|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
|
"When a society has no welfare programs, no safety net, no social mobility i.e. laissez-faire, an underclass is created leading to a revolutionary situation."
Ummmm when a society has welfare programs, a safety net, social mobility an underclass is created leading to a complacent situation.
--------------------
|
elax420
Anal Destroyer


Registered: 10/16/12
Posts: 15,536
|
|
Holy shit when you qoute like that it makes it hella hard to answer everything you ask bro. Surprisingly we are pretty much on the same page on this debate though.
Under the ideal communist state (collective rule) that has never existed and never will, the people will control the means of production, and before you come at me with some communist bullshit there is a direct quote from Stalin saying the State will control the heights of industry and leave the rest to the commissars.
State ownership, like National Socialism in Germany, means the State (ruling class) controls the means of production for the benefit of greater _______
I would argue cronyism and nepotism happens in any system, it most certainly happened in the USSR
Bullshit there is always a ruling class. Lasiez faire is pretty much how feudal lords lost their power, the merchants got more powerful than their lords and brought the whole system down.
No, but why not fight for the winning side, its all Machiavelli dude
We agree on that about china.
You wanna talk about Evolution make your own damn thread.
|
elax420
Anal Destroyer


Registered: 10/16/12
Posts: 15,536
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said: "When a society has no welfare programs, no safety net, no social mobility i.e. laissez-faire, an underclass is created leading to a revolutionary situation."
Ummmm when a society has welfare programs, a safety net, social mobility an underclass is created leading to a complacent situation.

That sociology degree is finally paying off
Too argue with the guy you are quoting, its not always the poor that revolt.
Look at Egypt the Middle class rose up, from a pretty peachy situation, now everybody is fucked over. American revolution was started by like the elite of the elite originally.
|
imachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw



Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,375
Loc: You get banned for saying that
Last seen: 9 hours, 35 minutes
|
Re: Economics [Re: Shins]
#18961399 - 10/10/13 08:52 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Shins said:
Quote:
imachavel said:
Quote:
Shins said: Working hard is not the way to prosperity, working smart is. I don't care how hard you work rolling a boulder around in a circle all day, if it does not produce economic value in any way its useless.
labour theory of value is stupid. Wealth is created by producing things that fill demands, not by "working hard" alone.
the thing about marxism as well is that it needs a large authoritarian stste to actually enforce it so the whole thing is an oxymoron for morons.
Working hard produces things. The more labor someone does, the more trees chopped down, the more wood to build houses.
Your way of thinking is what Id rather get away from in wide perspective economics. Labor is essential to trade. Until everything is done with machines. If talking takes the most skill why cant people sell air?
Bullshit. Just working does not necissarily produce anything of value.
you can work really hard rolling a giant boulder around in a circle but you will not produce anything of economic value.
person #1 rolls rocks in circles all day.
person #2 farms food all day.
which person produces more things of economic and societal value? Which person would you be more likely to want to trade with? Which person fills more demands of society?
obviously person #2
To produce value you need to work at producings things that are demanded by society and the better you do so the more you are rewarded. You gain wealth and so does society.
with communist labour theory of value the person who rolls rocka all day could be paid the same or more than the farmer even though he produced nothing of value for society. There is no incentive to fill the demands of society and the economy suffers. Money may be abundant but real value is not as readily produced. People would rather work hard at jacking off all day than farming if it pays the same. No one produces food anymore. Bad for society, communism is stupid.
Im not understanding your argument at all, if there is one. You are trying to compare a person rolling around a boulder all day with labor, as though thats an actual job someone would require. What a useless statement. Now you compare this with someone who drives a tractor.
Is the person who drives the tractor someone who is highly skilled and well paid? Or is a tractor driver a low paid easily replaceable laborer? Where is the validity of your argument? You are saying a person who rolls a rock around is not caught up with technology? No, a person who rolls a rock around is doing nothing. That is not a comparison for labor, which without its existence, many goods and services wouldnt exist.
Would a house be built with machines assuming no concrete is used?
--------------------
I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
|
elax420
Anal Destroyer


Registered: 10/16/12
Posts: 15,536
|
|
Hes trying to make a reference to the New Deal, where the government paid people to perform menial tasks. What he is failing to mention is that shit hella worked 
Keynesian econ is styling on all you libertarian boys so far.
|
starfire_xes
I Am 'They'



Registered: 10/24/09
Posts: 21,590
Loc: Dallas with all the assho...
Last seen: 7 months, 1 day
|
|
The value of labor depends on supply and demand. If anyone can do a job that job isn't going to pay shit, unless its so fucking hard that no one is willing to do it.
If a job takes a skill that few people have or can acquire with a great deal of effort, it is going to pay more.
That's why the talk of '6 years in college and a master's degree--and he can't find a job.
A degree in liberal arts where some person does nothing but talk about things usually doesn't pay shit--because anyone can talk shit.
A degree in engineering usually pays a lot more--because few people have that skill. But there might be a case when industry needs, say 10,000 Electrical Engineers a year, and there are 50,000 available--what happens? Wages drop.
That, by the way, is the whole idea behind 'guest worker' and H1B visas--force wages down by bringing in cheap foreign labor.
And fucking the US citizens.
|
imachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw



Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,375
Loc: You get banned for saying that
Last seen: 9 hours, 35 minutes
|
Re: Economics [Re: elax420]
#18961474 - 10/10/13 09:09 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
What is the difference between capitalistic dictatorship and communist dictatorship? Right now we have a system where the entire country has to pay for one persons doctor bill. Wait is that it? That doesnt sound so bad
What we really have is a system where the entire country has to pay taxes so health insurance companies get everyones money because we are forced to.
Is there really a big difference?
--------------------
I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
|
qman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 1 day, 21 hours
|
Re: Economics [Re: elax420]
#18961516 - 10/10/13 09:18 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
elax420 said: Hes trying to make a reference to the New Deal, where the government paid people to perform menial tasks. What he is failing to mention is that shit hella worked 
Keynesian econ is styling on all you libertarian boys so far.
"New Deal, where the government paid people to perform menial tasks. ....that shit hella worked"
Do you really believe this? Why not send out this blueprint to Africa and watch economic prosperity take off before our eyes?
|
elax420
Anal Destroyer


Registered: 10/16/12
Posts: 15,536
|
Re: Economics [Re: qman]
#18961567 - 10/10/13 09:32 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
qman said:
Quote:
elax420 said: Hes trying to make a reference to the New Deal, where the government paid people to perform menial tasks. What he is failing to mention is that shit hella worked 
Keynesian econ is styling on all you libertarian boys so far.
"New Deal, where the government paid people to perform menial tasks. ....that shit hella worked"
Do you really believe this? Why not send out this blueprint to Africa and watch economic prosperity take off before our eyes? 
Go on tell me how the new deal failed
|
Shins
Fun guy



Registered: 09/15/04
Posts: 16,337
|
Re: Economics [Re: elax420]
#18961651 - 10/10/13 09:49 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Keynsian "stimulus" creates a short term boom but also a greater lasting bust. The money junkies need to keep the debt rolling to continue the game of musicsl chairs. They get to cycle the money and create compound inflation which leeches your wages and savings into their cycle. If the debt ceiling is not raised and the cycle of exponential debt shoud shop, catastrophic deflation and high interest rates.
|
qman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 1 day, 21 hours
|
Re: Economics [Re: elax420]
#18961699 - 10/10/13 10:01 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
elax420 said:
Quote:
qman said:
Quote:
elax420 said: Hes trying to make a reference to the New Deal, where the government paid people to perform menial tasks. What he is failing to mention is that shit hella worked 
Keynesian econ is styling on all you libertarian boys so far.
"New Deal, where the government paid people to perform menial tasks. ....that shit hella worked"
Do you really believe this? Why not send out this blueprint to Africa and watch economic prosperity take off before our eyes? 
Go on tell me how the new deal failed

If you are insinuating that the "New Deal" ended the Great Depression and was a proven economic success, that would be incorrect.
|
elax420
Anal Destroyer


Registered: 10/16/12
Posts: 15,536
|
Re: Economics [Re: qman] 1
#18962094 - 10/10/13 11:28 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Well thats like your opinion man
Now back it up.
you cant just say shit like that with no supporting evidence whatsoever
What are you Shins
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: Economics [Re: elax420]
#18963237 - 10/11/13 10:10 AM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
elax420 said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said: "When a society has no welfare programs, no safety net, no social mobility i.e. laissez-faire, an underclass is created leading to a revolutionary situation."
Ummmm when a society has welfare programs, a safety net, social mobility an underclass is created leading to a complacent situation.

That sociology degree is finally paying off
Too argue with the guy you are quoting, its not always the poor that revolt.
Look at Egypt the Middle class rose up, from a pretty peachy situation, now everybody is fucked over. American revolution was started by like the elite of the elite originally.
I don't have a sociology degree. And as revolting as I find the poor they are, in fact, mostly complacent. The government has bought them off with my money.
--------------------
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: Economics [Re: elax420]
#18963244 - 10/11/13 10:11 AM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
elax420 said: Hes trying to make a reference to the New Deal, where the government paid people to perform menial tasks. What he is failing to mention is that shit hella worked 
Uh no. It prolonged the bad timesQuote:
Keynesian econ is styling on all you libertarian boys so far.
Uh no.
--------------------
|
Memories



Registered: 05/09/12
Posts: 10,484
Loc: Suwannee River
Last seen: 3 years, 9 months
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said: Human evolution in the physical sense is long over.
That is not true. Evolution is always taking place.
|
qman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 1 day, 21 hours
|
Re: Economics [Re: elax420]
#18963550 - 10/11/13 11:35 AM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
elax420 said: Well thats like your opinion man
Now back it up.
you cant just say shit like that with no supporting evidence whatsoever
What are you Shins 
The "New Deal" did not change a dam thing in the 30's, and if it wasn't for WW2, the economic malaise would have continued for another decade.
|
elax420
Anal Destroyer


Registered: 10/16/12
Posts: 15,536
|
Re: Economics [Re: qman]
#18963631 - 10/11/13 11:56 AM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Holy shit 

Yall be blind as Ray Charles
The war didnt start till the end of 1941, the new deal started in 1933 (when the GDP started to rise again ) even still saying the war saved us is just another case for gvmnt spending

The fact none of you guys have brought up stagflation as a case against Keynes lets me know you just listen to whatever the ultra right talking heads tell yall.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: Economics [Re: elax420]
#18963679 - 10/11/13 12:05 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
elax420 said: Holy shit 

Yall be blind as Ray Charles
The war didnt start till the end of 1941, the new deal started in 1933 (when the GDP started to rise again ) even still saying the war saved us is just another case for gvmnt spending

The fact none of you guys have brought up stagflation as a case against Keynes lets me know you just listen to whatever the ultra right talking heads tell yall.
Let's see, Stevie. The New Deal started in 1933 and 6 years later the economy had recovered to just about exactly where it was 10 years before. Yep, real humdinger of a success. Even a dead cat will bounce if you drop it from high enough.
I didn't say the war saved anything. The New Deal hampered recovery that would have been far more robust without it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
--------------------
|
qman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 1 day, 21 hours
|
Re: Economics [Re: elax420]
#18963738 - 10/11/13 12:20 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
elax420 said: Holy shit 

Yall be blind as Ray Charles
The war didnt start till the end of 1941, the new deal started in 1933 (when the GDP started to rise again ) even still saying the war saved us is just another case for gvmnt spending

The fact none of you guys have brought up stagflation as a case against Keynes lets me know you just listen to whatever the ultra right talking heads tell yall.
Thank you for proving my point, by 1939-40 the US economy just started to pick up from massive military orders from Europe, unemployment was still over 15% at that time.
|
elax420
Anal Destroyer


Registered: 10/16/12
Posts: 15,536
|
Re: Economics [Re: qman]
#18964082 - 10/11/13 01:42 PM (10 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Qman do you understand what a depression actually means?
2 or more years of economic down turn, looks like the New deal did exactly what it was supposed to, stabilize the economy.
You do know that unemployment was at 25% during a good portion of the depression, and WORLD gdp dropped by 66%? I didnt prove your point for shit, those military orders were filled by the fed and massive government spending anyway.
Zap
first what the fuck is stevie, Stevie wonder? i dont get these pop culture references from the 50's bruhh i aint that old. Those statements tell me you haven't looked into the history or economics of the period at all. Even ardent classical economists were doubting the "invisible hand" and had no explanation for wtf happened. You are just playing the revisionist card now. I go to a school that is so conservative people boo and scoff in class when you mention FDR yet even they acknowledge the importance of the New Deal. Seriously even the most conservative of professors agree with that statement. What business school did you go to, Rush Limbaugh's school of economics?
|
|