This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Rolling Stone Resurrects Karl Marx (And No - It Was Not Satire)
Submitted by Pater Tenebrarum of Acting-Man blog,
The Problem of Economic Ignorance
The fact that economic ignorance is widespread is really a big problem in our view. Unfortunately even what is broadly considered the economic mainstream thought is riddled with stuff that we think just doesn't represent good economics. This is not meant to say that there is absolutely nothing worthwhile offered by the so-called mainstream. Often one comes across valuable insights and stimulating ideas. Still, there are a number of very fundamental issues on which various schools of economic thought don't agree – beginning with basic questions of methodology.
Regarding the place economics should have in our lives, Ludwig von Mises once wrote:
“Economics must not be relegated to classrooms and statistical offices and must not be left to esoteric circles. It is the philosophy of human life and action and concerns everybody and everything. It is the pith of civilization and of man's human existence.”
We agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment. There is little harm in leaving astronomy to astronomers and quantum physics to experts in theoretical physics. With economics it is different, because even though it is supposed to be wertfrei (value-free) as a science, economics necessarily has a political dimension, since politics is all about the acquisition and distribution of property by political (as opposed to economic) means. In other words, economic policy is the main topic around which politics revolves.
When Mises wrote the above words, he thought of economics as a more or less unified science, in broad agreement on basic concepts. In a way that is still true, but it is less true than it once was. For instance, to briefly come back to the point about methodology, Mises spent a lot of effort on systematizing the economic method and discussing the epistemological problems of economics. However, while doing so, he never doubted for a moment that it was quite clear to all economists that the science had to proceed by means of deductive reasoning and logic. He probably didn't expect that positivism would eventually conquer economics. As an aside, if one looks closely, one soon realizes that even the most committed positivists and econometricians secretly agree that there actually is such a thing as the laws of economics, and that these laws are not necessarily all derived from empirical observation.
Be that as it may, there is definitely a great deal of economic ignorance out there. Partly it is actually furthered by statist propaganda and obfuscation. For instance, the average citizen is not supposed to question the centrally planned monetary system, and neither is he supposed to actually understand how it works (hence what is actually a pretty straightforward operation has become a fairly complex variation of the Three Card Monte, designed to obfuscate the system's inherently fraudulent nature).
How much ignorance there is regularly becomes evident by things such as e.g. the enduring popularity of protectionism (it is almost as though consumers enjoy harming themselves).
Another glaring example is the still widespread idea that socialism – or rather, communism (i.e., full-scale socialism as opposed to its milder 'democratic' version) – would be 'the best possible system of social and economic organization if only it were implemented correctly', or the variant ' … if only human nature were different and we were morally more advanced than we actually are'.
The main problem with this train of thought is that it is actually completely wrong. When confronting supporters of socialism with the total failure and murderous nature of the communist system in the real world, a common retort is that 'this wasn't real socialism'. In other words, if Lenin, Stalin, Mao and their followers had only implemented everything according to the precepts of Karl Marx, then things would have been perfectly fine, and the communists would have erected a king of land of Cockaigne.
However, not only did they in fact follow the precepts laid down by Marx and Engels, but even if e.g. Stalin had been a veritable angel, the system would still have failed. Socialism is literally impossible as Mises has already proved in 1920. In brief: it is a system in which rational economic calculation becomes impossible, because there are no longer prices for capital goods once private property in the means of production is abolished. A system bereft of economic calculation can no longer allocate scarce resources efficiently. It cannot really be called an economy anymore. It a system that is doomed to break down in short order, and the only reason why it survived as long as it did in the former Eastern Bloc was that the COMECON planners were able to observe the price system in the capitalist countries and so could engage in a rudimentary form of economic calculation. Had the whole world become socialistic, the economy and division of labor would have completely collapsed within a few years and people would have been forced to return to a hand-to-mouth existence, barely able to subsist. Life would once again have become 'nasty, brutish and short'.
No, It Was Not Meant to Be a Satire …
In other words, it seems quite important that people really understand why socialism cannot work. After all, bad ideas have a habit of coming back after a while and an example for this has just been delivered via an editorial in the 'Rolling Stone', penned by one Jesse A. Myerson, a former 'Occupy' movement organizer.
At first many people mistakenly thought it was meant to be a satire, but it soon turned out it actually wasn't. On Twitter, Myerson runs the hashtag #FULLCOMMUNISM (anything less than the 'full' version apparently won't do), so there can be no doubt as to his ideological proclivities.
Anyway, in his article, couched in 'hip' language (the word 'blow' or 'blows' is used frequently, as in e.g. 'work blows'), he argues that millennials should make five economic demands, namely:
1. Guaranteed work for everybody, 2. a basic income for everybody (he calls that 'social security', but he actually means that everybody should get a government salary in exchange for – nothing. Being able to fog a mirror is sufficient reason), 3. the expropriation of landowners (it is not 100% clear if he merely argues for a Georgist land tax or full-scale expropriation), 4. the abolition of private property and nationalization of the means of production, and 5. a 'public bank in every state'.
The last demand sounds like he has picked up the ideas of the Greenbackers and associated monetary cranks, who hold that the monetary system could be improved if money printing were left to politicians directly rather than a central bank (for a trenchant critique of Greenbackism, read Gary North, who correctly notes that the ideology is at the root indistinguishable from Hitler's economic program).
So essentially, this leader/hero of the 'Occupy' movement proposes an economic program that is a jumbled mixture of Marxism/Stalinism, Georgism and National Socialism. Whoa!
Luckily not even the readers of Rolling Stone are falling for this stuff, judging from the comments section below the editorial. However, we have once again come across many comments that show that the problem discussed further above continues to persist – i.e., many people still seem convinced that communism would actually work if only it were 'done right'. That this is a fundamental error needs to be pointed out at every opportunity.
Not surprisingly, Myerson has become a target of ridicule all over the media landscape by now. Especially conservative columnists had a field day. However, Myerson of course stands by his nonsense, and attempted to defend it on Twitter and elsewhere. One of the more interesting conversations revolved around the accusation that what he proposed amounted to a defense of the system practiced by the Soviet Union. Since it has clearly failed there, there was really nothing left to discuss. As one might expect, Myerson retorted that of course, the Soviets never implemented his demands. In other words, the leftist trope that the 'communists never really tried communism' was predictably dug up by him. If only they had done so, they would of course have succeeded, so the story goes.
Unfortunately for him, there are a great many fact checkers out and about these days. One of them proved that not only had every single one of his demands been implemented by the Soviets, but they were actually without exception part of the Soviet constitution. On the Drew Musings blog an article entitled “Advocate For #FULLCOMMUNISM Says Soviet Union Did Not Try #FULLCOMMUNISM” has all the details and quotes from the Soviet Union's constitution. As Drew concludes, the only thing that still needs to be mentioned regarding the communists is that
“They did succeed at one thing…killing million upon millions of people in their efforts to remake society and maintain their control. #FULLCOMMUNISM = #MILLIONSDEAD. Always has, always will.”
That is not exactly an unimportant detail. Since the expropriation of private property necessarily involves force, it cannot be implemented without killing and imprisoning people. Once the system is established, it must continue to use force to ensure that the new ruling class won't be challenged and that the system remains in place.
Conclusion:
It is heartening that so many people, including the readership of the generally leftist Rolling Stone magazine, have vehemently disagreed with Myerson and heaped ridicule on his vile editorial. However, keep in mind that as time passes, the ignominious collapse of the communist system will become an ever more distant memory. In fact, that such an article is published at all is already a sign that this is happening. It is also concerning that the idea that communism would be just fine if only implemented correctly continues to be held by so many people. This is a result of widespread economic ignorance. It is more important to challenge the ideas propagated by Myerson on theoretical grounds than by merely citing historical events. Only if it is widely understood by people that socialism is indeed impossible will the danger posed by the Marxist ideology truly be banned.
The fathers of the Marxist ideology, Marx and Engels and two important leaders of the Marxist reality, Lenin and Stalin – briefly resurrected by the 'Rolling Stone'. Let us make sure they are interred again.
»
- 52396 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
The debt is a function of the new preference for the genius of central planners and the teachings of Keynes. USSA is correct by my reckoning.
I suggest most of the world is not terrorized by the USSA.
Most telling of all, is that people always vote with their feet against socialism/marxism/communism to get the hell out of it! That's why the marxists have to control every facet of your life so that you CAN'T escape -as in Cuba, China, USSR, former Warsaw Pact countries, and soon, the former USA.
Well... To an extent communism is inevitable. If our race ever manages to become a type 2 civilisation.
Absolute mastery of matter and energy will make price signals meaningless.
But... but... Obama and his merry band of Socialists claim this time it will be different!
And his sycophant MSM certainly backs him up on that!
It is far from true to say they are all fools. The psychopaths that want to be the ruling class in such a system are dangerous but not fools. Do not underestimate them. When you do underestimate them we get things like... America today.
Outstanding point, TR. I divide the socialist-collectivist-leftists into two groups. The first are the hair-brained idealists who really believe all that fairness, social justice, equaltiy junk. They are minimally to moderately dangerous. They do vote.
The second group are the people to whom I believe you are referring. These are the alpha's who know the real end game, power. Power for the sake of power. They are dangerous, ruthless and extremely intelligent.
BTW, according to conversations I had with an old Soviet defector, Group 2 eliminates Group 1 first after any takeover. You can guess why.
But, as reported this week on RT, every single citizen in Norway is technically a millionaire as their soveriegn wealth fund has grown so large from the profits on their nationalized energy industry. While capitalist astions like the U.S., Europe and Japan struggle with solvency, those Socialists seem to have done something this idiot considers impossible.
Where would we be if all energy production was owned by the people of the U.S., and all profits were funneled into the Social Security trust fund? Much better off than we are now, no doubt.
Go figure. Another Rothbard dope.
It sounds promising, but then why the huge tax rates in Scandanavia vs. large sovreign wealth fund. Seems like you wouldn't need taxes at all. A paradox perhaps?
Notice those Scandinavians don't have access to their own sovereign wealth fund, right? The state is holding on to it for them. You know, being a good steward and all that.
You'll find the dope when you look in the mirror.
There's no free lunch-that's just thermodynamics which, unlike econmics, really does have inviolate laws.
Alaska does it. "Paid to live there." They should do that in North Dakota too but the State Bank probably prevents that. And those two states have one thing in common "hunters are welcome." They have a huge crime problem in North Dakota as "America has arrived."
There's so much bullshit in your comment that I don't know where to begin. Capitalism in the US, Europe and Japan? What a joke! You don't even understand what true capitalism means.
Regarding Norway, it's not socialism (and certainly not communism) that is creating wealth there. It's simply the fact that they can sell their oil to the world and succesfully invest their money in global markets. That is capitalism! The problem is, what are they going to do when their oil dependent economy faces a world where oil becomes less important, or when their resources simply start to run out?
Norway is a unique case. It's a relatively small population which happens to live on a large natural resource. It's not evidence that socialism works, it's evidence that big government can survive as long as they can steal labor and resources from the people.
In conclusion:
- your claim that capitalism failed and socialism has won, is wrong on both counts.
- the one example you gave does not convince anyone that socialism works, it's simply shows that governments can survive by stealing from the people (and convince idiots like you that they're giving you something)
- building an economy around a single resource is a very bad idea
- Norway succeeds thanks to the principles of capitalism, not socialism
Well said! Post here more often please
Just a nature abhors a vacuum, nature abhors a country run by leftists. It was not too long ago that Europe was cited as a model America should emulate. Where did that sentiment disappear to? I suspect to the same place the fond sentiments about Norway will:
Rape epidemic in Norway caused by Muslim immigration"A wildly disproportionate number of the perpetrators are "rejected asylum seekers” – which may sound puzzling unless you are aware of the perverse state of affairs whereby even persons officially rejected for asylum in Norway are still allowed to stay"
Yes, that would also help to stem the tide of third world peasants flooding into the USA for the current welfare state bennies. Make them bigger. That will solve the problem.
If you looked at the "sovereign wealth" of say Saudi Arabia and divided it up amongst the population, how rich would they be? And how rich would any of them be if not for America's appetite for oil?
Who has the use of that money? This reminds me of the profits from the frigging lottery. It just goes into the general fund and is spent with wild abandon, along with any taxes paid and anything they can borrow and it is never enough. A couple of years ago, in my working-class area, they put brick facades on the freeway overpasses.
Jesus' social gospel is similar to communism, except Jesus says the individual should be involved in feeding/housing the poor not the state. Actually taking from workers and giving it to the poor in the name of compassion is stealing according to Jesus.
Jesus says "render unto Caesar." You claim the opposite: getting ready to burn in Hell for twisting and distorting the words of Christ? You'd better be!
what Jesus didn't elaborate on was, in a world created by God, what can Caesar truly call his own... ponder that for a moment
And since his death folk been trying to tell us what he said meant.
Ask not what he said. Ask what he did!
Yep, OWS in disguise.
Nope, more like moron in disguise.
Yes, much better description. Well said!!
With a grossly oversized delusion of self importance.
His critique of Industrial Scale capitalism is all on...but his solution...or I guess it would be Engels really...that lead to National Socialism and "more internal contradictions" than you could shake a stick at. Sorry but Deep Purple would only appear in the West. And of course Communism fell when Paul McCartney showed up there and felled it.
Jesse A. Myerson......sounds, well, rich kid-jewy.
It is also a tad ignorant not to be aware of the difference between two bodies of knowledge - economics and political economy. Marx was not an economist. Modern economics is rubbish with its simplistic models of ‘rational’ human behaviour veneered by mathematical models that supposedly bring authority to the subject.
“It is one of the saddest spectacles of our time to see a great democratic movement support a policy which must lead to the destruction of democracy and which meanwhile can benefit only a minority of the masses who support it. Yet it is this support from the Left of the tendencies toward monopoly which make them so irresistible and the prospects of the future so dark.”
Me-"The Road To Serfdom"
THE ABOVE ARTICLE IS ABSOLUTE RIGHT WING POLEMICAL RUBBISH.
1. IT IS DISGRACEFULLY BIASED IN ITS TONE EG. "Luckily not even the readers of Rolling Stone are falling for this stuff", " WHY INSULT A WHOLE READERSHIP? UNLESS YOU TACITLY ACKNOWLEDGE OR FEAR THAT A LOT OF WHAT THE MISGUIDED OCCUPY YOUNG MAN IS ACTUALLY VERY SENSIBLE.
2. IT INVOKES GODWIN'S LAW "the ideology is at the root indistinguishable from Hitler's economic program" THE LAST RESORT OF DESPERATE IDIOTS EVERYWHERE.
3. IT CONFLATES COMMUNISM WITH SOCIALISM ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS AS MOST IGNORANT YANKS LOVE DOING. THEY ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CONCEPTS. A STRICTLY REGULATED MARKET BASED ECONOMY WITH A STATE REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH TO PREVENT MONOPOLIES IS SOCIALISM. THE TOTAL ABOLISHING OF CAPITALIST MARKETS IS COMMUNISM. CLEARLY COMMUNISM HAS FAILED BECAUSE IT WAS SMOTHERED AT BIRTH BY CORRUPT HUMAN NATURE AND HAD NO DEFENCE AGAINST BEING SURROUNDED BY CAPITALIST STATES BENT ON ITS DESTRUCTION. FULL COMMUNISM WILL ALWAYS FAIL UNLESS WE ALL BECOME A HIVE LIKE ANTS.
4. IT NEGLECTS TO MENTION THAT FULL CAPITALISM HAS FAILED ALSO. SEE SOMALIA AND OTHER STATELESS ZONES AS WELL AS THE CURRENT "CAPITALIST" STATES LIKE U.S. THAT HAD TO BAIL OUT PRIVATE MONOPOLY BANKS.
5. IT IS ALSO PLAIN WRONG! "#FULLCOMMUNISM = #MILLIONSDEAD. Always has, always will." THE ONLY TORTURING AND MURDERING CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY BEING CARRIED OUT IN COMMUNIST CUBA IS BY YOU BLOODY YANKS FFS!!
COME ON ZERO HEDGE YOU CAN DO BETTER THAN REPOSTING POORLY WRITTEN BIASED FASCIST TRASH WRITTEN BY FOOLS!??!
"A STRICTLY REGULATED MARKET BASED ECONOMY WITH A STATE REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH"
Please try to understand what you have described, Strictly regulated market economy is an oxymoron.
A State redistribution of wealth is also contrary to any market based economy. Redistributing capital from productive entities to the unproductive is contrary to any "market" based economy.
In practice your version of "Socialism" is really Communism with a nicer tag.
Fix your shift key arswhole. Then go and fix your own country which last time I checked is a shining beacon for the rest of us.
And yes, I have lived there.
I'd call you a moron but it is an insult to all morons. Somalia vis a vis U.S. wtf?
A good place to start:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Black-Book-Communism-Repression/dp/0674076087
"Already famous throughout Europe, this international bestseller plumbs recently opened archives in the former Soviet bloc to reveal the actual, practical accomplishments of Communism around the world: terror, torture, famine, mass deportations, and massacres. Astonishing in the sheer detail it amasses, the book is the first comprehensive attempt to catalog and analyze the crimes of Communism over seventy years."
Written, ironically enough, by French intellectuals, published by Harvard.
What is wrong with these people??
http://ericsprott.blogspot.ca/
Don't the leftish hate old white men?
You can't get older and whiter than the picture above. They do have nice hipster beards though.
Its more about self hate so Marx is more than suitable.
It is a crime to take this quote seriously. Economics is not a science, and it will be forever harmful to let such academics centrally plan anything.
"economic policy is the main topic around which politics revolves"
and spinning in circles is what they do best
What do all socialist utopias have in common? The exist always and only in the FUTURE!!!!
America already tried communism - implemented correctly - under ideal conditions.
That is extremely interesting and proof positive that collectivism DOES NOT WORK.
Collectivism can't work. Unless everyone does equal work (which will never happen). It then becomes a race to the bottom. How about YOU do all the work, and WE share everything you earn.
And, well, neither can Capitalism because it's not geared for handling a decline in overall capital (which will come when/as resources dwindle). Yeah, I get it that it speaks about "cycles" (as though we're always going to ramp back up and "to the right"), and that there HAS to be some reshuffling, boughts of deflation and all, but I'm just not seeing where it can overcome the other side of that parabola- the side that is "perpetual de-growth."
I call them like I see them. Just because something is better than something else doesn't mean that it's a winner. Sure, it's the best that's out there and all (which I'd have to agree- otherwise I wouldn't be hanging around here; but, sadly, the knee-jerk, low-thinkers will down-arrow me because I'm not saying that Capitalism is as good as God), but there's nothing in it that is geared for dealing with perpetually depleting resources. And in such an environment you can toss out all the theories, especially "economic" theories, as it then comes down to brute survival (laws? ha!).
It would become a race to the bottom no matter what. And, really, given that the ultimate factor will be resource availability I'd have to say that Capitalism has a higher gear toward attaining the greater time of impact... (most efficient rope-maker)
Dwindling resources is less ideal than otherwise, and free-markets are the best way to deal with dwindling resoucres just like they are the best way to deal with growing resources. Free-markets are far more likely to find an innovation that remedies dwindling resources. So ... what is your point?
I agree, A high gold price makes it economical to harvest gold in motherboards of old computers for instance.
Free markets might decide that the labour value of the majority of people is no longer sufficient to pay for their upkeep ... sucks for those who can't survive on rents ...
"And, well, neither can Capitalism"..... I stopped reading right there. You got a better system, please enlighten us.
Distributism. "Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists."—G.K. Chesterton
When they are not buggering little boys and opposing birth control I kinda like modern Catholicism, they are enlightened in a lot of ways.
All capitalism requires to be sustainable and relatively fair is a basic set of rules that primarily controls theft and fraud and such, focusing primarily on transparency and accountability, and laws that minimize monopolies. We had that, more or less, for a brief time. Sure, even with this there will be injustices, but the key is to keep them relatively small and not systemic, such as we have now. The cancer of corruption that the monopolistic government has created has metastasized throughout the entire economic body of the world. I believe it is now terminal and will not be corrected without a complete collapse, and that may make it even worse. But what do I know?
You seem to be conflating the free-market with a debt based fiat currency.
Money is a product - like everything else.
I didn't down vote you BTW.
As a famous quote goes,
"Capitalism is the worst economic system-except for all the rest"
Human wants and needs are infinite, yet resources are finite. Only free markets, private property, and supply and demand can resolve this conundrum. This is the purpose and definition of economics. Any economic system which violates this principle, such as socialism, will fail.
Or a Maggie T. once put it,
"The problem with socialism is pretty soon you run out of other people's money"
seer,
I've had this debate with myself for a while. Whether or not capitalism can survive a no-growth (or de-growth, as you put it) economy.
At first I thought that perpetual growth was needed for capitalism to survive. But that's just the Republican version of capitalism...."growing the pie for everyone."
The real definition of capitalism should be economic freedom. That will work in good times and bad. It won't be as pretty as in a perpetual growth scenario, but it will work and always be better than a redistribution scheme (which is theft).
So, on the way up we've had growth interrupted by recessions and depressions, and on the way down we'll have recessions and depressions interrupted by some growth.
JMHO.
If economic "freedom" only gives you the opportunity to occupy the only bit of the commons left to humanity (ie. international waters) because your labour can not pay the (land-) rent then you will cry for economic tyranny ... or would you drown for your religious faith in the sanctity of "natural" law?
I disagree. Religious zealots who have sworn an oath of poverty can continue outputting 100% of their labour, even if 90% is redistributed to their less able brothers.
I suspect collectivism can only work on a voluntary basis. If Cuba had open immigration and emmigration, then only voluntary communists would be there, but maybe if enough of them went there from the rest of the world, the population decline would not be too severe.
I does work in a voluntary environment. It is called "family". It is not exclusive to family but almost always is exclusive to people who feel connected and caring for one another. Not all families behave that way but very few countries or communities do.
While many condemn America for being interventionist or the world's policemen, it seems that many of those same people are very at ease with the idea that they should be our parents, scolding, restricting and controlling us for our own good. The only way they can claim that right is by also claiming that our behavior is costing them. We saw this with seat belt and helmet laws years ago..that accidental injuries cost everyone through higher medical costs brought about by irresponsible people. Of course this has migrated to healthcare itself where they can try to dictate our behavior, diet and spending based on the collective good. All of this has come about because they passed loving laws that told hospitals that they must treat everyone, if they could pay or not. We see the argument for Obamacare, that we must force people to buy insurance because to not do so would force the cost back onto the hospitals and indirectly to each of us. They have built this for one effect and one goal, to force each and every one of us into their corral, their sphere of control...for our own good. Thanks MOM.
For fucks sake, collectivism is the basic cultural element which is the opposite of individualism. Of course it fucking works you morons. Every human achievement has taken collective effort: our communities, towns, cities, and nations are monuments to collectivism. You can't deny facts just because you have been programmed to shy away from the word.
What most people think of when they mention a collective is the imposition of the group on individual freedom, but that's just a relative term describing the comfort level of the imposition. Unless you live like a fucking hermit on your own deserted island, you are constantly assailed by rules, regulations, and laws that govern your society. We are, all of us, imposed on by the norms of the society we live in - the dictats of the collective - but don't recognise it unless it inconveniences us.
Every organisation is a collective, because it obviously gets far more done than an individual. Even biological systems are collections of cells working in unison to perform much more complex tasks. These fucking facts should be obvious to everyone.
It amazes me that people who start pissing themselves when they hear the words, 'collective', 'socialism', or even 'communism' in a sentence have no qualms about everyday collectivist organisations like the armed forces, police, garbage collections, schools, road/infrastructure builders and a thousand other uselful/useless examples of modern society which require forced tributes to operate in the form of taxes. The same morons who whine about "socialism" have "Support our Troops" bumper stickers without a trace of irony.
There is only one reason why every idealised form of society does not work: No matter how great it is in principle, once you get a leadership and its minions in power, they will break every one of those principles to remain there. That's why the best form of government is the one which can be completely changed in personnel, which democracy promises but rarely delivers when it comes to the civil servants.
Capitalism is probably the most stupid and misunderstood of the lot, because it has nothing at all to do with the individual, freedom, or democracy, but simply the exploitation of those under your socio-economic ladder to accumulate capital. It positively encourages slavery and feudalism with multinational giants that end up owning everything masked by the illusion of brands.
Free market (consumer led) societies show promise, but only if there is real choice, real competition, with opportunities for entrepreneurs to compete on equal terms with bigger rivals, instead of allowing the large corporations to either destroy or buy them. Free marketing can also extend to finance too, in the form of crowdfunding. Market-led economics as a philosophy is one that appeals to me the most as the most useful and least intrusive decentralised form of democracy.
thank you YHC.
Voluntary contribution / participation in a group scheme for the benefit of all members is a vastly different construct to what is implicitly inferred by the term Communism and it gets your garbage collected just fine. As was stated earlier if a communist nation opened it's borders in both directions it "may" work .... however no-one has ever tried it so we don't know for sure - they are obviously of the belief that everyone of any value would "go Galt" in which case it would fail quickly.
Too big to fail and immoveable monopolies are the direct result of printable fiat money, fractional reserve lending and restrictive crony licencing (I.e gov, gov, gov). Those businesses could not buy out all the small competitors or run at a loss to squeeze them out if the rules and money were fair across the board. Most would have failed many times over many years ago had they been left to their own devices as intended by free market capitalism.
The "brands" thing is a valid point but it represents a failing of the human intellect not related to the economic system in use. Propoganda and branding are birds of a feather and lazy apathetic people will continue to be manipulated by both regardless of from where or by whom it spews.
+1
While in general agreement, and bearing in mind that my personal abhorrence of communism stems from my belief that to impose your will on another, for good reasons or bad, is evil, I want you to consider how the system we live under now in the West is simply a different shade of statism. Last time I checked, income tax, local community tax, and value added tax as well as the hidden duties we pay on goods and services are not 'voluntary contributions'. In fact, opting out earns a quick trip to prison. Again, nobody can opt out of paticipating in the latest MIC group scheme, or the trillions of dollars it demands from citizens.
Every day the state demands complete observance of seemingly irrational and disparate rules it makes up which include among many others, what I can smoke, how much I can drink, even how I can fuck. As posted above individual freedom is a relative term to describe the comfort level of the impositions made by the society I live in, and just because most find that level comfortable to them, does not make them free. In the land of the free, any deviations from the norm, including minor infractions with the law can get you shot. We see headlines that reflect this reality almost every day, and the differences between oppressive systems like communism and fascism and ours quickly fade into insignificance. It's Huxley's happy slaves made real.
What you describe (ie gov, gov, gov) is crony capitalism, or corporatism, but it nevertheless has its foundations on a feudal system of "Whoever holds the most capital controls everything". We can dress it up, but the essence of capitalism is the exploitation of those without capital. Consumer led free markets, NOT capital led markets, is imo the better option. Capitalism depends on the trickle down effect, and we know that does not work because it is solely dependent on the whims of those with capital. They decide where the money goes, not the consumer. Even without the bailouts and zirp, huge multinationals do survive and by the principles of capitalism, they will continue to exploit those they employ, grow, kill any competition with economy of scale, and offer fewer choices to the consumer. If all of the hundreds of tv channels were owned by one man, if all of the farms were only allowed to grow GMOs, if all of the supermarkets... well you get the idea that choice would be merely an illusion, and some researchers say that we're already there.
Consumer led free markets, consumer led financing offers the best of innovation and variety without our current serf-like dependence on multinationals and the government that call the shots.
I'm glad someone else said it. But you're leaving out the parts related to implementation of technologies that increase production, reduce human involvement and reduce risk. These advances will make a prosperous form of communism inevitable. That, or you sit and watch as people become unemployed, disenfranchised, and dead. We are watching it happen right now although our productive capacity is not being put to use to support those who lost jobs / became disenfranchised.
To see capitalism at its most base level, just look at the caste system. One allows you to climb up the pyramid, the other does not. But in general, both are very similar. Capitalism was designed to distribute goods resulting from limited productive capacity. And the inverse result is that production is artificially restricted to maintain the charade. Communism was designed to distribute goods resulting from surplus productive capacity. Which in historic terms meant people had to produce. In technological terms it means we need to assemble technologies that will produce the goods. A little work for a lot of benefit vs a lot of work for little benefit.
There is no doubt Capitalism will ultimately be abandoned in favor of communism, once we agree to mutually benefit from that surplus productive capacity... too many here falsely believe individual entrepreneurialism led to the advances... most advances occurred by efforts of various persons many of whom did not seek capitalist gains or benefits. It is the hanger's ons and leeches who steal other peoples ideas and then capitalize on them by restricting access. That behavior will be tolerated less and less as the future unfolds. What was meant as a medium of exchange (the economy) has become a mechanism of fraud and profit seeking (capitalism). That too will pass, and people will wonder how people could have behaved so badly. Anti-social / sociopathic behaviors.
The beloved fucking "efficiency" socialist and communists are always so sure will be the salvation of their utopia. Go ahead and ignore the murderous tendencies that The State will bring down our heads, especially all of us "non-adopters". People's happiness is not derived from techno toys are even wealth, but a feeling of purpose and accomplishment that your beloved communism will never be able to provide. Capitalism, as we currently experience it, does a piss poor job as well, but if our laws had been enforced and we had not been completely indoctrinated by technological media to become brain dead consumers who's only goal was to provide infinite growth to corporations and their enforcement surrogate (our government), we might have had a chance. Capitalism to me is natural organic commerce that has been institutionalized by government for the purpose of control and extraction of wealth. Socialism and communism do the same but without the veil of pretense. All of these "isms" are a construct of the state and for their purposes alone. To cooperate with one another to work for common goals is not the same as collectivism. one is voluntary and the other is forced upon us. You obviously agree with the author and Marx in your belief in "full communism". Now we just need the multiple generations of dictatorial tyranny to make it come true.
I was thinking the best of human expression is an actual blanace between individualism and collectivisim. The founders toyed with this. Either, taken to the exterme and unchecked, can do amazing things, good or bad. Your last paragraph demonstrates it beautifully. Capitalism and the free market are really that balance. As consumers, in a purely free market of things and ideas, we both encourage the beauty of the individual and collectively check the fascist. Ironically to do that, we ultimately errect systems, even laws. Its a never ending struggle and for, some reason, like we're seeing, the bad guys often win and take control. This website is another great example, anonymity gives us courage to speak out, our collective ideas educates us all, even gives us directon, maybe courage
:). Thanks. At least one person understood my incoherent post that started out as a rant against people who crap their pants the moment, 'socialism' and 'Marx' are mentioned in a sentence without realising what they most likely have supported all their lives (Their country) is by definition collectivism on a massive scale.
You're right of course. It is all about finding balance, but perhaps I've caught the ZH anarchy vibe, I am tending towards a completely consumer-led free market these days without the capital controlling institutions that have been proven to be such dens of criminality.
It works because this is how the natural world works. It's so simple it's complicated. And the reverse.
Actually, the truth is virtually the exact opposite of everything you write, YHC. Collectivism is NOT a basic cultural element. Voluntary exchange is the basic cultural element. That involves me trading you three fish for the bananas you grow. If you get tired of fish the exchange may change. We trade our labor because we both see advantage in it. You may start a whole fishing business and employ others, as well.
Capitalism which is actually a leftist term for virtually anything not collectivist is the very simple, basic and elegant system of voluntary exchange. It is what happens when you take force out of the equation. There can be no slavery you idiot. All of you who misunderstand this and think there is some wonderful enlightened middle ground of socialism and capitalism are actually in agreement that the State should be supreme and only differ on the degree. It is a dumb argument that allows the Left to win over time.
You don't know shit about or understand capitalism. You actually parrot Leftist talking points. Maybe you want to elaborate on the finer points of brain surgery, too.
The only paragraph where you even begin to get it is the last one. Look at your own words and read carefully. When you say "real choice, competition, opportunity" you are removing force from the system. That is the KEY. Follow that thinking and reasoning.
Tomorrow I will have to waste precious amounts of my life responding to the fascist IRS because of the fucking idiots who actually believe in some beneficent redistributionist police state albeit in red, white and blue. Therein lies the problem with colletivism. You make me part of your utopian plan even though I know the road leads to economic hell.
Problems arise when I grow weary of trading my hard-won bananas for the fish I crave, so in the pursuit of Capitalism I decide to take your advice and start my own fishing business in addition to my banana farm.
I modernize the operation a bit to increase returns: I take my banana boat fleet to the fishing grounds with cases of dynamite and big nets. In one afternoon I've got almost every fish in the fishing grounds. My technique destroys the fish beds too, but who cares, I've got the fish, right?
Next I use the windfall profits from my fishing foray to expand my banana business. I build a banana pudding canning factory and start exporting Tippy's Finest Banana Pudding to regions far and wide. I burn lots of coal and dried banana leaves to run my banana pudding factory, causing dense low-hanging clouds of acrid banana-smog to envelope the countryside. I also dump all the useless banana peels and rotten bananas into what's left of the nearby fishing grounds. Who cares? I've got a lifetime supply of fish already, and I no longer live anywhere near my banana plantation.
Ruined and pissed off, the fisherman looks for redress.
First he turns to Occupy Wall Street to see if they can help his cause. Alas, the Occupy movement has been overrun by Free Shit Army sympathizers who spend their time doing face painting and participating in drum circles.
Next he turns to the Tea Party for assistance in his plight. To his bitter disappointment, the Tea Party has been infiltrated and co-opted by lunatics in waistcoats and tri-corner hats ringing bells and reading proclamations against homosexuality.
Finally the fisherman has had enough. He personally finds his way to Tippy The King Banana's house in the Hamptons and jams a banana so far up his ass it comes out his ears. For this act he gets life in prison, and Tippy's heirs sell their interest in Tippy's Banana Republic Inc. to Chinese investors desperate to get their ill-gotten loot out of their godforsaken hellhole of a country.
It proved nothing. Where have those ideas worked in the real world? In the U.S., buried in debt and unfunded liabilities they have no hope of paying? Which Rothbard-inspired economy is thriving today?
Freedom never thrives for long. Like a stack of gold bars, someone will seek to own it before too long as it is far too valuable and those that have it that never had to work for it will never appreciate it until it is gone. Only man made imposed systems persist, as a centrally controlled power base is far too much for freedom loving individuals, acting as individuals, to ever topple. Only when individuals band together as a mob, can they have a chance. But, of course, they are now a mob, seeking control of their own, and regardless of how pure their intent, eventually those who gravitate towards power and control will take it over. the cycle repeats and freedom exists but a moment. Given this, should we simply surrender, once and for all too whom ever desires ultimate power and control? Utopia does not exist and even if it did, would last only a moment.
Thanks for the link. I've read that blog before, and he does have a tendency to portray issues as black and white, but his writing is strong and his logic persuasive, in addition to the content being informative.
For the humor and to be taken with a grain of salt --
Socialism for the rich, Capitalism for the rest!
Well, if Wall Street and the Banksters/Corporations/Insurers are guaranteed bail outs and profits than why not guaranteed pay, healthcare, food, etc.?
Really now, get your heads out of your asses.
If you guarantee one then the other follows.
Pretty fucking simple, you dumbshits.
You mean socializing the losses? Got it, yea, give us more of that.
Can't have welfare without warfare. Can't have warefare without welfare. That is, if you want to be a nation-state...
that's the only part of this story that we're missing. we've already got "we had to destroy America to save it." Now we need the war...."or else."
You know what really pisses me off about these people?
What?
We're supposed to be
helping them and they
shit all over us every chance they get ... I just can't feature that.
Don't take it too hard,
Rafterman. It's just
business.
“You got me jumping like a crazy clown
and I don’t feature what you’re putting down…” 1958
but I digress…
Sadly, the thinking that created this Rolling Stone article is no different than the average Obama voter today. And that's a lot of people. Just yesterday, I had one trying to convince me of the wisdom of taking some of the 'excessive corporate profits' and redistributing it back to the workers in the form of higher income. Because corporations make too much and don't need that kind of money while the workers don't make enough. And who should be the decider of how much is redistributed? Why, the government, of course.
The ideas in the Rolling Stone article are very much alive right now. How many Obama voters - despite everything they see going wrong - agree with virtually everything he is doing but will tell you he either ran into 'opposition' or 'just hasn't done enough of it correctly'? They'd vote for him and his Socialist policies again if given the chance - and they will be given it when Hillary comes.
+ 6
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes and yes. I counted six points where I agree.
"Sadly, the thinking that created this Rolling Stone article is no different than the average Obama voter today"
And thank you for reminding me that you're a Party Pussy.
BTW - I'm a ZERO GOVT kind of guy (who is tired of all the loudmouth motherfuckers who keep bellowing about the obvious yet don't do a fucking thing [because they have no solutions themselves because their brains are too tied up in bashing the "socialists" or whatever]).
Not a whole lot you can do when they track your every move and tax it too. And they got us hopelessly outgunned, and the press is on their side, and , and , and,........Nullification and States rights. Read Hans-Hermann Hoppe "What We Must Do". Eliminate the Federal gov't from the ground up.
Just walk away. Remove your power and energies. It's happening NOW with a lot of people. Lots of under-the-table activity in order for people to survive.
I have no energy to "overthrow" anything, as usually this means having to sign up to someone else's "plan," and, well, usually the "plan" is about as horrible as what exists- I have no interest stating what others ought to do (other than do no harm, not use force or indirect influence to coerce others). The System is guaranteed to implode. All SYSTEMS Fail. All empires end.
The best way to defeat an "enemy" is to allow the enemy to defeat itself. If one is getting lumps along with the "enemy" beating itself then one is standing too close to the "enemy"p- stand back, distance yourself. Whatever you do, do not see it as it trying to take from you; see it as trying to keep you in its game. And, well, it's powerless to keep you from staying in the game.
Oh! I see lame-ass-thinking person down-voted me. Chickenshit.
Only so far you can go outside the system before you are living with the critters.
I didn't down-arrow you because, well, I go outside and I"m amongst my critters (well, and I have wildlife around too).
I didn't qualify it as anything other than possible. Again, if people are so bothered then they ought to do something. But like I've said many times, I'm not signing up for some suicide mission to instill another set of clowns: everyone has a plan, a plan that only goes up to the "we overthrow the bums," and then magic is supposed to happen. Really, why waste the blood, time and energy when you can accomplish the same thing by nurturing shit that can survive outside the system? It's going to end up this way, so why not just get on with it...
Thinkiing ia manner that does not validate the crowd meme, i.e. independently, results in down votes.
"And, well, it's powerless to keep you from staying in the game."
When we recognize our individual powelessness, we become powerful.
I submit that the average Republican is not a whole lot more advanced. They only disagree on the degree of the state power. Romney and Obama were more alike than different.
Jeebus. Rolling Stone was shit in the 60's. Sounds like nothing has changed.
How about this for a change? Back then they used to be a counter-culture magazine. Now they represent the mainstream of political thought (state control is the best control and the more the better).
Just another bunch of MSM zombies. If they were true to their roots, they'd be supporting Ron Paul right about now.
The Hippies were never truly counter culture anything. They merely want the power of the state for themselves. Most of them were in reality dyed in the wool statist assholes speaking mantras to obfuscate the issue further so that they could con people into trusting them. We are talking about the same assholes that supported "The Great Society" afterall...
Nid, I wish I could find something to disagree with in that post (for all of our sakes it would be better if I could). But I can't. You're absoluetly right. That's why I was trying to point out the hipocricy of that pile of crap magazine.
Speaking as "a hippie" (I qualify by age, former hair length and...ahem, usage) I've found this to be true.
I just can't wrap my head around how people I once smoked dope with, dropped acid with, snorted coke with (well, anyways) now say I can't eat sugar, salt, eggs, drive what I want, screw in the lightbulb I want, say what I want, read what I want, live where I want...and God forbid, arm myself (martially & otherwise) against fucking statists trying to relieve me of this liberty.
They have become what they hated.
I was in the orbit. SE Asia set me free. only weighed 125 lbs when I came home though. They may wind up setting us free in the end.
They were always what they hated, just too stoned to realize it.
Damn as I was saying something along those lines the other day. WTF happened? Did bribes get passed out and I was to fucked up to get in line?
very funny because its not
I know my brutha...but we have to look at it as it is now, not as we wished it could have been.
Really?
Tune in, turn on and drop out meant "take over the govt?" Fuck, I missed that!
Like so many other frothy comments when this kind of shit pops up, folks paint with the biggest paint brushes. There's never any threat to the status quo because any "threat" never can generate enough folks signing up to one thing- "the hippies" were just like "al qaeda" is today- mostly a fabrication, the status quo would lump togehter just about anything to make the "threat" appear bigger.
No, there were and still are many "hippies" lingering and surviving w/o having an interest in "taking over." And, they actually operate more outside of the status quo than most others. And yes, there are most certainly those that would like to "take over" (like this is how much different than most of the barking I hear here on ZH and else where about "taking back the govt?").
As a child of real Hippies, I can speak with quite a bit of authority on the subject. All of the self proclaimed leaders of that movement that were not assassinated were just as I described.
As one who experimented w/ many of the lifestyles and chemicals of the time my experiencee was most of the "real hippies" laughed at those who referred to themselves as being "real hippies." A generaliztion I know, but many were in fact, "weekend hippies" or hippie wanna be's. That aside I would like like to know which "leaders" your referring to were "assassinated. Keeping in mind that few "self proclaimed leaders lead anything. Have you considered therapy regarding unresolved childhood issues.
See that tell's me that you feel threatened and do not think that were a real Hippy movement.
You should probably stop claiming to be something you were something and just accept that you are nothing close to being anything more than a populist reject.
My mother was at Woodstock.
"My mother was at Woodstock."
And that is your argument? ROTFLMAO!
My whole purpose for even bouncing in today was to see what, cause I knew you would, you would respond with. And I knew I would get one hell of a laugh to start my day off. Thank you for surpassing my expectations.
Hippies also where into comunes. The hippies of the 60's grew into greedy bastards willing to cut someone's throat for a buck.
Move over Charles Manson you have many others just like you.
McCarthy, is that you?
"The hippies of the 60's grew into greedy bastards willing to cut someone's throat for a buck."
Literally cut throats? Wouldn't that be, um, something that can be prosecuted?
As for "greedy," well, when it's the other guys, and not some "entrepreneur" doing it in the name of capitalism, well, then it's bad?
I'm defending logic and protecting against wild hyperbole. I know stright up capitalist entrepreneurs as well as folks who live in communes. Good people that I know. None of them are knife weilding crazies looking to take over the world (or even local politics).
Everyone wants something for nothing. For some it is out right theft that does it. Others is from redistribution or economic justice. For others still it is simply the easy manipulation of those who want something for nothing to surrender what little they have for a bet on a sure thing. In the past I think the most wise understood that there never was something for nothing and survival was based on personal responsibility to care for one's self, regardless of circumstance, corruption, racism or theft. Now days, not so much I fear. Now those who pursue personal responsibility for themselves are the rubes, the suckers being guilted and manipulated into paying for everyone else. But that won't last, and when the last of them drops out, goes Galt or whatever, the Ponzi delusion ends.
@nidstyles.
"The Hippies were never truly counter culture anything................................................"
A generalization that proves you have no clue. Applying also to the 24 upvotes you received. Indicative of why we are where we are today. No freaking clue.
"Back then they used to be a counter-culture magazine. Now they represent the mainstream of political thought"
That's how it always goes. Everything is bought out: can't compete in the marketplace when your message goes again the rulers of the marketplace.
Seems to me that you are in denial and that in reality they simply wanted to be in charge of the culture from the beginning, which is sort of the point behind counter-cultures, to subvert the dominant status quo...
I hadn't read Rolling Stone for literally 20 years. Then someone in my office started leaving their copies in the lunchroom a year or so ago, so I would thumb through them from time to time.
Just awful, horrible shit in that magazine. A fucking sewer. Even Matt Taibbi, who gets some stuff right sometimes, is just as likely to lay a steaming turd as not.
So I can't say I'm at all surprised that they are trying to resurrect communism. Sickening and grotesque.
And, well, I'm sure that you can find comfort in knowing that you have a nice, neat target...
I'm always amazed at how people cannot overcome their urge to dig into things that upset them. Like you'd expect to open up that rag and find different? (I"m sure that the entire point of your rail was to blast Taibbi [nice bit of work there]).
I don't "dig into" Rolling Stone, trust me. After flipping through half a dozen of them I stopped wasting my time, once I got the point. Now, just seeing whats on the covers is enough to know what's inside.
As far as "the point" of what I wrote is concerned: your reading comprehension skills seem a little impaired.
Ha ha... touchy... And I didn't even have to down-arrow you. (I already know that you have a plan- I don't run around with packs and cults looking to impose my visions on anyone, in which case I am not touchy- no gods no masters... total freedom)
Matt Taibbi takes the official line on 9/11
I've been hearing different forms of the "correctly implemented socialism/communism" story since the 70s. It always manages to pop its head back up, now and then. Kinda like the 200 mpg carburetor story.
It's a little ironic that Rolling Stone is using a pro-communism story to sell more advertising...bah, I was going to write a longer witty comment but I figured I'd just let someone else do it...
They need to continue forming the next generation minds to begin a failed Hope & Change vision. The next monthly Government taxpayer cheque has already been spent within all Media outlets. Hopefully, this will expand a bit of knowledge.
The Trap. We Will Force You to Be Free
The Rolling Stoner.
Like I said above, Puff Puff Pass...
I keep seeing article after article telling me how very very bad socialism is. Then I take a look at the "human development index" and see that a socialist country, Norway, is at the very top of the list. Then I scratch my head and try to resolve the idea that socialism is the very worst possible thing in the universe, something that is so very bad that the country at the very top of the human development index is socialist, thereby proving what a complete and horrible failure socialism is.
Then I look further down the index, and see that of the top 21 countries, no less than four are pure socialist and nearly all are at least socialist enough to provide universal health care in one form or another. This conclusively proves that socialism is a complete and total failure, and anyone who isn't utterly convinced of that obvious fact is a big doody-head who needs to go read "Atlas Shrugged" repeatedly until they finally "get it." Either that, or maybe, just maybe people need to take a step back and consider the possibility that what they think they know might possibly not be so?
Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Ind...
WHOOO has a right to free healthcare? YOUUUU have a right to free health care. Yes you DOooOO.
You have a RIGHT to the fruits of other men's labor ... wait ...
You could use that logic to say "who has a right to free passage down the road?" Well, as it turns out, toll roads are not such a great thing, and having public roadways turns out to be something that benefits everyone enough to be worth paying taxes for. Now, don't you feel just a little bit silly making such an absurd, reductionist argument?
Allow me to share a little story from my personal history. Back in the 90's I lived in a house in the city of Santa Clara. This was during the Enron debacle, and people stuck with PG&E for their power were paying up to four times and more for their electricity than I was. Why? Because the city of Santa Clara has their own public utility, owned by the city, and while everyone else in the state was being bent over a barrel and used like a latex dolly by those wonderful people from Enron the citizens of Santa Clara enjoyed power at reasonable rates.
This is when I began to seriously question my libertarian beliefs. Maybe, just maybe, there are some things that are better done by the private sector, and maybe there are some things that are better done by the public sector? A government designed cell phone would be a disaster, but perhaps things like private pensions and private healthcare end up resulting in equally hideous and useless results?
No, I'm not advocating anything, I'm just asking people to think about what they believe to see if it holds up to logical examination.
Elliott: wait until the "human developement index" says you need to sacrifice your stuff and your life for the greater good of society. You'll look at things a little differently.
Who do you think compiles such a statistic anyway? Go on. Dig deep. I have great faith you will come up with the right answer if you truly believe in truth and logic.
Hint: you may be on their side, but they're not on your side.
If you ask me, there's nothing the private sector cannot do better than the public sector [less corrupt, more efficient, less deadly (if the private sector can do a thing at all)], but there are some things the private sector cannot do at all: such as interpreting laws, writing laws, enforcing laws, and providing national security [although, just how well the public sector can do those last 4 is still apparently debatable, as well].
No. I don't have a right to free passage on someone else's property.
I don't believe for a second that you were a libertarian. If you think Enron is an example of the free-market, then you do not understand the free-market.
I want all the healthcare choices and innovation I can get. I want competition and reputation to matter in healthcare.
I would prefer private roads. I pay a toll without effort everyday. Roads could be better than they are, and I would pay more for better roads - but I have no choice. I would pay more to ride in a less congested lane, but I have no choice.
With roads, you are thinking too narrowly - a socialist thing. Ask yourself why you even need just roads if you had flying cars sooner and telecommunications sooner. Government is the reason you don't have flying cars, and why telecommunication and every innovation takes as long as it does to be developed. Progressivism is holding us back.
I am not successful because of my government education. I am successful in spite of my government education.
I do agree there are some things the free-market just cannot do, such as drafting people to fight in a war they do not want, or forcing people to build a pyramid for a President's tomb, or forcing everyone to use one debt based fiat currency, or forcibly disarming the people - like in Norway.
Wow. Thank you for proving a point I've made in the past, that there are some libertarians who are so popped-out that they will even argue against roads. See, back in the 1990's there was a stand-up comedian who was using the line "I used to be a libertarian, but then I decided that I liked roads!" Many thoughtful libertarians were then put in a position where they felt the need to explain why they were in favor of certain "socialist" programs such as roads and fire stations. But not you!
While it's fun to be an absolutist, I think you'll find that when it comes to the real world absolutists don't tend to go very far.
Another die hard statist clutching to the idea that the market can't provide roads. Weren't roads in early America private until government regulated them out of business? Sort of the same modus operandi being used on healthcare now.
Here's a relevant example - canals in early industrial England:
The Golden Age[edit]
This success proved the viability of canal transport, and soon industrialists in many other parts of the country wanted canals. After the Bridgewater canal, the early canals were built by groups of private individuals with an interest in improving communications. In Staffordshire the famous potter Josiah Wedgwood saw an opportunity to bring bulky cargoes of clay to his factory doors, and to transport his fragile finished goods to market in Manchester, Birmingham or further afield by water, minimising breakages. Within just a few years of the Bridgewater's opening, an embryonic national canal network came into being, with the construction of canals such as the Oxford Canal and the Trent & Mersey Canal.[3]
The new canal system was both cause and effect of the rapid industrialisation of the Midlands and the north. The period between the 1770s and the 1830s is often referred to as the "Golden Age" of British canals.
For each canal, an Act of Parliament was necessary to authorise construction, and as people saw the high incomes achieved from canal tolls, canal proposals came to be put forward by investors interested in profiting from dividends, at least as much as by people whose businesses would profit from cheaper transport of raw materials and finished goods.
In a further development, there was often out-and-out speculation, where people would try to buy shares in a newly floated company simply to sell them on for an immediate profit, regardless of whether the canal was ever profitable, or even built. During this period of "canal mania", huge sums were invested in canal building, and although many schemes came to nothing, the canal system rapidly expanded to nearly 4,000 miles (over 6,400 kilometres) in length.[1]
Many rival canal companies were formed and competition was rampant. Perhaps the best example was Worcester Bar in Birmingham, a point where the Worcester and Birmingham Canal and the Birmingham Canal Navigations Main Line were only seven feet apart. For many years, a dispute about tolls meant that goods travelling through Birmingham had to be portaged from boats in one canal to boats in the other.[12]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_British_canal_system
The truth is, you don't need government for anything except mass destruction, mass killing, and mass stealing.
The benefit of the concentration of control and power is the amplification of evil.
I am getting impatient with these stupid arguments but let me make attempt to balance this fallacious reasoning.
I like to use healthcare as an example. There area a large number of people who think healthcare is impossilbe without government and that government even has some of the best ideas on healthcare and it's delivery.
Who invented the modern physician, their standards, training and certification?
Who invented hospitals?
Who invented HMO's and even health insurance?
Who invented the mass production of penicillan and even the modern pharmaceutical era?
Who invented caring?
If you answered "government" to any of these put on the old dunce cap. None of these were invented by government. Government can only copy what it sees in the private sector. In fact, government left to its' own will tend to take over the private sector and destroy all those things which made it work and...advance!
The reason that government regulators with all their genius could not plug the leaking BP oil well in the Gulf of Mexico is that they did not know how, even though they regulate the living hell out of the industry. They did not have the tools nor the necessary expertise in drilling, metallurgy, deep sea conditions and the physics it takes to do something that incredible. Only BP and people who really know how to do shit can even attempt those sorts of things. Government will follow and then total fucking idiots like Obama who do not know how to do one useful thing in this life will take power over it and claim that with their superior knowledge and moral character that they can make it better.
Government did not invent roads, the materials that are in them, the equipment that makes them, the men who know how to build them or even what it costs to build one. They just get you to believe that without them, roads would never exist.
Maybe you want to rethink that and even challenge the government geniuses.
I've been to Norway, and while I thought it OK (I liked Finland better- it just had a better feel to it- perhaps beacause it was more rural, smaller population?), I don't believe that it is all that stellar.
Again, at one point Rome was the very best nation on the planet.
Norway being near or at the top doesn't mean that it's destined to stay there. As is typical, those countries with large amounts of natural resources for export tend to be better off than most other countries. Norway has had the good fortune of being in the oil business. Finite resources being finite and all... Look at this chart to see that Norway's energy production appears to have crested and is falling off (fairly rapidly):
http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/norway/energy-production
Whether due to depletion rates or demand destruction, what matters is total exports dropping, less income. We'll see how well Norway stays up when energy production continues to wane...
Norway, being the socialist Mecca that it is, should be SHARING its oil with the rest of us, for like, for FREE! Isn't that the socialist/communist way?
You are spot on Seer, they are getting away with their "socialist" utiopia because of oil. They are able to subsidize their way of life on the backs of the people that have to buy brent crude at over $100 a barrel.
And if/when their oil runs out, they'll be prepared for...NOTHING.
Just like most everyone else. We all are pretty much going to get there. Doesn't much matter what color -economic theory- is painted on the car -the false paradigm of perpetual growth on a finite planet- the car is headed over the cliff.
yea, and no stopping it. might as well, as you say, enjoy the ride!
I'm not blasting them and their socialism. I detest getting into the "mine is bigger than yours" hypotheticals. This is a REAL WORLD, and I call things based on real shit, not on theories and other shit which can NEVER operate in their full intentions when exposed to humans and the REAL WORLD.
Anything can be made to look good when the wine is flowing. The "American Dream" once looked really good. That dream pretty much was exposed as just that, a dream, when the US couldn't grow its exports fast enough to pump up growth; finally succumbing to the realities of the world- depleting natural resources. ALL systems will become canabalistic as they exhaust the resources necessary for maintaining them.
"They are able to subsidize their way of life on the backs of the people that have to buy brent crude at over $100 a barrel."
Who has a gun to their head and told to BUY brent crude?
It's kind of a trick question in that we're all pretty much compete to in order to participate in the Great Ponzi. The lunacy should seem obvious...
Socialism can work, sort of, in a country that is ethnically and culturally uniform, with massive excess resources. Norway fits the bill. But it rots the soul, and the resources eventually get squandered.
Kudos to you! This is exactly as I have intended to put it.
But, in the end, when resources are consumed, it matters little on what they were consumed on, as we could just as readily state that instead of it going into the homes of the little people it out to be for a grander project, like pyramids or something. We're headed toward resource depletion. Will we feel better off having pyramids to stare at (as we die of starvation) or of HDTVs ([that are no longer working] as we die of starvation)?
The other "plus" for Norway is that it's population is small. And, well, given my "famous" equation of BIG=FAIL, Norway's "smaller" is less failure (though that's not to confuse it as a "winner").
Many resources are relatively re-newable; we will eventually [if not sooner] move towards them as the non-renewables run out; and in a billion or two years, the sun will be putting 10% more energy out, and no liquid or solid H2O will exist anywhere on Earth unless it is in an artificial container like a refrigerator.
I see [if not raise] you, Seer.
rots the soul. so, can i have some norway. no thanks, but many want it.
yea and that is why i split my own wood.
i'm half norwegian and see the folly, but lordy don't tell them that.
fucking rose colored glasses plus plus some rose.
humans are humans in the end. minute they have an advantage they squander it.
liven for the day
and that is why i split wood and don't gamble...
And when that time comes they will have been spoiled and no not what to do.
Rome was only good for Romans. A lot of other people might have disagreed with how wondeful it was. I woiuld go further and say that is was really good for the emperor and those connected to him. After that it fell off sharply.
Man, if you don't get Atlas Shrugged, you don't get it.
I have a feeling that conversation went something like this:
'Esteemed academic asshole', "Hey, I've got an idea, since we are all actually socialist here in academia let's create an index that measures how great each country is compared to our socialist utopia..."
Hence forth the index that you are using to support your claims that one country is actually better than another. It's all a matter of perspective, if you like living where every choice is made for you, then feel free to migrate to there permanently. Leave the rest of us to our own individual vices please.
This reminds me of two populations that have decisions made for them and who kill eachother with guns even less than in Great Britain. They are slave populations and prison inmates.
I agree with the other posts regarding Norway's high oil-production-to-population ratio vs. the rest of the world. There seem to be a zillion other variables which would need to be adjusted for, like cultural differences, in order to independently measure the "socialist-effect" from the countries on this list you have linked to.
If socialism were really better for we the people, how do you explain the following list, now that the new Democrats have substantially moved the US economy in the socialist direction?
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/011014-686041-counting-the-ways...
[And, I've been a registered Dem voter for decades so I can honestly say that without just being a troll for Republicans. You can also call me a racist if you want to, but I honestly believe that all of us on the planet are descendent only from people who lived in central Africa a few hundred thousand years ago, so I know I sure don't feel like anyone's skin-color or "race" (whatever that is) matters to me.]
Maybe if you knew more you wouldn't need 2 long paragraphs to understand what is going on?
Norway is a tiny country with very large oil revenues - does that explain anything to you? Next is Australia, again, less population relative to their mineral wealth, which China has been buying as they go on a natural resources spree. Then the USA - wait , what was your point again?
We've got so much coal per head our energy should be almost free (and it used to be) yet we now have the HIGHEST electricity charges ... Hello carbon tax. Of course the new Liberal (= Republican .. don't ask me why because I don't know) government is going to scrap it but unfortunately (for us, not the newly privatised electricity grid) things have changed so the 40% increases we've experienced will only roll back about 3 -4 % ??
They took our guns so we couldn't top ourselves in desperation.
What is your debt service ratio (DSR)? Norway
As per BIS guidelines. National supervision comprises only parent banks and not subsidiaries abroad.
Have a look.
Well, Norway has a lot of oil and not very many people. And its very cold and very white (both temperature wise and consequently culturally and racially). Perhaps, those variables explain its economic well being, despite being a welfare state.
What have I just taught you? When you study an effect to learn its cause, its very important to separate correlated variables from causative variables. Many research scientists (particularly in climatology) fail to get this principle so you can be forgiven for your naivte.
Now go read the Fountainhead-Atlas Shrugged is much too long for someone who gets his information from wikipedia. Once, might be enough-it was for me. "The individual is the engine which drives the world." In this case which is the theme of Atlas Shrugged, the cause is the individual, the effect is human progress.
Norway?
A racial homogeneous, mono culture stuck way north of nowhere that hit the lucky oil fortune club? And other than that was noted for grinding skin flit poverty forever such that there are more fled Norsks in the US then home. Let alone Canada, Australia. ..
Oh that Norway.
It has a GDP less than Fairfield County, Connecticut and a hundred other counties.
Statistics pre 101.
Throw out the outliers.
For example. First day in the Majors guy at first bat, first pitch, hits home run. So he's the next Ted Williams, right?
Anyway, notice all, forever, all the diet-loose weight, government mandated sticker crap and people are still fat?
Why?
Application is a bitch. Applied reality is a bitch. Reality be hard. Always. Easy is for movies for simpletons, stories for bed time children and social planners that love planning the plans for the sub social planners to plan, chart, graft out, conference, publish plans.
You know what's really troublesome? Up to this point there has been not a SINGLE mention of GROWTH.
Pater, wasn't it you who I blasted before for failing to understand that we cannot have perpetual growth on a finite planet? You're ridiculing others about their ignorance/lack of understanding of "how it works" when "how it works" is certain to fail?
Give me a mutha-fucking-break. I'm tired of all you talking-head idiots and your superior intellect!
look in the mirror dude