
EU students do better on tests? Proof that their educational system is
better! (but don't ask who spends more on schools).
And you can do this for just about any sociological metric. These
comparisons are all fundamentally dishonest, but it's better not to
point out why.
> Funny, how people defending socialism ALWAYS go to Scandinavia, but
> never any other socialist countries?
One can get a ton of mileage out of the EU-USA comparison trick.
> never any other socialist countries?
EU has less crime than the US? Proof that gun control works!
EU has longer average life expectancy? Proof that socialized medicine
works! (never mind that the US has had socialized medicine since long
before Obama)
EU students do better on tests? Proof that their educational system is
better! (but don't ask who spends more on schools).
And you can do this for just about any sociological metric. These
comparisons are all fundamentally dishonest, but it's better not to
point out why.
Nicole Massey
May 26, 2012, 8:50:53 PM5/26/12
to
"D.J." <pongb...@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:6mo2s7tf1lpqe49ik...@4ax.com...
suspect few people would accept as valid. Socialism, which, as I said
before, is an economic system, not a governmental type, is about sharing
resources and income. It deals with centralized control of production of
resources and goods. It is possible that a socialistic system could be set
in place with no government management of it, and was the exact way things
were handled in many tribal societies. If you're going to make assertions
about things, please do some research first instead of using a SWAG.
Decades of cold war propoganda have also muddied the waters. When people try
to fight communism as a name for a rival government, it's understandable how
folks would get confused about these things.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
May 27, 2012, 12:16:00 AM5/27/12
to
On 5/26/12 12:20 PM, Tetsubo wrote:
> On 5/26/2012 12:14 PM, Shawn Wilson wrote:
>
>>
>> Capitalism> prosperity, no famines, rapid growth.
>>
>> Extreme capitalism (19th century US, post WWII Hong Kong, some others)
>>> Greatest (and sustained) growth.
>
> I'm not sure if you are an actual economist.
He's not. He took a bunch of courses but he never got his degree, he
> On 5/26/2012 12:14 PM, Shawn Wilson wrote:
>
>>
>> Capitalism> prosperity, no famines, rapid growth.
>>
>> Extreme capitalism (19th century US, post WWII Hong Kong, some others)
>>> Greatest (and sustained) growth.
>
> I'm not sure if you are an actual economist.
has never published in a peer-reviewed economics publication, he has
never been employed as an economist (though he CLAIMS that the U.S.
government wanted to hire him as one), and he has never taught economics
at a reputable school. He's only an economist in his own mind.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
May 27, 2012, 12:18:34 AM5/27/12
to
On 5/26/12 5:17 PM, Shawn Wilson wrote:
> On May 26, 12:50 pm, D.J.<pongbill...@cableone.net> wrote:
>
>>> Funny, how people defending socialism ALWAYS go to Scandinavia, but
>>> never any other socialist countries? Why is that? Why not North
>>> Korea? Is North Korea not socialist? How about France? Or Greece?
>>
>> North Korea is Deranged Dictatorship claiming to be something else.
>> Certanily not socialist.
>
>
> Uh, in what way are you claiming that North Korea is NOT socialist?
>
The fact that it's obviously NOT? It's run by the Dear Ruler FOR the
> On May 26, 12:50 pm, D.J.<pongbill...@cableone.net> wrote:
>
>>> Funny, how people defending socialism ALWAYS go to Scandinavia, but
>>> never any other socialist countries? Why is that? Why not North
>>> Korea? Is North Korea not socialist? How about France? Or Greece?
>>
>> North Korea is Deranged Dictatorship claiming to be something else.
>> Certanily not socialist.
>
>
> Uh, in what way are you claiming that North Korea is NOT socialist?
>
Dear Ruler and the Dear Ruler's current favorites, and that's it. Not
socialism at all, nor capitalism, no matter what NAME they may use for
the form of government it's simple dictatorship.
Tetsubo
May 27, 2012, 3:44:12 AM5/27/12
to
On 5/27/2012 12:16 AM, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> On 5/26/12 12:20 PM, Tetsubo wrote:
>> On 5/26/2012 12:14 PM, Shawn Wilson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Capitalism> prosperity, no famines, rapid growth.
>>>
>>> Extreme capitalism (19th century US, post WWII Hong Kong, some others)
>>>> Greatest (and sustained) growth.
>>
>> I'm not sure if you are an actual economist.
>
> He's not. He took a bunch of courses but he never got his degree, he has
> never published in a peer-reviewed economics publication, he has never
> been employed as an economist (though he CLAIMS that the U.S. government
> wanted to hire him as one), and he has never taught economics at a
> reputable school. He's only an economist in his own mind.
>
>
>
Well, I'm sure the annual reviews always go swimmingly.
> On 5/26/12 12:20 PM, Tetsubo wrote:
>> On 5/26/2012 12:14 PM, Shawn Wilson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Capitalism> prosperity, no famines, rapid growth.
>>>
>>> Extreme capitalism (19th century US, post WWII Hong Kong, some others)
>>>> Greatest (and sustained) growth.
>>
>> I'm not sure if you are an actual economist.
>
> He's not. He took a bunch of courses but he never got his degree, he has
> never published in a peer-reviewed economics publication, he has never
> been employed as an economist (though he CLAIMS that the U.S. government
> wanted to hire him as one), and he has never taught economics at a
> reputable school. He's only an economist in his own mind.
>
>
>
D.J.
May 27, 2012, 9:47:57 AM5/27/12
to
statement.
>before, is an economic system, not a governmental type, is about sharing
>resources and income. It deals with centralized control of production of
>resources and goods. It is possible that a socialistic system could be set
>in place with no government management of it, and was the exact way things
>were handled in many tribal societies. If you're going to make assertions
>about things, please do some research first instead of using a SWAG.
>Decades of cold war propoganda have also muddied the waters. When people try
>to fight communism as a name for a rival government, it's understandable how
>folks would get confused about these things.
I remember back during the Red Scare. Anyone who didn't go along with
the US government, right or wrong, was labeled a 'pinko commie'.
People who wanted to end Segregation were labelled communists. Yeah, I
remember that propaganda crap.
D.J.
May 27, 2012, 9:50:20 AM5/27/12
to
On Sat, 26 May 2012 20:34:10 -0400, Rast <ra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Shawn Wilson wrote...
>> Funny, how people defending socialism ALWAYS go to Scandinavia, but
>> never any other socialist countries?
>
>Shawn Wilson wrote...
>> Funny, how people defending socialism ALWAYS go to Scandinavia, but
>> never any other socialist countries?
>
>EU has longer average life expectancy? Proof that socialized medicine
>works! (never mind that the US has had socialized medicine since long
>before Obama)
But if you watch certain political speeches, and news organizations,
>works! (never mind that the US has had socialized medicine since long
>before Obama)
they act like Obama invented socialism. Makes them look stupid, but
folks out there fall for it anyway.
ala
May 27, 2012, 10:39:06 AM5/27/12
to
"Nicole Massey" <ny...@gypsyheir.com> wrote in message
news:jprttq$68e$1...@news.albasani.net...
>
>
> That's the broadest definition of socialism I've ever heard, and one that
> I suspect few people would accept as valid. Socialism, which, as I said
> before, is an economic system, not a governmental type, is about sharing
> resources and income. It deals with centralized control of production of
> resources and goods. It is possible that a socialistic system could be set
> in place with no government management of it, and was the exact way things
> were handled in many tribal societies.
The classic example is a nunnery
>
> That's the broadest definition of socialism I've ever heard, and one that
> I suspect few people would accept as valid. Socialism, which, as I said
> before, is an economic system, not a governmental type, is about sharing
> resources and income. It deals with centralized control of production of
> resources and goods. It is possible that a socialistic system could be set
> in place with no government management of it, and was the exact way things
> were handled in many tribal societies.
although god knows, the church is itself a government and preposterously
large bureacracy
Tetsubo
May 27, 2012, 1:40:03 PM5/27/12
to
My favorite part is that an organization founded on the words of Christ
has a leader that lives in a palace.
Shawn Wilson
May 27, 2012, 4:10:03 PM5/27/12
to
On May 27, 6:47 am, D.J. <pongbill...@cableone.net> wrote:
> Broad definition so Shawn could understand, but he apparently didn't.
Yeah, when we arrive at the "bash Shawn because he actually knows what
> Broad definition so Shawn could understand, but he apparently didn't.
he's talking about so we aren't ever going to win on points stage" the
discussion is over. I will accept that as your concession.
tussock
May 27, 2012, 10:14:15 AM5/27/12
to
Shawn Wilson wrote:
other than a fucking fiction novel, you retard.
>> and market-lead socialism, eh,
>
> Likewise- no. You obviously don't know what either means.
When the state 100% owns a power generation company, employs an
independent board of directors to run it as a profit-based regime on an open
market basis (with government ministers representing the normal position of
shareholders), and keeps all those profits to provide toward universal
health and education spending, that's market-lead socialism. Retard.
>> and that the real world is always a mix of it all because the
>> extremes are all retarded.
>
> Wrong again. Theory aside, we can merely look at world history-
>
> Socialism > totalitarianism, multiple famines, slow economic growth,
> general poverty.
Again, you confuse dictatorships with socialism. You retard. Fiji right
now is a military dictatorship, but they haven't claimed ownership of
anything. So they're a capitalist dictatorship. Right now.
> We can be more subtle and do statistical analysis of growth v levels
> of government intervention in the economy.
Dude, if you want to argue that command economies don't respond well to
change, you might need to go back to the 80's to find someone to argue with.
If you're going to argue capitalist societies are smarter, please explain
the total lack of response to the threat of climate change.
'Cause we all gettin' right up in the face of +4 now, and that's certain
global population collapse, slowly closing in on ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoxic_event
and here capitalism is busy fighting against the science because it's
more profitable than continuing to exist as a species, this quarter, but not
so much in the long term.
--
tussock
> tussock wrote:
>
>>> Capitalism made the West the most prosperous society in human
>>> history. Socialism rendered societies incapable of even feeding
>>> themselves (USSR, China, North Korea, etc).
>>
>> You know you can have centrally-planned capitalism
>
> No, you can't. By definition.
Pick a fucking dictionary or reference work of your choice. Something
>
>>> Capitalism made the West the most prosperous society in human
>>> history. Socialism rendered societies incapable of even feeding
>>> themselves (USSR, China, North Korea, etc).
>>
>> You know you can have centrally-planned capitalism
>
> No, you can't. By definition.
other than a fucking fiction novel, you retard.
>> and market-lead socialism, eh,
>
> Likewise- no. You obviously don't know what either means.
independent board of directors to run it as a profit-based regime on an open
market basis (with government ministers representing the normal position of
shareholders), and keeps all those profits to provide toward universal
health and education spending, that's market-lead socialism. Retard.
>> and that the real world is always a mix of it all because the
>> extremes are all retarded.
>
> Wrong again. Theory aside, we can merely look at world history-
>
> Socialism > totalitarianism, multiple famines, slow economic growth,
> general poverty.
now is a military dictatorship, but they haven't claimed ownership of
anything. So they're a capitalist dictatorship. Right now.
> We can be more subtle and do statistical analysis of growth v levels
> of government intervention in the economy.
change, you might need to go back to the 80's to find someone to argue with.
If you're going to argue capitalist societies are smarter, please explain
the total lack of response to the threat of climate change.
'Cause we all gettin' right up in the face of +4 now, and that's certain
global population collapse, slowly closing in on ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoxic_event
and here capitalism is busy fighting against the science because it's
more profitable than continuing to exist as a species, this quarter, but not
so much in the long term.
--
tussock
D.J.
May 28, 2012, 12:11:03 PM5/28/12
to
tussock
May 28, 2012, 9:36:02 AM5/28/12
to
Tetsubo wrote:
> ala wrote:
>> The classic example [of non-state socialism] is a nunnery
city-state, how is God supposed to know he's the Pope? It's not like they
burn the first born of every animal so God can follow the nice smell down
from his home in the clouds any more.
--
tussock
> ala wrote:
>> The classic example [of non-state socialism] is a nunnery
>>
>> although god knows, the church is itself a government and preposterously
>> large bureaucracy
>
> My favorite part is that an organization founded on the words of Christ
> has a leader that lives in a palace.
If he didn't have all the fancy do-dads lying around in his private
>> although god knows, the church is itself a government and preposterously
>> large bureaucracy
>
> My favorite part is that an organization founded on the words of Christ
> has a leader that lives in a palace.
city-state, how is God supposed to know he's the Pope? It's not like they
burn the first born of every animal so God can follow the nice smell down
from his home in the clouds any more.
--
tussock
Tetsubo
May 29, 2012, 7:36:41 AM5/29/12
to
ButlerGate. A Vatican spokesman said that it was the job of the Pope to
defend the gospel. If your gospel can't stand on its own two feet, it
isn't worth defending. How about you start living a Christ-like life
rather than just talking about it?
ala
May 29, 2012, 9:19:31 PM5/29/12
to
0 new messages