NationStates

Sibirsky wrote:

Georgism wrote:Fascism's basically dead though.

Good. Now we need to move on to killing socialism.

Capitalism is keeping Socialism alive. So.... Kill Capitalism you kill Socialism? I guess third way it is then.

Georgism wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:Good. Now we need to move on to killing socialism.

Depends how you mean it really, I mean I like some parts of it (public education, the NHS, to name two examples).

Other parts, I can entirely agree with you on.

Those 2 examples do a good deed. But can be improved with more capitalism.

Dimzul wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:Good. Now we need to move on to killing socialism.

Capitalism is keeping Socialism alive. So.... Kill Capitalism you kill Socialism? I guess third way it is then.

Turd way

Sibirsky wrote:Those 2 examples do a good deed. But can be improved with more capitalism.

I'm not convinced, but I'm also no economist

I'll leave the rest of y'all to argue about it.

Sibirsky wrote:

Concordeia wrote:Sibersky, you seem to advocate against public everything, except maybe defense and law enforcement.

If the transportation system is funded by selling tickets to ride and not taxpayer funds, I have no issues with it.

And what about those people who happen to be unemployed or homeless? How are they supposed to get the money to get around anywhere fast? And don't say they can just get a job. If it were that simple we wouldn't have such a huge unemployment rate right now.

50 votes for socialism

Technically all economies are mixed, just saying.

Maurepas wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:It got to be that big because it sells cheap stuff. I don't see a problem. If it fails, someone will take it's place.

It sells cheap stuff that puts people outta work, that prevents other stores from competing with it on an equal footing, what I'm saying is that it has gotten to a size where it can't fail.

Wal-Mart isn't failing any time soon. Again, monopolies aren't inherently bad.

EDIT: IN FACT, the only feasible thing that would cause Wal-Mart to fail would be *gasp* a more efficient competitor.

I'm for Democracy and think it needs to be applied to the economic system. A democratically controlled economy is a socialist economy, or a type of socialist economy. I think the best economic system is the one that allows all people autonomy at work and in their private and public lives. Democracy cannot be limited to election day. Otherwise it becomes meaningless as it has in the US. In the U.S. the people vote for two corporate parties and are represented almost exclusively by the rich. We live in an oligarchic republic not a democratic republic.

Servantium wrote:

Maurepas wrote:It sells cheap stuff that puts people outta work, that prevents other stores from competing with it on an equal footing, what I'm saying is that it has gotten to a size where it can't fail.

Wal-Mart isn't failing any time soon. Again, monopolies aren't inherently bad.

Nothing is inherently bad, some things are just worse than others, it's a cracked article, but here are some friendly monopolies:
http://www.cracked.com/article_18845_6- ... _multiline

What really gets my goat is the fact that most companies are run in an authoritarian, hierarchical fashion. The people on top get ridiculous incomes while the people on the bottom get little more than minimum wage even though they usually work the hardest, and the people at or near the bottom have little if any say in the runnings of the company. If we value democracy in our government, why don't we value it in business as well?

What is your issue with cars?

I have no real issues with cars. I have issues with the effects they have on our civilization. People say that they make our lives easier. That's true, but only for the people who use those cars.
What about the people who make those cars? Do they enjoy their work?
What about the people have to get the necessary materials for the car? Do they enjoy their work?
And what about the people who have transport the materials to the factory, and the people who have sell the cars to the people, do they enjoy their work?
And what about the people who have suffer the pollution and waste created by cars?
And what about the people who have to solve those problems? Do they enjoy solving those problems?

If people really enjoy doing these things, then i have no real issues with cars, or any other products "That make life easier".

Socialism, why? We got Einstein on our side!

The Laborcratic Union wrote:What about the people who make those cars? Do they enjoy their work?

I assume they like having a job which puts food on the table.

What about the people have to get the necessary materials for the car? Do they enjoy their work?

Same again.

And what about the people who have transport the materials to the factory, and the people who have sell the cars to the people, do they enjoy their work?

And again.

And what about the people who have suffer the pollution and waste created by cars?
And what about the people who have to solve those problems? Do they enjoy solving those problems?

Probably not.

Jakaragua wrote:Socialism, why? We got Einstein on our side!

Didn't Einstein have problems with things like dressing himself?

Georgism wrote:

Jakaragua wrote:Socialism, why? We got Einstein on our side!

Didn't Einstein have problems with things like dressing himself?

He was no individualist!

He depending on others... just what the evil collectivists want! By god what is happening to the free, colonizing, white-loving country I used to know?

Concordeia wrote:What really gets my goat is the fact that most companies are run in an authoritarian, hierarchical fashion. The people on top get ridiculous incomes while the people on the bottom get little more than minimum wage even though they usually work the hardest, and the people at or near the bottom have little if any say in the runnings of the company. If we value democracy in our government, why don't we value it in business as well?

Because the guy who tightens bolts for a living doesn't know how to run an auto shop. If he did, he'd start one and be the successful capitalist pig running it making more than the guy he hires to turn a wrench.

Jakaragua wrote:He was no individualist!

He depending on others... just what the evil collectivists want! By god what is happening to the free, colonizing, white-loving country I used to know?

You do me a disservice.

I'm just saying, he was a fantastic physicist and a pretty decent philosopher, but I wouldn't trust him for all that much else, personally.

Georgism wrote:I assume they like having a job which puts food on the table.

The people in the car factory could very well work in some other, more productive place.

The Laborcratic Union wrote:

What is your issue with cars?

I have no real issues with cars. I have issues with the effects they have on our civilization. People say that they make our lives easier. That's true, but only for the people who use those cars.
What about the people who make those cars? Do they enjoy their work?
What about the people have to get the necessary materials for the car? Do they enjoy their work?
And what about the people who have transport the materials to the factory, and the people who have sell the cars to the people, do they enjoy their work?
And what about the people who have suffer the pollution and waste created by cars?
And what about the people who have to solve those problems? Do they enjoy solving those problems?

If people really enjoy doing these things, then i have no real issues with cars, or any other products "That make life easier".

Uh, yeah, they all enjoy their jobs (as much as anyone enjoys their job) or they wouldn't be working them. So you have no reason to have a problem with cars.

As for the question, I think we need a mixed economy where corporations are regulated and corporatism is prevented. I don't understand people who say capitalism wouldn't allow this or 'x wouldn't happen in capitalism,' because... um.. this is the real world and it sure as hell does. When are you free-market types going to figure out that theories which expect all situations to be ideal are unrealistic and will always fail?

The Laborcratic Union wrote:The people in the car factory could very well work in some other, more productive place.

I assume that if they could and they felt it was better for them, they'd be there already.

Better at what? At economic growth? Social equality? Decreasing poverty? Higher Standard of living?

New Nicksyllvania wrote:

Concordeia wrote:What really gets my goat is the fact that most companies are run in an authoritarian, hierarchical fashion. The people on top get ridiculous incomes while the people on the bottom get little more than minimum wage even though they usually work the hardest, and the people at or near the bottom have little if any say in the runnings of the company. If we value democracy in our government, why don't we value it in business as well?

Because Democracy doesn't work and we certainly shouldn't institute it into business. What's next, the military? Oh wait.

Democracy doesn't work...anarchy does!

Volnotova wrote:Better at what? At economic growth? Social equality? Decreasing poverty? Higher Standard of living?

In general.

Neither is better, neither is worse.

I prefer a mixed economy leaning towards market.