 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>>> Why do people from the USA want to shout about socialism?
>> It sounds that (in the US) “socialism” is becoming a synonym of
>> “Communism”
>
> What do *you* think the difference is? They sound pretty similar,
> except one has stuff owned by "the government" and one has it owned by
> "the people".
>
Yes but the devil is in the difference. :)
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> Wikipedia does not seem to support your view of what a
> socialist economics is, but that is just one source.
There are lots of definitions, since enforcing economics is part of
government, so the two get confused a lot. I usually look at multiple
definitions for words like that. Try googling "define:socialism"
> The US does not have or had a socialist party that plays any significant
> role.
It depends on what you mean by "socialist party". It's true we wind up with
only two parties primarily represented, but the policies of those two
parties change over time.
> So I don't think an American can comment on what socialism is or
> should be, at least not when Europeans are present ;)
I'm not. On the other hand, I don't think you can pick one definition and
say it's the "right" definition, either.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> And there isn't any "pure" communism, either. Even in the depths of the
> "communist" part of China's history, you still had to pay for food and pay
> to use the subway. You'd think something like the subway, where carrying an
> additional rider is practically free given you've already invested in the
> capital of building the thing, would be free under communism. Show me a
> communism that doesn't have a currency before you tell me it's "pure
> communism". :-)
Curiously, there are many capitalist countries (ok, those countries
probably don't call themselves "capitalist" because of the negative
connotations, but as said, that doesn't change the fact) where there
*are* lots of public services which don't cost anything (well, not in
cash at least; of course they are funded by taxes). And I'm not talking
just about public libraries and such, but in some cities eg. public
transporation is free. (This actually makes a lot of sense especially
nowadays because free public transportation induces reduction of car
driving, which reduces pollution.)
Of course there's also an opposing view to that, which also has its
merits. It's a well-known fact that the economy of a country prospers
when there's a lot of money traffic. The more people consume, the more
they get and spend money, the better the economy. High taxes and free or
low-cost services, however, stagnate the economy because money doesn't move.
If a large quantity of money goes directly from employers to the government
in the form of taxes, never going through the hands of employees, that doesn't
help economy much.
Of course it makes sense that there is no silver bullet to economy either.
No extreme form of economy can work, and one has to always find a good
balance.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
gregjohn <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> What the free market IS very good at is giving consumers exactly what they want
> in the marketplace. If they want lunch counters completely free of persons with
> dark skin, then the marketplace will provide it. If they want gas guzzlers that
> pose fatality risks to neighbors in collisions, and raise sea levels, the
> marketplace will provide them. If they want sustainably grown organic coffee,
> the marketplace will prove them. If they want the absolutely cheapest
> chocolate, the market will provide it using (literal) slave labor from Africa.
I'm sorry, but that was one of the most ridiculous things I have read in
a long time.
You are equating capitalism with racism? That must be the most far-fetched
comparison I have ever heard in my life.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> You are equating capitalism with racism?
No, I think that last bit is equating capitalism with unrewarded labor of
poor people who don't get to participate in the capitalism they're driving.
Child labor, "sweatshop" labor, etc. Of course, in a lot of cases,
"sweatshop" labor is better than the current alternatives in that place.
It's just a question of whether there would be better alternatives if the
sweatshop type factories weren't there at all.
It just happens that Africa has (and always had) a lot of slavery-type stuff
going on, regardless of economic system being used. It's not racist per se,
but just a fact that most of the economies where this abusive-type labor is
prevalent are of a different "race" than the economies that benefit (whether
it be in china, africa, or whatever).
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30-12-2009 18:22, Warp wrote:
> gregjohn <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>> What the free market IS very good at is giving consumers exactly what they want
>> in the marketplace. If they want lunch counters completely free of persons with
>> dark skin, then the marketplace will provide it. If they want gas guzzlers that
>> pose fatality risks to neighbors in collisions, and raise sea levels, the
>> marketplace will provide them. If they want sustainably grown organic coffee,
>> the marketplace will prove them. If they want the absolutely cheapest
>> chocolate, the market will provide it using (literal) slave labor from Africa.
>
> I'm sorry, but that was one of the most ridiculous things I have read in
> a long time.
>
> You are equating capitalism with racism? That must be the most far-fetched
> comparison I have ever heard in my life.
That deserves a price as one of the most far fetched straw man arguments
I heard in a long time.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > You are equating capitalism with racism?
> No, I think that last bit is equating capitalism with unrewarded labor of
> poor people who don't get to participate in the capitalism they're driving.
> Child labor, "sweatshop" labor, etc. Of course, in a lot of cases,
> "sweatshop" labor is better than the current alternatives in that place.
> It's just a question of whether there would be better alternatives if the
> sweatshop type factories weren't there at all.
> It just happens that Africa has (and always had) a lot of slavery-type stuff
> going on, regardless of economic system being used. It's not racist per se,
> but just a fact that most of the economies where this abusive-type labor is
> prevalent are of a different "race" than the economies that benefit (whether
> it be in china, africa, or whatever).
I was referring to "If they want lunch counters completely free of persons
with dark skin, then the marketplace will provide it."
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> On 30-12-2009 18:22, Warp wrote:
> > gregjohn <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> >> What the free market IS very good at is giving consumers exactly what they want
> >> in the marketplace. If they want lunch counters completely free of persons with
> >> dark skin, then the marketplace will provide it. If they want gas guzzlers that
> >> pose fatality risks to neighbors in collisions, and raise sea levels, the
> >> marketplace will provide them. If they want sustainably grown organic coffee,
> >> the marketplace will prove them. If they want the absolutely cheapest
> >> chocolate, the market will provide it using (literal) slave labor from Africa.
> >
> > I'm sorry, but that was one of the most ridiculous things I have read in
> > a long time.
> >
> > You are equating capitalism with racism? That must be the most far-fetched
> > comparison I have ever heard in my life.
> That deserves a price as one of the most far fetched straw man arguments
> I heard in a long time.
And that deserves a price as one of the most far-fetched straw man cards
I have heard in a long time.
You would have to explain why you pulled the straw man card in this
situation.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> gregjohn <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> > What the free market IS very good at is giving consumers exactly what they want
> > in the marketplace. If they want lunch counters completely free of persons with
> > dark skin, then the marketplace will provide it. If they want gas guzzlers that
> > pose fatality risks to neighbors in collisions, and raise sea levels, the
> > marketplace will provide them. If they want sustainably grown organic coffee,
> > the marketplace will prove them. If they want the absolutely cheapest
> > chocolate, the market will provide it using (literal) slave labor from Africa.
>
> I'm sorry, but that was one of the most ridiculous things I have read in
> a long time.
>
> You are equating capitalism with racism? That must be the most far-fetched
> comparison I have ever heard in my life.
>
us all happy free comfortable, or as many as can possibly ever be happy and
comfortable. Capitalism, the market mechanism, tends to produce what the
consumers want. The consumers are corrupted by sin. Sometimes they either
openly want bad things or they out of ignorance don't realize that something is
bad until it's nearly too late (CFC's, CO2).
Without the nagging, the marketplace has in history done things like give us
black-free lunch counters. The Jew-free business block. Or Hummers. My solution
is more and more nagging of what choices people are making. Reminding them of
the externalities, holding them accountable to standards whether they like it or
not.
And nonviolent use of the soapbox in the public square to inform persons of the
negative externalities of their actions is what the capitalists call socialism.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I was referring to "If they want lunch counters completely free of persons
> with dark skin, then the marketplace will provide it."
Oh, OK. You realize it wasn't *that* long ago in the USA that such things
were mandated, and somewhat later disallowed, yes? Near enough in time that
there's some people around who really would want to have such a thing
available? I read it as just one example of things regulated by the
government that wouldn't be regulated under a completely free market, and
that might very well show up in that situation.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
