 |
| |
|
|
Comrade Tassadar
|
|
quote:
I have nothing against communism, but look at every communist country in the world. EVERYONE (except the leader, somehow) is poor. |
But the "communist" nations youve been taught about weren't communist - They were dictatorships.
Thus making your point deflate.
quote:
But come to America with a free market, and very few people are even close to poor. |
I live in America, and I can tell you there are a ton of people who are poor  America isn't the rosy paradise that American propaganda makes it out to be.
quote:
The people run Europe, |
Interestingly, Europe is quite socialist.
quote:
America stills stands as the leading economy, only superpower, and largest industry in the world. |
And China is quickly rising to overtake America. Soon America will not be the leader in all things.
quote:
Russia couldn't keep people under communism, and lost its control. |
Perhaps because the people wanted to be free (which would be essential for communism)?
quote:
he only country still standing is China. And the only reason is because any one who disagrees is killed or thrown in jail for a couple (actually a lot) of years. |
I'm sure the Chinese posters who post on Apolyton would disagree.
quote:
The only reason its economy has fallen is because it has 2 billion people all working crappy jobs. |
Much less than 2 billion, and its economy is increasingly becoming much more modern.
quote:
China took the liberty to kill its own people. |
Yes, and even communists around the world condemned that - Killing the people for wanting something is hardly communist.
quote:
But look at China and old USSR. Practically everyone, with the exception of the politicians, is way under the American and European living standard. |
Perhaps in the old USSR, but thats perhaps partially because, I don't know, the nation just collapsed!!!!. It kind of destroys stability a little.
And remember that the Chinese middle class is larger than the entire population of the United States.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zeiter
|
|
Hmmm, there are some valid points against a planned economy. Although I thought Japan's economic problems were also due to unwise decisions to prop up failing or obsolete industries.
And, of course people need incentive to work. It can't just be a free-lunch. What I'm saying is a broader distribution of wealth, where perhaps CEO's only make 20 times what their workers make, instead of, oh, about a 1000 times what their workers make. You've got to reward those who work hard better. One way to accomplish this would be a higher minimum wage. Corporate profits would decrease somewhat, but not more than the business could afford. I don't think you'd want to make businesses unprofitable. Another way to accomplish more equal distribution would be higher, but more progressive taxes. Sure, supply-side investment would lag, but giving the working class the purchasing power to have a good standard of living would give a boost to the economy. In fact, I'd say that the capital is better spent if it goes in on the demand side of the economic machine instead of the supply side, but I could be wrong.
If a planned economy didn't work out, I think I'd also like a green economy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Santiago_Claus
|
|
Almost all nations with emerging markets transition through a "planned" economy, more or less. The English and Dutch had their "mercantilism", the French monarchy ordered industrialization in order to remain competitive with England, and the Germans industrialized in the name of national pride.
The U.S., to my knowledge, would be the only exception to the rule, the only nation that didn't intentionally industrialize.
Except for the Confederates, who practiced slavery, Americans so loathed national authority of any kind that capitalism sort of existed by default, and industrialism came about by the investment of wealthy corporations and individuals. (It should be noted that the South was and remains economically behind the North, and that both are dwarfed by the economic might of the West, California in particular. The "frontier mentality" would seem to translate into big bucks after a couple of generations ...)
Up until around 1910 or so there was a constitutional ban on direct taxation of citizens by the Federal government. This by itself largely precluded any sort of planned economy.
Today it is common for the U.S. government to subsidize industry indirectly through research, both via grants to universities and through so-called "dual-use technologies" developed by defense contractors as part of their day jobs. (Velcro courtesy of NASA, etc.)
There are also a few totally useless "pork barrel" subsidies backed by powerful political lobbies which refuse to die, such as farm subsidies and the National Endowment for the Arts, but as a percentage of the overall budget that sort of graft doesn't amount to much. Americans hate graft as much as they love it, so that when the pork reaches "critical mass" there's a backlash against it and it gets cut (ref. the Newt Gingrich / Bill Clinton reforms of 1994.)
As for raising the minimum wage, I'm fairly convinced that in the absence of a "gold standard" a minimum wage ultimately pegs the value of the currency to unskilled labor, which is a fancy way of saying "minimum wages should cause inflation", except they don't because the response to the temporary imbalance of labor cost makes it permanent. If the minimum wage worldwide were fixed to one American dollar per hour, it wouldn't set the value of an hour of unskilled labor -- it would set the value of a dollar. But it isn't, so it doesn't.
What's most interesting is that individuals acting out of self-interest prevent the mass devaluation of the currency in general when the minimum wage increases. Instead of simply passing increased costs through as higher prices, minimum wage increases cause increased productivity (more work with fewer people, perhaps through automation) or relocation to cheaper sources of labor, such as Mexico.
These actions, undertaken individually to "reduce cost", together act to preserve the value of the currency, to prevent inflation. When the business's currency was devalued, it perceived the devaluation as "increased cost" and responded by making cuts. In finding ways to get more value out of its currency, that business and others like it collectively prevented the currency from dropping in value. It's something of a paradox to me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Quezacotl06
|
|
LOL, I have no idea why cyborgs would top it, you'd have to abandon your humanity. I'd have to give up creativity, art, sexuality, and a general good time. Who would want THAT?!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GeoModder
|
 |
The most erratic Overlord!
Jan 2004
time: 06:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Quezacotl06
LOL, I have no idea why cyborgs would top it, you'd have to abandon your humanity. I'd have to give up creativity, art, sexuality, and a general good time. Who would want THAT?! |
Why, every 'borg can have a good time (i.e. playing tetris in his head, while performing his tasks). And not all research is done by sifting through all possibilities, a sprank of creativity is always a necessity. Art, well, geometric patterns can be considered art as well. And sexuality, awkard or not, it needs to be done for the Greater Good of the Conscieusness, er? 
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
31-03-2004 06:43
|