Wealth Creation

[Authoritarian]

I think you know that Switzerland is where the war criminals stash the loot. Funny that they don't have many wars, eh?

So then FRB isn't the problem, the presence of war loot is the controlling factor. Which would be a bit strange because then we're saying that the proceeds of war lead to less war, and that peace leads to war.

Edited May 30, 2010 by Chef

[babesagainstmachines]

Of course, look at the general economic conditions of East and West Germany after the wall fell. Lets put it this way, people weren't exactly trying to cross to wall to flee into the East.

You are saying something is socialism when it isn't . I can call a pigeon a duck if I want, but it still won't quack.

[Georgia O'Keeffe]

I think you know that Switzerland is where the war criminals stash the loot. Funny that they don't have many wars, eh?

Switzerland tends to avoid wars because most countries are sh!t scared of the Navy

[Stars]

You are saying something is socialism when it isn't . I can call a pigeon a duck if I want, but it still won't quack.

the socalist historical two step

[babesagainstmachines]

So then FRB isn't the problem, the presence of war loot is the controlling factor. Which would be a bit strange because then we're saying that the proceeds of war lead to less war, and that peace leads to war.

No, all it says about Switzerland is that criminals don't want their loot disturbed - nothing to do with any of that nonsense.

[Authoritarian]

You are saying something is socialism when it isn't . I can call a pigeon a duck if I want, but it still won't quack.

Compare the economic fortunes of China before and after the adoption of a capitalist free market, or perhaps compare the general living standards of the North and South Koreans. What's the key difference between all these examples I'm highlighting? The presence of socialism.

It's not my fault if the evidence doesn't fit with your world view.

[babesagainstmachines]

the socalist historical two step

the capitalist historical two step

fun game, we could play all night but nobody would be any wiser.

[Injin]

Compare the economic fortunes of China before and after the adoption of a capitalist free market, or perhaps compare the general living standards of the North and South Koreans. What's the key difference between all these examples I'm highlighting? The presence of socialism.

It's not my fault if the evidence doesn't fit with your world view.

Not socialism.

Violence.

[Authoritarian]

Not socialism.

Violence.

It's the same thing.

[babesagainstmachines]

Compare the economic fortunes of China before and after the adoption of a capitalist free market, or perhaps compare the general living standards of the North and South Koreans. What's the key difference between all these examples I'm highlighting? The presence of socialism.

It's not my fault if the evidence doesn't fit with your world view.

Your pigeon is quacking again.

You could equally say that the key difference is lack of trading opportunities with the rest of the world.

[Stars]

Your pigeon is quacking again.

You could equally say that the key difference is lack of trading opportunities with the rest of the world.

Why ask for something to be demonstrated empirically when it is clear any empirical evidence would not suffice for you?

There can only be circumstantial evidence that attempts to create socialism will always end in disaster - the circumstantial evidence being that all previous attempts have

Edited May 30, 2010 by Stars

[Authoritarian]

Your pigeon is quacking again.

You could equally say that the key difference is lack of trading opportunities with the rest of the world.

It works the same both ways though. If A doesn't trade with B and B doesn't trade with A, yet A is much more prosperous than B and the only difference is that A is capitalist, then that is the determining factor.

It's not just a coincidence that countries which embrace socialism tend to fare badly, it's inevitable. And there's oodles of evidence to back this up.

[munro]

Socialism doesn't work.

The public sector has absolutely no incentive to provide a decent service to the public because they're guaranteed to be paid regardless, the customer is the government, and as long as they're ticking the right boxes and employing their allocated quota of ethnic minorites they're doing a grand job. Cleanliness, quality of service and cost have nothing to do with it, unlike in the private sector.

Everything the gov't gets their hands on turns to cr@p and there's a sound economic reason for this, it's because they don't have to bother dealing with the impact of competition. It's why private supermarkets work when state controlled food supplies lead to shortages, restrictions and higher prices. Healthcare is no different, yet it's been weighed down with welfare statist ideological baggage since WW2 and is rarely questioned because we don't know any different.

I'd rather take my chances with private healthcare than let the gov't allocate my resources for me. It also means I don't have to beg my local health authority for treatment when things go wrong.

Funny how the money/personal finance sections of the papers are always full of people who've had terrible service from private-sector companies with their call centres in downtown Mumbai.

Not to mention the fact that in many cases the state got involved in the first place because of reckless private sector operators, but you'd have to know some history to grasp that one - try: http://vichist.blogspot.com/2007/12/adulteration-of-food-and-drink-in.html

We could cut back dramatically on the state if only people would do the right thing, but of course that gets in the way of screwing people over for profit. And where would we be without profit, eh?

[munro]

It works the same both ways though. If A doesn't trade with B and B doesn't trade with A, yet A is much more prosperous than B and the only difference is that A is capitalist, then that is the determining factor.

It's not just a coincidence that countries which embrace socialism tend to fare badly, it's inevitable. And there's oodles of evidence to back this up.

Strange how all the capitalist financiers were happy to go socialist when their banks went t!ts up. Nothing like a good old hand-out from the state, as long as you can overlook your principles - at least until the next bail-out, that is.

[Stars]

Strange how all the capitalist financiers were happy to go socialist when their banks went t!ts up. Nothing like a good old hand-out from the state, as long as you can overlook your principles - at least until the next bail-out, that is.

Most capitalists will happily accept donations

[Authoritarian]

Funny how the money/personal finance sections of the papers are always full of people who've had terrible service from private-sector companies with their call centres in downtown Mumbai.

Yet I've seen adverts by companies specifically addressing this annoyance, this is the free market solution but it comes at a cost; the cost being higher prices to pay for the English speaking staff and a more expensive end product.

Not to mention the fact that in many cases the state got involved in the first place because of reckless private sector operators, but you'd have to know some history to grasp that one - try: http://vichist.blogspot.com/2007/12/adulteration-of-food-and-drink-in.html

But this state power is easily abused to raise barriers and protect the rich and established from competiton, just look at all the lobbying that goes on at EU level. There's always a trade off, and the choice is generally between more risk but more competition, freedom and lower prices, or more regulation and less risk but closed shops, higher prices more bureaucracy. There's no silver bullet on this one I'm afraid.

We could cut back dramatically on the state if only people would do the right thing, but of course that gets in the way of screwing people over for profit. And where would we be without profit, eh?

Cuba?

Edited May 30, 2010 by Chef

[Oliver Sutton]

It's not just a coincidence that countries which embrace socialism tend to fare badly, it's inevitable. And there's oodles of evidence to back this up.

Like the Scandinavian countries?

[sleepwello'nights]

Like the Scandinavian countries?

Quick google came up with this: The myth of Scandinavian Socialism

[Oliver Sutton]

Quick google came up with this: The myth of Scandinavian Socialism

What a load of shit.

[libspero]

Clarify please: how are you defining 'wealth'?

A good question.

My definition of wealth is desirable assets, commodities and services.

Therefore wealth production is anything that creates desirable assets, commodities or services.. simple as that.

Bear in mind that many of our commodities originate abroad, so in my mind balance of trade is important. If we export little, we have less to exchange for other countries commodities which makes them more expensive which makes us less wealthy.

The reason the public sector are often criticised for not generating wealth is because they create neither assets nor commodities (with the possible exception of the BBC). They offer services, which are a form of wealth, however many people question the true value of some of the services provided (especially considering the size of the tax burden generated to pay for them).

[munro]

But this state power is easily abused to raise barriers and protect the rich and established from competiton, just look at all the lobbying that goes on at EU level. There's always a trade off, and the choice is generally between more risk but more competition, freedom and lower prices, or more regulation and less risk but closed shops, higher prices more bureaucracy. There's no silver bullet on this one I'm afraid.

Cuba?

I'd rather pay much higher prices than have the private sector foist this sort of catastrophe on us: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/30/bp-oil-spill-deepwater-horizon

Just at the moment advocates of the wonders of the private sector need to look long and hard in the mirror. Yet again the public sector ends up footing the bill for some company's recklessness, which is built into their business plans under the heading "Externalities": as far as you can possibly get away with it dump your costs on the taxpayer.

Not sure why you are bringing in Cuba, unless it is to suggest that the US felt so threatened by the "socialist paradise" next door that they just had to resort to years of sanctions to stop those Goddamn pinkos from infecting the American Dream! Drill baby drill and turn up the thermostat until we fry those useless penguins.

[babesagainstmachines]

It works the same both ways though. If A doesn't trade with B and B doesn't trade with A, yet A is much more prosperous than B and the only difference is that A is capitalist, then that is the determining factor.

It's not just a coincidence that countries which embrace socialism tend to fare badly, it's inevitable. And there's oodles of evidence to back this up.

It depends what resources and technology you have access to.

Again, show me a proper historical context for socialism, rather than an authoritarian state with a ruling class that helps themselves. This is not socialism. You really might as well call Britain socialist because it has an NHS and strong welfare state... indeed it probably is more socilaist than the old soviet empire.

Edited May 31, 2010 by dazednconfused

[Selling up]

The reason the public sector are often criticised for not generating wealth is because they create neither assets nor commodities (with the possible exception of the BBC). They offer services, which are a form of wealth, however many people question the true value of some of the services provided (especially considering the size of the tax burden generated to pay for them).

Agreed. Having started this thread, I've been lurking silently; and in fact the thread has confirmed what I suspected. Few seem to be able to give a coherent account of what they mean by 'creating wealth', and how this relates to the public and private sectors.

Injin's view of wealth as a quasi-moral phenomenon dependent on freedom (if a house is built, wealth is created, if a house is built at gunpoint wealth is destroyed) has the virtue of being novel and interesting, but the failing of being frankly bizarre, and somewhat subjective (the distinction between freedom and slavery, for instance, is not always as clear as one might hope. Is 21st century consumer behaviour the epitome of freedom or of slavery?)

[Authoritarian]

I'd rather pay much higher prices than have the private sector foist this sort of catastrophe on us: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/30/bp-oil-spill-deepwater-horizon

It's not an either/or, it's possible to have socialism and large envirnomental disasters, so citizens get the worst of both worlds. Chernobyl

Just at the moment advocates of the wonders of the private sector need to look long and hard in the mirror. Yet again the public sector ends up footing the bill for some company's recklessness, which is built into their business plans under the heading "Externalities": as far as you can possibly get away with it dump your costs on the taxpayer.

The article linked suggested no such thing, BP are paying for the clean up, it's the U.S authorities that want to barge them out the way and get the military to do it. This disaster is great news for Obama though, he gets to demonstrate his leftist credentials by attacking the oil giants and proposes yet more legislation to deal with it to show that he's 'doing something'. While quietly forgeting that the private sector pay for everything that his administration does, in the greater scheme of things it isn't the private sector that get to dump their costs onto everyone else, it's the state.

Not sure why you are bringing in Cuba, unless it is to suggest that the US felt so threatened by the "socialist paradise" next door that they just had to resort to years of sanctions to stop those Goddamn pinkos from infecting the American Dream! Drill baby drill and turn up the thermostat until we fry those useless penguins.

Yes it's a bit weird, the U.S have been very happy to undermine their capitalist aspirations when it suits them but then vilify others for doing so. I don't advocate the U.S model btw.

Edited May 31, 2010 by Chef

[Authoritarian]

It depends what resources and technology you have access to.

Again, show me a proper historical context for socialism, rather than an authoritarian state with a ruling class that helps themselves. This is not socialism. You really might as well call Britain socialist because it has an NHS and strong welfare state... indeed it probably is more socilaist than the old soviet empire.

The socialist model is flawed from square 1. It assumes that we can pool all the wealth (at gunpoint) and then distribute it 'fairly'. And when the huge leaps forward in economic fortunes fail to materialise - because the wealth creation process is penalised - the answer is even more socialism. Rinse and repeat until you're living in an authoritarian state.

Edited May 31, 2010 by Chef