Does America need a bit of Socialism

[Divair]

A small town in West TN. The only major retailer here is Wal-Mart, it killed our other retail outlets; drove them out of business.

What town, I guarantee that I can find at least a half dozen competitors to WalMart.

Do you know about Amazon ?

http://www.amazon.com/

It's on the interweb or the internets

Do you have any clue how expensive it is to ship to remote locations?

[Galloism]

WalMart is successful because they satisfy consumer preferences in a peaceful and voluntary market, once they cease to do that, then myriad competitors will swoop down and take market share from them.

You can't name a single American who has been forced into Walmart against their will, yet you advocate the empowerment of the mother of all coercive monopolies --the federal govt. -- to combat an illusory fantasy boogeyman WalMart 'monopoly' that to date has committed the heinous act of lower prices ?!

The thing is we already had monopolies. It is historically accurate to assume that monopolies do not work for the markets since we already had them and we were looking at how they destroyed the so-called "free market".

And no, they will not. Microsoft is another one that was close to monopolizing the market. It was the only alternative people had those days in a pre-built machine and they were kicking out their software competitors out of their program by not releasing their code. A monopoly can pull any unofficial rules they want as long as they keep a strong hold of the market, hereby making competition almost non-existent.

Microsoft actually bailed out Apple when they nearly crushed them some years back - if Microsoft was the only one left, we'd break them up.

The regulations made the market continue to have some competition anyway. That's a good thing.

[Galloism]

What town, I guarantee that I can find at least a half dozen competitors to WalMart.

Do you know about Amazon ?

http://www.amazon.com/

It's on the interweb or the internets

Do you have any clue how expensive it is to ship to remote locations?

Or ship back if it's the wrong size.

[Threlizdun]

Shop or starve. Shop or starve. Shop or starve. Shop or starve. Is it really this hard for you to understand the poor can't choose where the shop because they can't afford it?

Seriously dude, where do you live that WalMart is the only option?

Let's have it, I can help you find some alternatives.

Botetourt, Virginia, and I know many people who have only had the opportunity to shop anywhere other than WalMart only a handful of times in the last decade. Don't be telling me you know where to find alternatives because you haven't had to work three jobs and still only barely afford to feed your family. If you go into life with this attitude then the real world is going to kick the shit out of you.

[Divair]

The thing is we already had monopolies. It is historically accurate to assume that monopolies do not work for the markets since we already had them and we were looking at how they destroyed the so-called "free market".

And no, they will not. Microsoft is another one that was close to monopolizing the market. It was the only alternative people had those days in a pre-built machine and they were kicking out their software competitors out of their program by not releasing their code. A monopoly can pull any unofficial rules they want as long as they keep a strong hold of the market, hereby making competition almost non-existent.

Microsoft actually bailed out Apple when they nearly crushed them some years back - if Microsoft was the only one left, we'd break them up.

The regulations made the market continue to have some competition anyway. That's a good thing.

And despite being a huge Microsoft fanboy, I'm glad we have competition in sectors such as mobile phones, operating systems, and search engines.

[United Marxist Nations]

Were any of the other countries producing twice as much steel by 1953 that they were in 1941? And, more importantly, did any of those countries suffer the intense losses that the USSR did?

That's what you were supposed to prove.

On the latter, it's obvious no other country suffered the same losses as the USSR; I'll find something on the other countries in a little bit.

EDIT: And what right would you give, when you don't even give national sovereignty?

National sovereignty is not an inherent right I believe in. Otherwise I'd be OK with, say, a country like Uganda oppressing homosexuals. But as someone who disregards borders entirely, I'm not OK with it.[/quote]
So, wouldn't that mean you're okay with imperialism?

[Riiser-Larsen]

Hey! That's nice! Hong Kong is, where? CHINA. And China has a free-market economy, nothing "socialist command" about that. Cambodia? Doesn't have and never had a socialist command economy. North Korea? Doesn't have and never had a socialist command economy. Also let's just plain fucking ignore those 50% of the populace that lived in starvation and poverty each day in the US from 1800-1900. Let's just plain ignore those and pretend we're all doing good, because it'll all magically go away. Yeah.


Haha, you think we envy the rich? Why would I envy a pig-swine capitalist who unfairly earns his money over the backs of other people? Give me a single reason as to why I should be envious of someone who lives such a disgusting lifestyle? I'll be waiting!


'Cause, y'know, the third world is "socialist".

China doesn't have a free market economy by any objective measure. It is state capitalism or mixed-economy.

And if socialism was so beneficial, why does it require coercion to implement? And why do you oppose a peaceful and voluntary society in which socialists are free to form their own collective in their own corner of the nation?

And why do socialists who profess to care about the poor not contribute their own wealth to help them if they think that handouts are beneficial ? There are plenty of rich progressives who are living far better than you or I that are living in large single family homes while homeless folks live a few miles away left wanting.

The third world is poverty stricken largely because the third world is autocratic, certainly not free market.

Where the hell have you been for the last 10 years? China is most certainly capitalist, there are almost no restrictions on what businesses are able to do compared to the west.

It requires coercion to revolution to implement just about any major change in a country. Scratch that, where the hell have you been for the last 5000 years?

They do...

Most of the third world is autocratic AND free market. An autocracy is not an economic system.

[Divair]

Do you have any clue how expensive it is to ship to remote locations?

Or ship back if it's the wrong size.

Or what if you live in a country that isn't America? I'm only now discovering how awesome Amazon is because I haven't had access to it for 17 years.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Seriously dude, where do you live that WalMart is the only option?

Let's have it, I can help you find some alternatives.

Stop fucking asking where we live. We're not saying it's the case in our area, we're just saying it has happened.

I just told her where I live, Dallas.

Dallas is a big enough city so I am not worried she will find me among 1 million people.

But again, Dallas is an urban area and hence it's a very special case in which there is a lot of competition and a lot of resources. The U.S. does not have cities like Dallas all over, which is the big difference between my experience and someone in a backwards town.

[Benuty]

Do you have any clue how expensive it is to ship to remote locations?

Or ship back if it's the wrong size.

Not to mention the pain of getting shipped the wrong item when you waited 6 months because you live on an island community in the pacific.

[Yorkopolis]

Hey! That's nice! Hong Kong is, where? CHINA. And China has a free-market economy, nothing "socialist command" about that. Cambodia? Doesn't have and never had a socialist command economy. North Korea? Doesn't have and never had a socialist command economy. Also let's just plain fucking ignore those 50% of the populace that lived in starvation and poverty each day in the US from 1800-1900. Let's just plain ignore those and pretend we're all doing good, because it'll all magically go away. Yeah.


Haha, you think we envy the rich? Why would I envy a pig-swine capitalist who unfairly earns his money over the backs of other people? Give me a single reason as to why I should be envious of someone who lives such a disgusting lifestyle? I'll be waiting!


'Cause, y'know, the third world is "socialist".

China doesn't have a free market economy by any objective measure. It is state capitalism or mixed-economy.

And if socialism was so beneficial, why does it require coercion to implement? And why do you oppose a peaceful and voluntary society in which socialists are free to form their own collective in their own corner of the nation?

And why do socialists who profess to care about the poor not contribute their own wealth to help them if they think that handouts are beneficial ? There are plenty of rich progressives who are living far better than you or I that are living in large single family homes while homeless folks live a few miles away left wanting.

The third world is poverty stricken largely because the third world is autocratic, certainly not free market.

You cannot criticise socialism as being "unbeneficial" because it simply has not happened many times. In Socialist Yugoslavia under Tito, it happened, and Yugoslavia was a stable society with a strong economy.

Autocratic and free-market go well together, I can tell you. Ever heard of Francisco Franco and Augusto Pinochet? They were autocratic yet free-market, and so are many leaders in Africa as well.

Besides that, how can I possibly contribute my own wealth when I have very little wealth? If I could contribute wealth, I would contribute wealth, not a doubt. If I could not, I would not. And I simply cannot contribute any wealth at this point in time. Stop telling me to do things which I cannot, you have no idea who I am and you should stop acting like you do.

[Divair]

On the latter, it's obvious no other country suffered the same losses as the USSR; I'll find something on the other countries in a little bit.

Oh, I don't doubt it. Russia always takes a pounding in large scale wars. But I want you to prove it industrialized faster than Europe by a margin that is large enough to give a fuck about.

So, wouldn't that mean you're okay with imperialism?

No.

[Divair]

Or ship back if it's the wrong size.

Not to mention the pain of getting shipped the wrong item when you waited 6 months because you live on an island community in the pacific.

If you can even wait that long. What if you need the item within the hour?

[United Marxist Nations]

A small town in West TN. The only major retailer here is Wal-Mart, it killed our other retail outlets; drove them out of business.

What town, I guarantee that I can find at least a half dozen competitors to WalMart.

Do you know about Amazon ?

http://www.amazon.com/

It's on the interweb or the internets

Oh, yeah, I'm gonna buy all my food on Amazon, where it is far more expensive than it is to just go buy it:

http://www.amazon.com/Tuscan-Whole-Milk ... ilk+gallon

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Stop fucking asking where we live. We're not saying it's the case in our area, we're just saying it has happened.

I just told her where I live

Oh. Sorry...

[Soldati Senza Confini]

The thing is we already had monopolies. It is historically accurate to assume that monopolies do not work for the markets since we already had them and we were looking at how they destroyed the so-called "free market".

And no, they will not. Microsoft is another one that was close to monopolizing the market. It was the only alternative people had those days in a pre-built machine and they were kicking out their software competitors out of their program by not releasing their code. A monopoly can pull any unofficial rules they want as long as they keep a strong hold of the market, hereby making competition almost non-existent.

Microsoft actually bailed out Apple when they nearly crushed them some years back - if Microsoft was the only one left, we'd break them up.

The regulations made the market continue to have some competition anyway. That's a good thing.

I would have thought there was a litigation suit by Sun Microsystems some years back due to their IE program being anti-competitive. Or perhaps it's my faulty memory.

[United Marxist Nations]

On the latter, it's obvious no other country suffered the same losses as the USSR; I'll find something on the other countries in a little bit.

Oh, I don't doubt it. Russia always takes a pounding in large scale wars. But I want you to prove it industrialized faster than Europe by a margin that is large enough to give a fuck about.

So, wouldn't that mean you're okay with imperialism?

No.

They all got back on their feet around the same time; however, since the USSR suffered far greater loss, that would still mean it did so faster:

The strength of the economic recovery following the war varied throughout the world, though in general it was quite robust. In Europe, West Germany, after having continued to decline economically during the first years of the Allied occupation, later experienced a remarkable recovery, and had by the end of the 1950s doubled production from its pre-war levels.[104] Italy came out of the war in poor economic condition,[105] but by 1950s, the Italian economy was marked by stability and high growth.[106] France rebounded quickly and enjoyed rapid economic growth and modernisation under the Monnet Plan.[107] The UK, by contrast, was in a state of economic ruin after the war[108] and continued to experience relative economic decline for decades to follow.[109]
The Soviet Union also experienced a rapid increase in production in the immediate post-war era.[110] Japan experienced rapid economic growth, becoming one of the most powerful economies in the world by the 1980s.[111]

[Threlizdun]

Yeah, you're all about preserving democracy, what with supporting a coup against the 1) popularly elected republican government established after the February Revolution, the slaughter of political opponents during the Russian Civil War, the support of Stalin's genocidal dictatorship, and the continued state capitalist autocracy that dominated Soviet Politics until its collapse 2) that used the same interventionist techniques you just criticized. Of course, you get to criticize people for saying something that comes off as anti-democratic.

1) Wasn't popular after the Kerensky offensive.

Wait for the next election then.

2) I agree that that was wrong, I subscribe to the Hoxhaist notion that the USSR used its power to manipulate other movements.

Why support the monster Stalin then? How is interventionism terrible but brutally slaughtering all that oppose you or just people that prove a mild inconvenience to your plans acceptable?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I just told her where I live

Oh. Sorry...

It's alright

But like I said on the rest of my post. My area is a very special case since it has all the appropriate resources to sustain competition with Wal-Mart. Other parts of the U.S. are not Dallas and hence they cannot be comparable to Dallas.

[WRIF Army]

China doesn't have a free market economy by any objective measure. It is state capitalism or mixed-economy.

And if socialism was so beneficial, why does it require coercion to implement? And why do you oppose a peaceful and voluntary society in which socialists are free to form their own collective in their own corner of the nation?

And why do socialists who profess to care about the poor not contribute their own wealth to help them if they think that handouts are beneficial ? There are plenty of rich progressives who are living far better than you or I that are living in large single family homes while homeless folks live a few miles away left wanting.

The third world is poverty stricken largely because the third world is autocratic, certainly not free market.

Are you going to explain yet why Hong Kong is your symbol of free market with all its welfare policies and (mostly) state run medical industry?

Hong Kong is not purely capitalist, however it is more free market oriented than the USA.

Tax rate is 15% Compared to USA 35%

Govt spending is 20% of GDP compared to US 40%

No public debt compared to USA of $11 trillion or 75% of GDP

Little or no trade tariffs

And very little regulation of businesses.

[New switz empire]

I completely disagree!!!

[Cyyro]

Are you going to explain yet why Hong Kong is your symbol of free market with all its welfare policies and (mostly) state run medical industry?

Hong Kong is not purely capitalist, however it is more free market oriented than the USA.

Tax rate is 15% Compared to USA 35%

Govt spending is 20% of GDP compared to US 40%

No public debt compared to USA of $11 trillion or 75% of GDP

Little or no trade tariffs

And very little regulation of businesses.

If only it was still British..

[Divair]

Oh, I don't doubt it. Russia always takes a pounding in large scale wars. But I want you to prove it industrialized faster than Europe by a margin that is large enough to give a fuck about.


No.

They all got back on their feet around the same time; however, since the USSR suffered far greater loss, that would still mean it did so faster:

The strength of the economic recovery following the war varied throughout the world, though in general it was quite robust. In Europe, West Germany, after having continued to decline economically during the first years of the Allied occupation, later experienced a remarkable recovery, and had by the end of the 1950s doubled production from its pre-war levels.[104] Italy came out of the war in poor economic condition,[105] but by 1950s, the Italian economy was marked by stability and high growth.[106] France rebounded quickly and enjoyed rapid economic growth and modernisation under the Monnet Plan.[107] The UK, by contrast, was in a state of economic ruin after the war[108] and continued to experience relative economic decline for decades to follow.[109]
The Soviet Union also experienced a rapid increase in production in the immediate post-war era.[110] Japan experienced rapid economic growth, becoming one of the most powerful economies in the world by the 1980s.[111]

I don't see any statistics proving such a margin exists. Just buzz-words.

[WRIF Army]

China doesn't have a free market economy by any objective measure. It is state capitalism or mixed-economy.

And if socialism was so beneficial, why does it require coercion to implement? And why do you oppose a peaceful and voluntary society in which socialists are free to form their own collective in their own corner of the nation?

And why do socialists who profess to care about the poor not contribute their own wealth to help them if they think that handouts are beneficial ? There are plenty of rich progressives who are living far better than you or I that are living in large single family homes while homeless folks live a few miles away left wanting.

The third world is poverty stricken largely because the third world is autocratic, certainly not free market.

You cannot criticise socialism as being "unbeneficial" because it simply has not happened many times. In Socialist Yugoslavia under Tito, it happened, and Yugoslavia was a stable society with a strong economy.

Autocratic and free-market go well together, I can tell you. Ever heard of Francisco Franco and Augusto Pinochet? They were autocratic yet free-market, and so are many leaders in Africa as well.

Besides that, how can I possibly contribute my own wealth when I have very little wealth? If I could contribute wealth, I would contribute wealth, not a doubt. If I could not, I would not. And I simply cannot contribute any wealth at this point in time. Stop telling me to do things which I cannot, you have no idea who I am and you should stop acting like you do.

Socialism is coercive, capitalism is freedom. Under capitalism if you want to go off and form your own little socialist collective, go ahead, nobody will stop you.

In contrast, under socialism, the iron fist of govt allows no competition to its looting. Which begs the question, if socialism is beneficial, why must it be coercive ?

If the free market is so destructive, why is it peaceful and voluntary ?

[Magna Libero]

Of course not. America doesn't need any destructive far-leftist crap.