nope

If you claim all black people are stupid and one black people isn't stupid, the claim is false. It's pretty simple.

''I can't provide any so I'll just insult you.''

you wrote

begone commie

so if you need niceness try changing how you approach others.
Nope I can't provide a source at hand, if you dispute them and are interested in those claims I suggest you look them up in your reliable sources of choice yourself, I don't care so much if you believe them or not.

''very low unemployment''

citation needed

Unemployment 1-2% in 1990 http://www.theodora.com/wfb1991/soviet_union/soviet_union_economy.html
Note also the GDP and if you're interested, maybe look up and compare to the inflation-adjusted GDP per capita of Russia in 1914

why?

Read my post again

No citation that we'll ever achieve post-scarcity.

I argued for the case

''I'd rather have an endless number of miserable people born on an increasingly polluted and crowded planet because we can!'

Pathetic strawman

^ deflecting

If you guys want to continue an actual discussion, you really need to stop feeding the trolls (KK2nd and speng), and just downvote any trollish comments without replying to them. By engaging them, you just feed them and they continue to reply with disingenuous troll comments.

Matbe Ann didnt have a sex-ed and basic budget classes.

Maybe Ann shouldn't have had kids period. If she doesn't have a husband or wife, she shouldn't be having kids and raising them in a one parent household. And Ann doesn't exist in the form described; currently she's on welfare and doesn't need a partner to help raise the kids.

The big problem with the proud defenders of Misses is that they just see piles of money and that if ones has it, it certainly worked hard for it!

The big problem with the proud defenders of Marx is that they see big piles of money and say "Hey! That's mine, give it to me or I'll shoot you!" You're just bandits with a facade of charity.

So let's just leave the poor and sick die, we're teaching them a lesson.

No let's stop enabling awful behavior, that causes all these problems.

Btw, if post scarcity happens, I would probably review my opinions regarding economics

The big problem with the proud defenders of Marx is that they see big piles of money and say "Hey! That's mine, give it to me or I'll shoot you!" You're just bandits with a facade of charity.

A capitalist who employs workers to produce e.g. a chair and then sell the chair, make a profit by taking surplus value created by the workers - they created more value than they're paid for. Now in principle, of course some money is also needed to make new investments and so on, however, in capitalism we see people who take this surplus value and fly off to Cayman Islands or buy a gigantic beach villa to live a life in enormous luxury for value other people created. That's parasitism and needs to be stopped. The don't have legitimacy to have their wealth, so it should be expropriated and used to improve society.

I don't claim any capitalist's wealth is mine, to be spent for my own leisure. My income is among the 5% lowest in Denmark, my apartment is less than 30 square meters, I wear the same clothes as I did 3 years ago, last year I donated 300 USD worth to charity, do I need more? No, but we have people who are homeless, ill people waiting for treatment, cuts in education, long waiting lists for student apartments because not enough are being built and many other problems to solve, that I prioritize over the capitalists keeping their illegitimately obtained wealth. Nobody can work so hard they deserve to be a billionaire. Maybe around a millionaire if you work extremely hard, like those in factories in Asia who work for 70 hours a week and live in a cardboard box because capitalists took most of the value they created. Billionaire is total nonsense and just shows how absurd the system of capitalism is.

Edited 9/26/2016 18:53:31

I am not a marxist, far from that actually. I aknowlage capitalism has it' sur merits and works far better than USSR socialism did. My problem with it is that it creates far worse problems than just income gap but also meritocracy "gaps". A rich kid will have more chances than a poor kid and a french will have more opportunities than a nigerian, this is the big problem of capitalism, added with a laxism of regulaltion that can only work if consumers are fully educated about the products then consume, it ruins itself.

After that, I do not believe that it is sustainable in the future, more people with a ever growing average consumption per person added to less ressources due to climats change is just unsustainable in a medium term span. Unless we find a new system to use ressources more efficiently and fairly, we should see soon enough a total collapse of the planet and the species living in it.

A capitalist who employs workers to produce e.g. a chair and then sell the chair, make a profit by taking surplus value created by the workers - they created more value than they're paid for. Now in principle, of course some money is also needed to make new investments and so on, however, in capitalism we see people who take this surplus value and fly off to Cayman Islands or buy a gigantic beach villa to live a life in enormous luxury for value other people created. That's parasitism and needs to be stopped. The don't have legitimacy to have their wealth, so it should be expropriated and used to improve society.

The worker signed a contract with the factory owner. The factory owner provides a place to work, equipment, among other things in exchange for the worker either making the full chair or a part. That's a voluntary interaction based on cooperation, not a parasitical interaction based on one member being predatory.

I don't claim any capitalist's wealth is mine, to be spent for my own leisure. My income is among the 5% lowest in Denmark, my apartment is less than 30 square meters, I wear the same clothes as I did 3 years ago, last year I donated 300 USD worth to charity, do I need more? No, but we have people who are homeless

How about you and a bunch of like minded folk start a worker owned business? You can hire homeless folk, donate profits to charity and live as plainly as you wish.

ill people waiting for treatment

From 1965 to 1989 healthcare expenditures rose by 224 percent. The number of hospital beds per 100 folk lowered by 44 percent, and the number of occupied hospital beds fell by 15%. The costs per patient-day rose by about 24-fold.

cuts in education

Government spending in education has made college fees raise to huge numbers.

long waiting lists for student apartments because not enough are being built

Way too many folk are going to college, courtesy of the fine warlords we call leaders.

Nobody can work so hard they deserve to be a billionaire.

If you can make deals with tens of thousands of workers and provide services to millions of common folk, you deserve what you make.

Maybe around a millionaire if you work extremely hard, like those in factories in Asia who work for 70 hours a week and live in a cardboard box because capitalists took most of the value they created

Did the capitalists enter their factories and businesses and take their money from them, or did they create contracts?

A rich kid will have more chances than a poor kid and a french will have more opportunities than a nigerian, this is the big problem of capitalism,

Sixty years ago, South Korea was a third world rural dumpster fire, North Korea was higher ahead in living standards even. Would you advise regulated protectionism or deregulated free trade?

we should see soon enough a total collapse of the planet and the species living in it.

No the reptilians will save us

I am not a marxist

Prove it

''I am not a marxist

Prove it''

can't prove a negative

Prove it, profligate

This thread is really hard to follow when you guys keep downvoting the opposition.

This thread is really hard to follow when you guys keep downvoting the opposition.

If there are comments you think are improperly downvoted, please upvote them. Likewise, please downvote comments which detract from the quality of the thread. Here again are Fizzer's guidelines for how/when to up/downvote (see the [?] below the thumb buttons):

You should upvote or downvote based on whether you think the general WarLight community would find the content of this post interesting, enjoyable, or useful. Be careful not to let your own prejudices affect your voting.

Edited 9/26/2016 21:09:18

I skimmed this.

The USSR in 1990 was a major superpower, had sent men into space, launched satellites, space stations

Ok that's just a long way of saying it dominated the space field to a high level.

life expectancy comparable to USA

Life expectancy isn't always a good way to measure anything that a country's policy does - look at Japan, 1/3 folk there smoke and yet they still have the highest life expectancy.

It is obvious however that as technology becomes more advanced, the old arguments against communism based on human greed become irrelevant, because machines and AIs can take over the human work and help in economic planning as well.

that's a whole philosophic musing on itself, that kind of role of AI.

Unless we find a new system to use ressources more efficiently and fairly

It's found. It's not as profitable. But you should know yourself, living in a country almost fully electrified by waterpower.

Government spending in education has made college fees raise to huge numbers.

??? Public universities in Danmark are free (or if not free, then less than 1000€ each year)

Way too many folk are going to college

collège means middle school in French, it's pretty confusing when you say this.

But anyhow, no such thing as too many learned folk.

South Korea was a third world rural dumpster fire, North Korea was higher ahead in living standards even.

source?

Would you advise regulated protectionism or deregulated free trade?

Don't know what Hanguk and Choson have to do with here, but you can see what gets from unregulated free trade.

Regulated health: patents (grounds for innovation)
Deregulated health: drug abuse; healers have motive to make you comeback to the healers, so they might do something counterproductive; make you pay for the costlier dealing instead of the cheaper one.

in short compare: http://www.ritholtz.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/US-HC-Ranking.png; http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/images/publications/fund-report/2014/june/davis_mirror_2014_es1_for_web.jpg?h=511&w=740&la=en

Deregulated industry: Bhopal 1984; London 1952, millions dead from breathing air pollution, many more hurt or born wrong

Deregulated video games: mostly crappy and made with less resources
Regulated video games: much better (patents)

??? Public universities in Danmark are free (or if not free, then less than 1000€ each year)

The cost is shifted over to the warlord, and thus the taxpayer

But anyhow, no such thing as too many learned folk.

If there's 10,000 learned folk and 1000 jobs for learned folk, is there still not too many learned folk?

source?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea

The major slowdown of the economy contrasted with South Korea, which surpassed the North in terms of absolute Gross Domestic Product and per capita income by the 1980s.

Regulated health: patents (grounds for innovation)
Deregulated health: drug abuse; healers have motive to make you comeback to the healers, so they might do something counterproductive; make you pay for the costlier dealing instead of the cheaper one.

The US has extreme amounts of drug abuse, healers making you go back to them with counterproductiveness, and costlier dealing, while having government involvement for more than half a century.

Deregulated industry: Bhopal 1984; London 1952, millions dead from breathing air pollution, many more hurt or born wrong

The US government is the biggest polluter in the world

Deregulated video games: mostly crappy and made with less resources

How is deregulating video games going to make it crappy? Reviews are very common, and there's no reason to put less effort in them, it'll make you suffer when other better products compete.

I find interesting that you used South Korea as the example to prove your point. Because it proves mine. After the war SK did indeed have a very liberal capitalist economic policy, but they also invested heavily in quality education for it's citizens, a very important thing for a "true meritocracy". Also, educated people make smart consumers, which is a pre-requisite to a good working capitalist economic system.

The South Korea model works because they have a society where working hard allows a good chance of climbing the social ladder (yea because working 70 hours a week frying burgers and working in a call-center will hardly lead you anywhere) and also because good smart consumers are able to work as a regulatory force of the system by not wasting money in stupid things and evaluating well the pros 'n cons of buying each product/service.

After the war SK did indeed have a very liberal capitalist economic policy, but they also invested heavily in quality education for it's citizens, a very important thing for a "true meritocracy".

I seriously doubt that without the government that South Korea with it's heavy education wanting culture would fall by the waist side in education. Now will there be less push to go to college? Probably. Bad thing though? No, not really. 40% of college graduates can't find work there, would it be so bad to see less push when it's doing badness?

The worker signed a contract with the factory owner. The factory owner provides a place to work, equipment, among other things in exchange for the worker either making the full chair or a part. That's a voluntary interaction based on cooperation, not a parasitical interaction based on one member being predatory.

There's no real alternative. For the many people where the choice lies between bad contracts or starving to death, it's not going to make capitalism any more of a just system. If you refuse a job, you'll probably have no income, and there are very few jobs where capitalists don't take surplus value you make. A basic fact in capitalism is that wages are regulated by unemployment - wages are kept down by always having a part of the capable workforce unemployed, so they can compete and underbid each other for jobs, being too afraid of unemployment to make demands for their share of what they make. I don't think the millions of people working 60 hours away who can barely afford food and clothing go happy to work in Asia, or the working poor in Germany and USA who can also barely afford to live on their wages. Their alternatives are worse, it's not a free choice.

How about you and a bunch of like minded folk start a worker owned business? You can hire homeless folk, donate profits to charity and live as plainly as you wish.

I have other plans for my life, and even if I didn't, I could hardly solve the world's problems with a business. And I think everyone has a duty to help those in need, it's not acceptable to have some people who do all they can to help while a bunch of greedy parasites still leech off the working class and live in luxury they never deserved. The world order needs to change to fix these problems.

From 1965 to 1989 healthcare expenditures rose by 224 percent. The number of hospital beds per 100 folk lowered by 44 percent, and the number of occupied hospital beds fell by 15%. The costs per patient-day rose by about 24-fold.

The healthcare system has indeed improved, however now it's stalling because politicians cut 2% of their budget every year and exploding medicine prices because the hospitals aren't allowed to question the price and only look at the effects. Because our liberal parties are a bunch of puppets for the capitalists who own the medicine companies and other companies. And even then, it's still a question of priority. There are still people with cancer waiting months for treatment. Would I rather let them be treated faster, by expropriating the capitalists' illegitimate wealth? Definitely.

Government spending in education has made college fees raise to huge numbers.

In Denmark it's free to go to college except for immigrants. And the fees they pay go to the government since they own the universities. But the liberal government has been cutting billions in education over the past few years, hurting quality, and part of their 2016 plan is to cut stipends from 2018 as well.

Way too many folk are going to college, courtesy of the fine warlords we call leaders.

Too many? Why do you think it's too many? I disagree - statistically they pay back more than their education costs in taxes later, people with long education are a net benefit of up to around a million DKK for the state, while those without are about 10 times lower. There are too many studying humanities and nonsense like theology, but we need more studying health science, natural science, computer science and engineering. They are some of the groups with the lowest unemployment rates in Denmark, so it's not true there's too many students for the jobs.

If you can make deals with tens of thousands of workers and provide services to millions of common folk, you deserve what you make.

We'll just have to disagree here.

Did the capitalists enter their factories and businesses and take their money from them, or did they create contracts?

See above.

Edited 9/27/2016 17:49:48

Too many? Why do you think it's too many

There's too many college graduates and not enough jobs for them while there's not enough folk for trades and related things.

In Denmark it's free to go to college except for immigrants. And the fees they pay go to the government since they own the universities.

How much does it cost to run them?

The healthcare system has indeed improved,

Not by any amount in America; it's deteriorated with government intervention increasing. And the government then justifies intervening more because their last intervention was awful.

I have other plans for my life, and even if I didn't, I could hardly solve the world's problems with a business

Of course you can't; no one can. But doing your part would be good (not trying to make you start one, just saying that it would help some folk)

There's no real alternative

With the government there is none; without it's interference, you could do lots of stuff, open a small farm and sell your product, start a business, pool money to start one with others, etc. The problem is that you government makes obscene amounts of regulation that only a lawyer could get through; meaning that only the folk rich enough to hire a lawyer could start one.

The patriarchy is inherently economically inefficient in the modern world. There is no inherent reason someone like Emmy Noether should have been forced to be a homemaker simply for her gender instead of what she did (math research). To see how economically inefficient the patriarchy is just please look at Saudi Arabia. Why forbid women from driving but allow any arbitrary male driver to give them rides? Aha this is not to prevent adultery. Instead this exists solely to enforce the patriarchy.

Saudi Arabia has a thriving chauffeur market which would be destroyed if they allowed women to drive.

Now that's out of the way, let's look further into the realms of the economics.

In a command economy, the government controls production and distribution and sets prices. This means that the government has no reason to want to improve the process. They have no competition. The consumer is supposed to be a check for the market. Without the check, the market degrades.

In a market economy, the companies vying for the market, to sell their products, are forced to make their product stand out. They do this by offering better quality to their consumers. They drive prices down. Companies have an incentive to improve and push each other to produce better and cheaper. This only works in markets that have many competitors.

A monopoly is just as bad as a command economy. Take Google for example. When's the last time Google were forced to improve their service in any noticeable manner to protect their share of the market? Bing can hardly reach Google's ankles.

Paugers was referring to the role of government in basic services such as providing water. I agree that it is the duty of the government to provide these kinds of services, however they should either let the private sector compete with them to check themselves or provide a free service. Tax should be an option based upon the amount of services you receive from the government and directly correspond to what you receive. If you withdraw your tax payments and stop the government services, that should be your choice. All taxes should be paid on a local level, in my opinion.

Anyhow, that is my observation. My personal thanks to everyone for their contributions.

I don't think it can.

It works in wartime, but for the most part, you don't know how much of something is needed and how valuable it will be at a given date in the future.

I could invest all my money in a stock, and I'd have to watch carefully all the time, because if the stock price plummets, I lose all my money. If a country puts all its money into producing a good that becomes worthless because its being produced so much, it's a crash. Even if the government decided to put priority on producing cars, a free market system would allow me to choose between cars, and make my choice.

Also, command economies don't really make non-necessities. Free markets can. In a free market, I can buy a laptop, because in a command economy, laptops would be lower than clothing (hypothetical). I'd have to wait for the government to make enough laptops for most people to buy.

If open market 360 noscope fails...

1) continue for gr8er achievement and just #blaze it

2) submit to EUSSR which has a better noscope and let them do all of the noscopes in your place

Tax should be an option based upon the amount of services you receive from the government and directly correspond to what you receive.

Mmm, I'd like to see where this goes

A monopoly is just as bad as a command economy. Take Google for example. When's the last time Google were forced to improve their service in any noticeable manner to protect their share of the market? Bing can hardly reach Google's ankles.

YouTube (a site that's noticeably getting worse, or at least in the eyes of YouTubbies) looks like it might cause flight to alternative websites. I know a decent number of YouTubers who actively talk about alternatives and even PewDiePie feels unsatisfied with the way he's treated by YouTube, and if YouTube heroes finally becomes a thing, you can probably expect flight after flagging becomes a big issue.

Google also just released a AI that is supposed to filter out trolls in searches, or something like that, so yes it is improving.

I'd more or less call these efficiency monopolies; they are efficient so they can take over most of the cake in terms of what they do; however when they get bad their slice of the cake gets smaller.