Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[scriver]

All public schools generate profit, as better educated people generate more "profit" in the long term and iss good for the economy of the nation. People-profit. Preoflit!

[Kicior]

And space program has advanced the materials science by leaps and bounds. But hey, them rockets ain't nothing but a waste of taxpayer money!

You can use them to deliver spy satelites to the orbit and it is pretty nice to have them

All public schools generate profit, as better educated people generate more "profit" in the long term and iss good for the economy of the nation. People-profit. Preoflit!

Non-public schools also educate people.

[Reelyanoob]

Honestly, it was a much more complicated thing. I mean, there is the whole debate. Should we try to spend our way out or save our way out, ect ect. I do not want to get into that so I chose the simplest option to make my point.

Saving your way out of recession - has this ever worked? I'm not being clever, feel free to contradict me with examples.

Whereas spending your way out of recession - we have plenty of actual historial examples.

BTW govt spending to regulate the economy is nothing to do with socialist theory, you require capitalism or statism for that to make sense, and both are incompatible ideas with traditional socialism e.g. Marx (a network of local, autonomous, democratic "communes" as the basis of decision making and industrial ownership)

The problem i'm pointing out is that there's no consensus definition of "socialism" and what that entails. It can mean anything from a country with only local councils and no central government (the centrists never let this happen though), to monolithic soviet-style states apparently (a flavour of fascism), or Britain, France, Australia, Canada, New Zealand according to some people. Or China's system, or the USA now they claim.

In Frederick Hayek's "Why I am not a Conservative" (long, but recommended reading) he discusses how most "socialist" programs have been initiate by conservative elements of politics basically to hold onto power / the status quo in face of civil unrest and other pressures.

Government spending is 40% GDP in the USA versus 20% GDP in Venezuela. Is the USA more socialist than Venezuela? (source : CIA world fact book)

[Kicior]

Whereas spending your way out of recession - we have plenty of actual historial examples.

Did it work with the recent crysis?

[DJ]

Well I certainly don't feel like I'm in the middle of the Great Depression.

[scriver]

All public schools generate profit, as better educated people generate more "profit" in the long term and iss good for the economy of the nation. People-profit. Preoflit!

Non-public schools also educate people.

No, really??

Sir, I believe you completely missed the point. Private schools were not in any way related to my statement.

[Kicior]

All public schools generate profit, as better educated people generate more "profit" in the long term and iss good for the economy of the nation. People-profit. Preoflit!

Non-public schools also educate people.

No, really??

Sir, I believe you completely missed the point. Private schools were not in any way related to my statement.

Huh I thought you were justifying sponsoring (I don't know if it is a proper word ) schools by the goverment.

[mainiac]

Regarding the value of NASA.  Has anybody ever heard of a satellite?  Satellites alone justify the entire investment we have made in NASA.  Throw in the various arcane things we've learned about physics, geology, etc. and the program is perfectly justifiable, it's just really, really technical trying to put a number on most of this stuff while the cost is easy to quantify.

Regarding the value of socialism, I'd like to point out that many proudly socialistic parties worldwide embrace mixed market democratic socialism.  Capitalism works very well in certain areas with the right controls.  The smart socialists are aware of this.  Thus they let a market system take care of various types of services and manufacturing because you dont need the state making your car or running a restaurant.  Meanwhile the state takes ownership of the natural monopolies like healthcare and energy because you don't need someone collecting rents on those services while providing no market benefits.  Some areas it makes sense to leave market but heavily regulate, like telecommunications frequencies while others like housing it makes sense to have partially market but have the government there as a backstop (i.e. public housing).  I guess you can argue that it's not really socialism, but many socialists have been arguing for mixed market socialism since the birth of the movement.  What's really irritating though isn't when we are too socialist or not socialist enough in general, but when we socialize things that socialism isn't good at and let rent seekers run markets that they shouldn't be allowed in.

Whereas spending your way out of recession - we have plenty of actual historial examples.

Did it work with the recent crysis?

The American stimulus was very small because it was made before we realized how bad things were getting.  The stimulus was designed to lower unemployment about 2%.  When it turned out things were heading to 12% not 8%, it was too late to try to get congress to pass a second stimulus.  China is an example of a country that could keep increasing the stimulus to the size of the problem.  They had a stimulus of about 16% of their economy.  We had a stimulus about 2.1% of our economy.  It's no surprise to the Keynesians that China's unemployment rate is back down to 4%.

[Criptfeind]

Whereas spending your way out of recession - we have plenty of actual historical examples.

Did it work with the recent crisis?

Sorta. You will notice that we now slowly rebounding. Also, this whole 'capitalism' thing is so new, only about 400 years old! Everything is a learning experience.

I think it will be a long time before banks depend of risky loans again.

Re: Define socialism: On this forum? No. You can not. But I could give you my own personal definitions with what I think of them.

Anarchy-No rules. Society works on peer per pressure and people being both 100% smart and somewhat nice-Crazy.

Capitalism-No regulations of businesses, they can do whatever the hell they want so long as it is not murder or what not-Crazy.

Welfare Capitalism-Businesses are regulated by the government-Certainly something I would pick.

State Capitalism-Businesses are both regulated by the government and helped by the government (normally against businesses from other countries)-Eh. I would like less restrictions on international trade anyway. So pass.

Democratic Socialism-There are both government owned businesses and privately owned businesses-Well, it can work certainly. I guess I am for it if the government can stay not corrupt.

Socialism-Everything is owned by the government. You get your stuff from the government. The people are supposedly the government. All hail the chairman-Not crazy per say, but I do not think it is a good idea.

Communism-Anarchy take two. There is no need for rules or laws because everyone will help each other and pool resources communally-Crazy.


Given these definitions, that I am sure everyone will disagree with me on, yes socialism is a bad thing.

[Fossaman]

On the subject of the space program derail: This link might interest you. http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html It's a list of technologies that have been developed as a result of the space program. I'm pretty sure there's a little bit of padding of the resume going on there, but it's still an impressive list. Especially when you get down to the medical section. MRIs, ultrasound machines, and pacemakers? Thank you, NASA.

[Leafsnail]

Socialism-Everything is owned by the government. You get your stuff from the government. The people are supposedly the government. All hail the chairman-Not crazy per say, but I do not think it is a good idea.

You're free to use this definition, but only with the understanding that pretty much noone else will agree with it.

[Criptfeind]

Screw everyone else.

All you people are talking about Democratic Socialism, stop calling it Socialism.

(Then start calling it Socialism again, cause that is a quicker way of writing it, but understand what you mean is Democratic Socialism and not just Socialism.)

[Reelyanoob]

Whereas spending your way out of recession - we have plenty of actual historial examples.

Did it work with the recent crysis?

In the USA, they injected the funds right at the top of the economy, rather than at the bottom. Presumably because they are corrupt. That's really really stupid. Where I live, Australia, they spread the stimulus spending around (every tax payer got an extra $900 rebate that year). We're doing pretty well.

Because they money actually gets spent that way, goes through more hands and more tax ends up getting paid back, so it ends up as cheaper stimulus too.

[Reelyanoob]

Anarchy-No rules. Society works on peer per pressure and people being both 100% smart and somewhat nice-Crazy.
[...]
Socialism-Everything is owned by the government. You get your stuff from the government. The people are supposedly the government. All hail the chairman-Not crazy per say, but I do not think it is a good idea.
[...]
Communism-Anarchy take two. There is no need for rules or laws because everyone will help each other and pool resources communally-Crazy.

That's Nazism(sorta)/Stalinism you're describing there as Socialism, which is something 19th century socialists were dead opposed to. The Socialist/Communist term was appropriated in the 20th century by totalitarians as a facade.

"anarchist ideals" of individual liberty ("no rules") are not the same as "anarchist political ideas" which are about society as an amalgam of voluntary-membership democratic local councils. e.g. participatory democracy. There's still regional councils made up of delegates from the smaller councils etc, so there is a definite structure, and a natural market economy. This no more or less requires us to trust our neighbour than any other similar system, such as representative democracy (though anarchism still uses representative democracy at the regional and higher levels). Conservatives actually used to claim that giving the common man the vote would lead to stuff like killing in the street, rape

I would say that society works on peer pressure right now, we delegate much of that pressure to a government. So it's a matter of can you trust the appointed bully or not?

Communism (Marxism) had two stages. I'll explain my understanding of Marx's thinking:-

1 - Socialism. There's a constant struggle between "owners" and "employees". If the employees were themselves the owners, then where's the conflict? Marx's first idea is for the employees to become the owners/shareholders themselves (on a local company level which he called a Commune), and not be exploited by an "other" class. They would still be part of a market economy, and market incentives still exist with profit shares, competition between the communes etc. Central wage controls and taxation rather defeats the point of the whole exercise. Note the Unions would cease to serve any purpose under true socialism, so some union leaders have been caught working with the ruling class over the years, in a form of self-preservation.

2 - Communism. Marx's second target is the dual hierarchy of economics and politics. The collectives created in stage 1 gradually take on the role of organizing society. They co-ordinate their actions through councils of delegates etc to a senate. This is certainly not "anarchism" in the "no rules" sense, nor is it the end of free trade (the communes will have to trade etc)

All these theories were formulated in totalitarian 19th century european states, basically they're just different ideas about how to organize a democratic state.

I find it scary that what you label "Socialism" - a form of Nazism/Stalinism by your description is not utterly rejected by you (you're lukewarm on it), whereas systems based on local councils you find totally repulsive.

[Phmcw]

Screw everyone else.

All you people are talking about Democratic Socialism, stop calling it Socialism.

(Then start calling it Socialism again, cause that is a quicker way of writing it, but understand what you mean is Democratic Socialism and not just Socialism.)

Meh, socialism doesn't mean anything anymore. USSR VS NSDAP, "socialist" vs "socialist", while Sweden is "socialist" as well as Wallonia. Yet four completely different political system. If you want to discuss the precise meaning of the world socialism, I don't think you'll get a lot of success. And it's not an interesting question.