Capitalism good or bad?

[Sibirsky]

Well state capitalism is good, 1% of the nation cant be trusted to not starve the 99%, but the government cares about its people and can be trusted.

Except, in North Korea they have state capitalism, and 1% of the nation starves the 99%.

That's not state capitalism.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

Yes. But free market capitalism I still call the worst idea ever.

Feudalist systems worked way better than modern capitalism.

[Ostroeuropa]

Feudalist systems worked way better than modern capitalism.

Oh man I gotta hear this shit, elaborate

[Sibirsky]

So you think that rich people actually give a flying crap about starving poor people?

No. That wasn't the point.

Do you think government cares about anyone?

[Sibirsky]

Sib, for the love of all that's holy, spare your face any further misery! I can't stand by and watch you destroy it like this! I care!

Smiley faces still cool?

[Williamson]

So you think that rich people actually give a flying crap about starving poor people?

Do you no how much BIll gates donates to charity a year.

[Sibirsky]

Feudalist systems worked way better than modern capitalism.

Right. Because you said so.

Do elaborate, as has been asked.

[KP Ambassador]

Capitalism =
Communism =

[Socialdemokraterne]

Sib, for the love of all that's holy, spare your face any further misery! I can't stand by and watch you destroy it like this! I care!

Smiley faces still cool?

Mmmmmm....OK.

Anyway, I've got some objections to a true free-market economy (that is, an economy composed entirely of free markets) of my own, but they're more centered around the apparent utility of government for things such as limiting the impact of negative externalities and filling missing markets than an argument that "Businessmen r teh ebil". As for the nature of government itself, I have a tendency to view it less as a rational entity with its own independent will and more a tool. It's sort of like a very big corporation that everyone gets a stake in^*.

*At least a representative one with free and fair elections is.

[Death Metal]

So you think that rich people actually give a flying crap about starving poor people?

Do you no how much BIll gates donates to charity a year.

Hell, not only that dude STARTED the charity so he can be sure his philanthropic donations do as much good as possible.

And I heard this secondhand, but I'm pretty sure he doesn't take the tax deductions.

What a greedy asshole!

[Communist Party of Greece]

Hi all nations,
Capitalism is bad. Look at the world today with the capitalist economy. I say we need communism. Communism the workers and the people control.
Sincerely,
The Democratic Republic of Communist Party of Greece

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

So you think that rich people actually give a flying crap about starving poor people?

No. That wasn't the point.

Do you think government cares about anyone?

Some.

[Williamson]

Hi all nations,
Capitalism is bad. Look at the world today with the capitalist economy. I say we need communism. Communism the workers and the people control.
Sincerely,
The Democratic Republic of Communist Party of Greece

This is not a RP thread.

[Socialdemokraterne]

TUSSR, you should probably abandon the whole "Fedualism worked better than Capitalism" argument unless you've got some pretty solid documentation to defend it that you just haven't wowed us with yet. It strikes me as pretty indefensible, and you're likely to just end up feeling like you're getting teamed up on because the entire room says "NO!!!"

I understand that you have a preference for socialist systems pursuing the eventual implementation of communism, but you've got to temper this passion with the fact that Lenin's system failed to meet its stated objectives and was replaced with a few more systems which equally failed to sustain themselves, eventually resulting in the death of the country that was trying them. If you're really serious about bringing a second USSR to the world you've got to face the fact that it failed, ask why, and then try to devise solutions to the problems you discover. Below is a Wikipedia article examining the wage system's inefficiencies throughout the greater bulk of the USSR's history. Examine the article, think of what solutions you might have to each problem you find, and then put it all together. Then move on to another part of the USSR that had problems, try to resolve those.

Do this long enough and you'll eventually develop a well-informed position that everyone will find themselves unable to simply rally against and say "NO!!!". They'll instead be forced to address each of your points one by one, systematically and logically. The reason they'll do this instead of simply going "NO!!!" is because you'll have actually stated a case instead of having dropped a one-liner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_refor ... %80%931962

Heh. Forgot the link.

[Sibirsky]

Smiley faces still cool?

Mmmmmm....OK.

Anyway, I've got some objections to a true free-market economy (that is, an economy composed entirely of free markets) of my own, but they're more centered around the apparent utility of government for things such as limiting the impact of negative externalities and filling missing markets than an argument that "Businessmen r teh ebil". As for the nature of government itself, I have a tendency to view it less as a rational entity with its own independent will and more a tool. It's sort of like a very big corporation that everyone gets a stake in^*.

*At least a representative one with free and fair elections is.

Fair enough.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

TUSSR, you should probably abandon the whole "Fedualism worked better than Capitalism" argument unless you've got some pretty solid documentation to defend it that you just haven't wowed us with yet. It strikes me as pretty indefensible, and you're likely to just end up feeling like you're getting teamed up on because the entire room says "NO!!!"

I understand that you have a preference for socialist systems pursuing the eventual implementation of communism, but you've got to temper this passion with the fact that Lenin's system failed to meet its stated objectives and was replaced with a few more systems which equally failed to sustain themselves, eventually resulting in the death of the country that was trying them. If you're really serious about bringing a second USSR to the world you've got to face the fact that it failed, ask why, and then try to devise solutions to the problems you discover. Below is a Wikipedia article examining the wage system's inefficiencies throughout the greater bulk of the USSR's history. Examine the article, think of what solutions you might have to each problem you find, and then put it all together. Then move on to another part of the USSR that had problems, try to resolve those.

Do this long enough and you'll eventually develop a well-informed position that everyone will find themselves unable to simply rally against and say "NO!!!". They'll instead be forced to address each of your points one by one, systematically and logically. The reason they'll do this instead of simply going "NO!!!" is because you'll have actually stated a case instead of having dropped a one-liner.

I have made some relatively long arguments before. Also feudalism is an awful system, but it is better than capitalism seeing that there was relative economic prosperity under that system, capitalism has bombed horibly.

[Sibirsky]

No. That wasn't the point.

Do you think government cares about anyone?

Some.

Some what?

[Ostroeuropa]

TUSSR, you should probably abandon the whole "Fedualism worked better than Capitalism" argument unless you've got some pretty solid documentation to defend it that you just haven't wowed us with yet. It strikes me as pretty indefensible, and you're likely to just end up feeling like you're getting teamed up on because the entire room says "NO!!!"

I understand that you have a preference for socialist systems pursuing the eventual implementation of communism, but you've got to temper this passion with the fact that Lenin's system failed to meet its stated objectives and was replaced with a few more systems which equally failed to sustain themselves, eventually resulting in the death of the country that was trying them. If you're really serious about bringing a second USSR to the world you've got to face the fact that it failed, ask why, and then try to devise solutions to the problems you discover. Below is a Wikipedia article examining the wage system's inefficiencies throughout the greater bulk of the USSR's history. Examine the article, think of what solutions you might have to each problem you find, and then put it all together. Then move on to another part of the USSR that had problems, try to resolve those.

Do this long enough and you'll eventually develop a well-informed position that everyone will find themselves unable to simply rally against and say "NO!!!". They'll instead be forced to address each of your points one by one, systematically and logically. The reason they'll do this instead of simply going "NO!!!" is because you'll have actually stated a case instead of having dropped a one-liner.

I have made some relatively long arguments before. Also feudalism is an awful system, but it is better than capitalism seeing that there was relative economic prosperity under that system, capitalism has bombed horibly.

How do you define prosperity exactly.

[Sociobiology]

but according to you the fact that she would have control over that money as opposed to having its usage determined by the state should make it vastly more desirable, not to mention most of the benefits will go away as her children age.
Not to mention this also assumes the two jobs are equal in other conditions, which I highly doubt with a $40,000 diffrence in pay.

Your proposal is to make her live on that $29,000 and if she starves so be it.

really you have found a couple high spots, which is an argument to smooth it out not do away with taxes.

If anything businesses should be trilled they are getting a better worker than they are willing to pay for at the lower scales.

Sure, the benefits will seize. That does not make the fact that it would be more financial beneficial to make less money, in the present day, any less true.

We're talking financial benefits. Obviously there are other factors at play. But, you're being obtuse. You are ignoring the point.

No I am pointing out you are trying to use one small portion of the entire curve as representative of the entire curve.

I did not propose anything. I merely pointed out how certain things may have bad incentives.

and you are wrong, taxation is not a disincentive, the net incentive is clearly positive, the effect in the economy is also very positive since a wage of 26,000 is not going to support the woman and her children, and a live laborer is more productive than a dead one.
The graph leaves out most of the benefits of taxation, as if it is cost without profit.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

Some.

Some what?

Governements.

I have made some relatively long arguments before. Also feudalism is an awful system, but it is better than capitalism seeing that there was relative economic prosperity under that system, capitalism has bombed horibly.

How do you define prosperity exactly.

As in where the people have jobs, starvation isnt amok, and people can make a living.

[Death Metal]

I have made some relatively long arguments before. Also feudalism is an awful system, but it is better than capitalism seeing that there was relative economic prosperity under that system, capitalism has bombed horibly.

You don't think there has been economic prosperity with capitalism?

Really?

[Sibirsky]

TUSSR, you should probably abandon the whole "Fedualism worked better than Capitalism" argument unless you've got some pretty solid documentation to defend it that you just haven't wowed us with yet. It strikes me as pretty indefensible, and you're likely to just end up feeling like you're getting teamed up on because the entire room says "NO!!!"

I understand that you have a preference for socialist systems pursuing the eventual implementation of communism, but you've got to temper this passion with the fact that Lenin's system failed to meet its stated objectives and was replaced with a few more systems which equally failed to sustain themselves, eventually resulting in the death of the country that was trying them. If you're really serious about bringing a second USSR to the world you've got to face the fact that it failed, ask why, and then try to devise solutions to the problems you discover. Below is a Wikipedia article examining the wage system's inefficiencies throughout the greater bulk of the USSR's history. Examine the article, think of what solutions you might have to each problem you find, and then put it all together. Then move on to another part of the USSR that had problems, try to resolve those.

Do this long enough and you'll eventually develop a well-informed position that everyone will find themselves unable to simply rally against and say "NO!!!". They'll instead be forced to address each of your points one by one, systematically and logically. The reason they'll do this instead of simply going "NO!!!" is because you'll have actually stated a case instead of having dropped a one-liner.

I have made some relatively long arguments before. Also feudalism is an awful system, but it is better than capitalism seeing that there was relative economic prosperity under that system, capitalism has bombed horibly.

There is no prosperity in capitalism. No, no, no!

This dude with a tyrant dictator on his flag said so. It must be true!

[Socialdemokraterne]

Fair enough.

That's...that's it? No insults? No rage? No telling me I'm wrong? Just a "fair enough", an implicit acceptance of my position as equally valid compared to your own?

Everyone, look outside your windows! Make sure it's not raining fire! Two people on NSG just agreed to disagree!

[Sibirsky]

I have made some relatively long arguments before. Also feudalism is an awful system, but it is better than capitalism seeing that there was relative economic prosperity under that system, capitalism has bombed horibly.

How do you define prosperity exactly.

Air.

[Sociobiology]

look at what I said again, if labor is a resource than having a government increases the resources available to the private sector by allowing for orders of magnitude larger labor force.

What?

what part did you not understand?