patrick.net

Dan8267 says

OK, so your ignorance of law and American history is also great. And now I'm stalking to both Goran_K and Strategist.

The Sherman Act of 1890, the Clayton Act of 1914, and the Robinson-Patman Act of 1936 all prohibit this practice. The Federal Trade Commission Act authorizes the Federal Trade Commission to enforce the other three antitrust laws, although they rarely do so today. Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act prohibits "unfair methods of competition" and "deceptive practices".

Offering discounts for exclusive use does not violate Anti Trust laws.
Fast foods routinely use either Coca Cola or Pepsi.
Auto dealers cannot sell competitors cars.

Dummie, they were socialist society, they never made it to communism, which was the eventual goal.

Dan8267 says

The Soviet Union was a communist society. Communism is an economic system. Socialism is not. Saying a socialist country is like saying a taxist society, as if any society could run without taxes. By the way, taxes are by definition socialism.

You are still equating socialism and communism, and that's just plain stupid.

By the way, if you go just off of names, your going to be fooled. Iceland is green and lush. The vikings named it Iceland to discourage immigrants. Meanwhile, Greenland is covered in ice. The vikings named it Greenland to encourage immigrants.

This is what Iceland looks like.

This is what Greenland looks like.

FortWayne says

Dummie, they were socialist society, they never made it to communism, which was the eventual goal.

Feel free to provide evidence to support your statement. Start by clearly distinguishing communism and socialism. I can't wait to read your brilliant paper.

P N Dr Lo R says

I've heard it described as being satisfied with what you've got.

That's a good barometer, but I want to know at what income level I should start being jealous and hating people. :)

Just curious--

Is it possible for someone to realize that large wealth disparity kills an economy without being jealous? Or hating people?

Or are those two concepts intertwined somehow?

Another question:

Is it possible for one to believe that hard work and innovation should be valued more by society than previously gotten wealth?

errc says

The US pharmaceutical industry is basically subsidizing the the R and D for all the countries that have socialist single payer healthcare systems. This despite the fact that most of the pharm industry budgets are geared towards marketing.

--------------

American labor is subsidizing it, not big pharma. Especially younger people like me that pay into the lemon Socialist private health insurance industry, and never ever ever ever go to the doctor, for anything. Thanks a lot, Christian Republicans and independents(lol) who voted for this shitty Heritage Foundation system!

Ummm wait - I believe Democrats forced Health Care down our throats. Pelosi and Obama took all the credit, right?

joeyjojojunior says

Is it possible for someone to realize that large wealth disparity kills an economy without being jealous? Or hating people?

No it does not kill an economy. If everyone makes $1000 per month, and gets a $100 raise, but one person gets a $1 million raise, you have wealth disparity. It does not make anyone else poorer, and does not kill the economy. Just be happy with your raise, and stop whining.

joeyjojojunior says

Is it possible for one to believe that hard work and innovation should be valued more by society than previously gotten wealth?

Sure you can believe that and anything else you want. It's the free market that determines what is fair compensation for all, not you and Dan.

Dan8267 says

FortWayne says

Dummie, they were socialist society, they never made it to communism, which was the eventual goal.

Feel free to provide evidence to support your statement. Start by clearly distinguishing communism and socialism. I can't wait to read your brilliant paper.

Here it is:
Image result for definition communism socialism capitalism
On this page we will compare Socialism, Capitalism and Communism. First let us define the terms. Socialism: Socialism is a concept that individuals should not have ownership of land, capital (money), or industry, but rather the whole community collectively owns and controls property, goods, and production.
Capitalism, Socialism or Communism - The Cultural War
www.culture-war.info/Socialism.html
http://www.culture-war.info/Socialism.html

Strategist says

No it does not kill an economy. If everyone makes $1000 per month, and gets a $100 raise, but one person gets a $1 million raise, you have wealth disparity. It does not make anyone else poorer, and does not kill the economy. Just be happy with your raise, and stop whining.

Except that money isn't created out of thin air. That $1MM raise is coming out of someone else's pocket (I know, productivity increases grow the pie, but we're talking 2%/year. Not nearly enough to finance a $1MM raise). So increasing wealth disparity absolutely kills an economy.

Strategist says

Sure you can believe that and anything else you want. It's the free market that determines what is fair compensation for all, not you and Dan.

And that's the problem. The market doesn't make optimal decisions.

Strategist says

www.culture-war.info/Socialism.html

http://www.culture-war.info/Socialism.html

Dear Dan,
I hope this finally educates you. But I know it won't.

Strategist
Your evil capitalist friend.

joeyjojojunior says

Strategist says

Sure you can believe that and anything else you want. It's the free market that determines what is fair compensation for all, not you and Dan.

And that's the problem. The market doesn't make optimal decisions.

But you and Dan do? Dan even thinks there is no such thing as socialism.

Strategist says

But you and Dan do? Dan even thinks there is no such thing as socialism.

Why would you ask that? I'm certainly not saying that the US should hand over the power for all economic decisions to me.

Strategist says

Here it is:

Pointing to other people's blogs isn't making an argument. I'm not going to review every crackpot conspiracy site you linked to.

Strategist says

Dan even thinks there is no such thing as socialism.

I've never written anything that can even remotely be interpreted as that. In fact, I've stated many times what socialism is and how it works, thus contradicting your statement. But hey, reality never did influence your writing.

Dan8267 says

There is no such thing as a socialist country. All countries use the tactic of socialism, but it's a tactic, not a system.

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

Dan even thinks there is no such thing as socialism.

I've never written anything that can even remotely be interpreted as that. In fact, I've stated many times what socialism is and how it works, thus contradicting your statement. But hey, reality never did influence your writing.

My, what a short memory you have.

joeyjojojunior says

Is it possible for one to believe that hard work and innovation should be valued more by society than previously gotten wealth?

Sure. Go and pay someone lots of money for hard work and being innovated. You've just solved the problem for yourself.

Dan8267 says

FortWayne says

Dummie, they were socialist society, they never made it to communism, which was the eventual goal.

Feel free to provide evidence to support your statement. Start by clearly distinguishing communism and socialism. I can't wait to read your brilliant paper.

Actually Love and Forgiveness is correct here. At least according to the Soviet political terminology. I have come across a definition that sounded like this: "Socialism is where workers contribute to society according to their abilities and receive benefits according to their contributions. In communism they get whatever they need, regardless of their contributions." I.e. in communism there's no money, there's plenty of everything and it is shared among all according to their needs. Socialisms - similar to capitalism, people work for salaries, except that the means of production are not privately owned. Anyway, this is my understanding of the terminology used in the Soviet union.

FP says

Actually Love and Forgiveness is correct here. At least according to the Soviet political terminology. I have come across a definition that sounded like this: "Socialism is where workers contribute to society according to their abilities and receive benefits according to their contributions. In communism they get whatever they need, regardless of their contributions." I.e. in communism there's no money, there's plenty of everything and it is shared among all according to their needs. Socialisms - similar to capitalism, people work for salaries, except that the means of production are not privately owned. Anyway, this is my understanding of the terminology used in the Soviet union.

In any event, the key to a successful system is incentives. It's not just humans, but animals too need incentives if they are gonna be trained to do what needs to be done. The need for incentives is in our genes and cannot be changed for a million years. That lack of incentives in communism and socialism is what ultimately leads to it's failure, leaving the masses in extreme poverty.

Goran_K says

Sure. Go and pay someone lots of money for hard work and being innovated. You've just solved the problem for yourself.

If only it were that simple. Unfortunately, one person paying for innovation and hard work will do absolutely nothing to change the US economy. Problem not solved.

Strategist says

In any event, the key to a successful system is incentives.

There is a widespread myth that the socialist economies faltered because people there were not working hard because of lack of incentives. That is not true. Incentives do not have to be monetary and people there did work as hard as in many western capitalist countries.

The reasons why centrally planned economies do not do well are:

(1) Accurate information for the state of the economy does not reach the the central planning body; there a lot of levels of management (party apparatchiks) along the way who exaggerate/modify/hide information.

(2) The economy is just too complicated and it is impossible (yet) to plan all aspects of it well.

On the other hand economies with no central planning, regulation and involvement also cannot function well. In the best case it leads to boom-bust cycles and poverty. In the worst case, well, the end of the world; capitalism is short sighted after all.

So the question is not which one is better, but what is the right amount of government role in the economy.

FP says

Strategist says

In any event, the key to a successful system is incentives.

There is a widespread myth that the socialist economies faltered because people there were not working hard because of lack of incentives. That is not true. Incentives do not have to be monetary and people there did work as hard as in many western capitalist countries.

The reasons why centrally planned economies do not do well are:

(1) Accurate information for the state of the economy does not reach the the central planning body; there a lot of levels of management (party apparatchiks) along the way who exaggerate/modify/hide information.

(2) The economy is just too complicated and it is impossible (yet) to plan all aspects of it well.

Bullshit. Capitalist countries have those issues too.
Here is an e.g. When I was in college i read an article about the USSR. They had these teams of police who would go to movie theaters, and make those who called in sick to go back to work. Do you think these people really do much even when they are at work? Hello? they get their paycheck anyway.
Another e.g. I was in Socialist Poland in 1980 visiting my first girlfriend i had met in London. I was at a government office trying to extend my visa for a few days. There was a short line, but the gal at the window was as slow as a snail. Suddenly she went away. No one bothered to take her place, even though they were sitting around doing nothing. Finally she came back, and after a long wait I got the visa extended. It took 10 seconds to stamp my passport.

FP says

On the other hand economies with no central planning, regulation and involvement also cannot function well. In the best case it leads to boom-bust cycles and poverty. In the worst case, well, the end of the world; capitalism is short sited after all.

No no no. It leads to a Bust Bust cycle.

FP says

So the question is not which one is better, but what is the right amount of government role in the economy.

That I agree. Where do you draw the line? The West is closest to that invisible line.

Strategist says

Bullshit. Capitalist countries have those issues too.

No, they don't. There is no central planning of the economies there.

As for people not working in capitalist countries, I can give many examples too.

FP says

Strategist says

Bullshit. Capitalist countries have those issues too.

No, they don't. There is no central planning of the economies there.

Here's what i mean. Capitalist countries need to collect data too. But their system is more efficient than socialist/communist countries.

Strategist says

Capitalist countries need to collect data too. But their system is more efficient than socialist/communist countries.

Uffff, I give up

FP says

Strategist says

Capitalist countries need to collect data too. But their system is more efficient than socialist/communist countries.

Uffff, I give up

OK, i'll give you a second chance. Which system do you think is better? Socialist, Capitalist, or a hybrid in which case where do you draw the line?

Strategist says

Which system do you think is better? Socialist, Capitalist, or a hybrid in which case where do you draw the line?

I already answered this above. The exact role of government involvement depends on the circumstances. What is best for a developing country may not be optimal for a developed one.

FP says

Strategist says

Which system do you think is better? Socialist, Capitalist, or a hybrid in which case where do you draw the line?

I already answered this above. The exact role of government involvement depends on the circumstances. What is best for a developing country may not be optimal for a developed one.

Aaaarrrrgggghhhh. Let me put it in another way. Which system is better for:
Developed Countries.
Developing Countries.

FP says

sagacious1, again, let's distinguish socialism from totalitarianism.

I have been to Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria and Hungary in the 80's and it wasn't that bad there. Actually it was nice. Poland of course had problems in the 80's. I've heard things were not so good in Romania too. The gulags were much earlier.

You are correct, Stalin's rule ultimately evolved into totalitarianism, though that was not the case early on. His initial 5 year plan began the transformation of Russia into a Socialistic society. It was a time of dissolution of property, wealth distribution, industry confiscation, collectivization and agrarian reform all by defined Socialistic construct. It was a particularly brutal time. Anyone offering the least resistance was summarily executed. Individuals were targeted, groups were targeted and entire classes of people were carefully identified and designated for extermination all under the banner of "social reform" and in the interest of the Socialist state. Herein lies the issue with Socialism...the individual becomes disposable, the greater cause is the interest of the community state. It was during the 2nd 5 year plan, where his regime took on a totalitarian approach, targeting potential political competitors and many even within his own ranks and party. If I were to wager, I'd say this will be the next course for Venezuela's Maduro....it's the socialists way.

Yes, my travels were in the 70's in Poland, Hungary, Romania and East Germany. Primarily rural areas. It was difficult travel, many challenges to enter and exit the countries and move about with any ease. I was a young man (teens) and I found the living shockingly meager. The relatives I met all expressed sorrow and pity for me, living in such a horrible country as the U.S. I told them little, as each community had the neighborhood Kommissar ( party official who monitored speech). A tourist would not notice, yet there still was a great deal of fear of retribution among the people. Don't underestimate the power of that phenomenon...my parents, who are still living and spent the majority of their lives safe in this country, to this day would never talk of the horror's they've experienced in public. Frankly, were it not the anonymity of this forum, nor would I in such a bold manner.

Those generations after in these countries, knew little if anything of the horrors before...the education system conveniently omitted such things. Propaganda abounded. The 80's and 90's I spent most of my travel in the Middle East, so I can't account for the situation with any precision since the 70's. I can say this, there was joyous relief of the collapse of the Soviet Union, and it's noteworthy that the staunchest opposition to the Socialistic reforms across Europe via the E.U come from the Formerly Eastern Bloc Nations.

In any case, having read over my previous posts it's clear I may not have the most objective view. My natural demeanor is measured and reserved, so I'm taken aback by the visceral reaction. I needed to step away for a bit actually. However, it is confounding and frustrating to know so many, many people died in such horrific ways all in the name of Socialism and virtually no one knows of it. I guess Stalin was correct when he quipped, "1 death is a tragedy, a million merely a statistic."

Strategist says

My, what a short memory you have.

What a bad grasp of English you have. Learn the language or get out of the country.

The statement

There is no such thing as a socialist country. All countries use the tactic of socialism, but it's a tactic, not a system.

does not remotely mean the same thing as the statement

[T]here is no such thing as socialism.

Do I really have to explain basic English to you, or do you get why you are completely wrong?

FP says

Socialism is where workers contribute to society according to their abilities and receive benefits according to their contributions.

That's the textbook definition of communism, not socialism. Socialism is the tactic of paying for things as a group. For example, one socializes the cost of roads through taxes, and thus everyone is much better off than if no one paid for roads. Socializing the costs of some things is absolutely necessary because the costs would be greater than the benefits for an individual paying the price, but the benefits greatly outweigh the costs if everyone in a group pays. When Bernie Sanders talks about socializing, that is what he means. When people talk about socializing medicine, this is what they mean.

FP says

The reasons why centrally planned economies do not do well are:

One does not have to choose between capitalism and centrally planned economies. The removal of the mechanism separating society into owners and workers can be eliminated while using a distributed economic system. If anything, capitalism results in centrally planning as wealth and control is concentrated into the hands of a few individuals. Just look at De Beers as an example. They use central planning to control the price of diamonds.

Dan8267 says

FP says

Socialism is where workers contribute to society according to their abilities and receive benefits according to their contributions.

That's the textbook definition of communism, not socialism. Socialism is the tactic of paying for things as a group.

You said socialism does not exist. Hello?

socialism has two main definitions:

1) "the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy."
Usage: Obamneycare is lemon socialism, privatizing gains while socializing losses, not actual socialism. The NHS hospitals owned by the British government are actual socialism, and they work better.

2) "(in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism."
Usage: The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics began with Marxist theory, achieved a transitional social state after the overthrow of capitalism, then became an evil empire promising communism but not really getting there.

Strategist says

You said socialism does not exist. Hello?

Reference the quote then. You can't do that, can you?

Sometimes your tenuous grasp on reality is astonishing. You see things that simply aren't there while missing things that are.

Why would I say socialism does not exist when my position has always clearly been socialism, when used property and for the right things, is a useful and often necessary tactic?

Things could have gone differently with the USSR with a different leadership after Lenin.

In 1922 Lenin introduced the New Economic Policy (NEP) - partially reversing the nationalization that had begun earlier and allowing for private ownership of factories and land. This gave results and the economy improved rapidly. Lenin's vision was that NEP would satay in place for a long time (decades). However Stalin put an end to it in 1928.

(Some of you may have heard of Lenin's "will" where he recommends that Stalin be removed from the leadership of the communist party.)

FP says

Things could have gone differently with the USSR with a different leadership after Lenin.

In 1922 Lenin introduced the New Economic Policy (NEP) - partially reversing the nationalization that had begun earlier and allowing for private ownership of factories and land. This gave results and the economy improved rapidly. Lenin's vision was that NEP would satay in place for a long time (decades). However Stalin put an end to it in 1928.

(Some of you may have heard of Lenin's "will" where he recommends that Stalin be removed from the leadership of the communist party.)

Quite right, yet isn't this always the complaint? That Socialism could work, if not for Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, etc....I maintain that man cannot be trusted with this evil dangerous ideology. Yes people have forgotten the millions upon millions of innocent people who have died in horrific ways as result of this evil system. Who speaks for them? Who relates their experience with this social experiment? How does one justify their deaths, and qualify their tragedy of their lives?

joeyjojojunior says

Just curious--

Is it possible for someone to realize that large wealth disparity kills an economy without being jealous?

Wealth disparity actually isn't a bad thing. it's only "bad" when it's coupled with "income immobility". This is something you see in far left, socialist states.

Wealth disparity with income mobility is not bad. Bill Gates has many more billions than I do. Yet I, a simple multi-millionaire am still able to enjoy life at pretty much 99% of the level Bill Gates does. He has a bigger house, more expensive toys, but not at such a level that it has a negative effect upon my lifestyle. Also, I can continuously provide services or products that increase my wealth as long as the government does not get in my way, or allow other parties to get in my way. That's the beauty of a pie that gets bigger instead of an economy/system that believes the pie is limited and zero-sum.

Standard of living or quality of life is measured in part by productivity which is Output / Input (i.e., output divided by input).

In a socialist country which is riddled with corruption and crime, input is a lot larger than output. Hence, standard of living is very low.

Most socialists discount the factors going into output like motivation to want to improve, and know how (i.e. knowledge base) and competency to provide the best and most output (i.e., quality). Venezuela is learning this the hard way as gasoline is well below $3 a gallon, and there is less outside money (i.e., China, USA, Europe, etc.) being transferred into Venezuela to support its socialist government.