Babylon and on - the new capitalism/communism thread

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Serb

1) It's Bullsh!t.
2) Ticonderoga is 25 years ahead of Sovremenny? Yeah, right, and I have a bridge to sell.
3) Russian ships of Kirov class is 20-25 years ahead of any American ship.
4) Have a nice day.

MtG was trying to slip one past us again Good job Serb.

[DinoDoc]

When it comes to someone questioning Russia, Serb is a less than truthful source of information.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx

PS to Kid: I'm hurt... No comments to my recent stuff....



-V.

The innovation or the authoritarionism. Innovation is no longer too important, and authoritarianism depends on the strength of your enemy.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by JohnT
Hell, he still hasn't explained to me how he reconciles the dichotomy of his decision to change from being a "socially useful" teacher to being a "social leech" (Accountant) with his beliefs. Does it keep him up at night?

He claimed that it was because teaching was bad for him... but Kid, what does that matter? According to you, societal needs must come at the expense of your individuality, but you made an individual choice that is very arguably not beneficial to society, and in fact, perpetuates that which you claim to loathe.

It's all in how they act, Vel. They can write and write all they want to, but as long as they are looking for those Citibank contracts and Accounting positions, we win by default.

No John. Societal need do not come at the expense of individuality. Only Individuality, the way some people define it, comes at the expense of societal needs. I find it disgusting that people want to consume more and more and hoard more and more money while people are suffering. I don't really call that Individualism. That's just greed. No, I don't feel guilty for quiting teaching. It was making me very unhappy, and being a rational human being, I quit.

[Velociryx]

Innovation is no longer too important? I can't wait to hear the reasoning behind this one!

Authoritarianism is required by the system you propose for the following reasons:

1) Centralized control NEEDS authoritarianism to maintain its position (without jackboots, you won't stay in power)

2) "Enemies" would have to include not only foriegn governments, but anyone who did not chant the party mantra with a sufficient amount of zeal (need more jackboots to keep tabs on them....the subversive bastards!), and/or anyone who dared persue capitalist enterprises (still more jackboots needed to watch the exploitive bastards!).

The communist state will never have a shortage of enemies, for even if it was globalized, the enemies would be within....

-=Vel=-

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx


Innovation is no longer too important? I can't wait to hear the reasoning behind this one!

Authoritarianism is required by the system you propose for the following reasons:

1) Centralized control NEEDS authoritarianism to maintain its position (without jackboots, you won't stay in power)

2) "Enemies" would have to include not only foriegn governments, but anyone who did not chant the party mantra with a sufficient amount of zeal (need more jackboots to keep tabs on them....the subversive bastards!), and/or anyone who dared persue capitalist enterprises (still more jackboots needed to watch the exploitive bastards!).

The communist state will never have a shortage of enemies, for even if it was globalized, the enemies would be within....

-=Vel=-

I'll have to get back to this later. I have to do some stuff.

I'll just say real quick that innovation is very important for capitalism, but that it doesn't add to the benefit of regular people as much as you claim that it does. Furthermore, it causes most of the problems with capitalism. And last, the level of technological advancement is already sufficient to make the people of the world much happier if they were to recieve the full benefits of it than they would be if they continued under capitalism as it continually denied them resources to automate more work.

[Velociryx]

It's funny, but that's what people were saying in the late 1890's. Science had pretty well been tapped out. Nothing of interest left to discover or invent.

Uh huh.

A bit of advice: Don't bet your bottom dollar on that (it would be "unlucky" )

As to societal needs coming at the expense of (or not) the individual: In the theory you are touting, oh yes it does!

Time and time again we are told that individual examples of success and failures do not count (thus, if the experiences themselves do not count, then neither do the individuals who had them). We must forget the individual, and look at the "whole group." Whatever is best for the whole group, that's what we do (which is the REASON for the whole wealth re-distribution that STARTS your freakin' revolution, remember? What about the individuals you take from? They don't count! Why not? Because it's not "about" the individual!

-=Vel=-

[JohnT]

"I'll just say real quick that innovation is very important for capitalism, but that it doesn't add to the benefit of regular people as much as you claim that it does."

So says the man posting on a message board in an internet forum (based on a commercially released series of games) using a personal computer.

This post wins the DoublePlusGood UnSpeak Award of the Day!

[Velociryx]

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
A bit of advice: Don't bet your bottom dollar on that (it would be "unlucky" )

Don't have an argument do you? The world unemployment rate is higher than it's ever been. The underemployment rate (people with part-time jobs who want full-time jobs) in the US is higher than it's ever been. How would you like to bet that both increase?

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by JohnT
So says the man posting on a message board in an internet forum (based on a commercially released series of games) using a personal computer.

Providing internet service to a few is not a comparable goal with the goal of providing the basic needs of everyone. That's not to say that we couldn't provide internet service to the entire world.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
When it comes to someone questioning Russia, Serb is a less than truthful source of information.

What do I care? The 'fact' is pointless anyway.

[JohnT]

Well, that does it. I am withdrawing from this conversation.

When one starts lying (as opposed to just slanting the debate and figures to fit their needs, something we all do), there is no need to discuss this anymore.

The Department of Labor doesn't have an official
underemployment category at stats.bls.gov, but I assume you mean "People who work Part Time for Economic Reasons."

According to their site, the underemployment figures (total number of persons) for the US (as of May 2003) was 70% of what it was just a decade ago.

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost

[Velociryx]

John....you know we're not supposed to argue from the FACTS! (they'll be ignored anyway! )

Nahhh, don't withdraw from the debate, just....take it in stride, you know?

They're arguing for a dead horse that's been so severely beaten the various times it's been trotted out that it's almost embarassing. How can we lose?

-=Vel=-

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I'll have to get back to this later. I have to do some stuff.

I'll just say real quick that innovation is very important for capitalism, but that it doesn't add to the benefit of regular people as much as you claim that it does. Furthermore, it causes most of the problems with capitalism. And last, the level of technological advancement is already sufficient to make the people of the world much happier if they were to recieve the full benefits of it than they would be if they continued under capitalism as it continually denied them resources to automate more work.

Well this looks like an interesting debate and I would like to join it if you guys dont mind, of course I would be on the capitalist side of the debate.

Innovation is needed as much today as it was a 100 years ago. To say that we can switch to communism because we have disscovered most of the things their is to disscover is silly. Many people have been proven wrong time and time again on this matter.

You also think that communism would be able to give everyone the benefits of our current technology. Look at communist countries now in the world. Are they able to give their people all of the benefits that come from current technology? No. Most of these countries are way behind the rest of the world. Most of their people live in provety while the party elite do not. The only one that comes close is China, but they allow private bussiness to exist and allow some capitalism in their nation. That is the only reason they are better then the rest of the communist countries arround the world.

Under the Soviet Union people suffered shortages on almost everything that they needed. I am sorry to say this to you but communism has already failed at doing what you say communism could do. If you really want to help the poor and opressed of the world, what you need is to get people to be more giving and willing to help 3 world countries devolope their lands and end the civil wars that tear apart their nations. Also you would have to get the people living in these 3rd world countries to stop these civil wars and other types of unrest that occurs there everyday. Communism would never be able to do this.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Velociryx
societies did not exist before individuals grouped together and created them....thus we see that the individual "trumps" society in this regard.

Humans have always lived in groups (with the exception of the occassional hermit). Early homonid society was likely very similar to those of the higher apes, and all evidence of homo sapiens sapiens shows that we always lived in groups. Neither the individual nor the group trumps one another. Niether can exist without the other. Capitalist society, however, treats the individual as superme (provided they are the right individuals) and lowers the group in importance. Socialist and communist society hopes to restore a balance (or, depending on the communist, tilt it the other way).

I also agree that a "blood revolution" to enact communism will result in the very same (predictable) totalitarian state that it has every other time it has been tried.

Bloody revolution is almost never tried. Instead, what is tried is often what you saw in Seattle. People asserting their rights, the state reacting violently, and people fighting back. In almost every case, that is how revolutions become violent affairs. It is usually the old state, the old society, which initiates violence. I hope you would grant us the right to violent self-defence when attacked with violence.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by JohnT
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost

Bad link

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Jack_www
Innovation is needed as much today as it was a 100 years ago. To say that we can switch to communism because we have disscovered most of the things their is to disscover is silly. Many people have been proven wrong time and time again on this matter.

I would like to know what innovations you think will be developed. Especially those that will put people back to work.

I'm not saying there aren't new discoveries to be made. I'm saying that these new discoveries are not going to come fast enough, and aren't going to create enough jobs, to keep the system going. Look at the Great Depression. The future will look like that, but worse.

[JohnT]

Fart.

Go to http://www.bls.gov/cps/home.htm

Scroll down, click on "Most Requested Statistics"

Scroll down, check "Persons At Work Part Time for Economic Reasons - LNS12032194", click the "Retrieve Data" button.

You have the ability to change output options if you want a graph and information from 1955 onward.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Kidicious
What do I care?

BTW, how's your P-100 handling the slow forums as of late?

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by JohnT
Fart.

Oh, welcome back.

I guess more part-time jobs have been lost during the current recession than I was aware of. Good job John.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


BTW, how's your P-100 handling the slow forums as of late?

I have a Intel Celeron 1 GHz

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by JohnT
Go to http://www.bls.gov/cps/home.htm

On NPR a week or so ago they were talking about the alternative unemployment rate. Apparently the government puts out two sets of numbers, those collecting unemployment, which is the number we're used to seeing, and an alternative number, which includes those who've given up looking for work or have been unemployed longer then 6 months, etc. Apparently that number is at 9%.

Underemployment gets talked about way to much by lefties. It's a factor, but not nearly as big as they think.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I have a Intel Celeron 1 GHz

And you're the one proclaiming the uselessness of inovation?

[Kidicious]

The rate that I would like to see is the rate of displaced workers who end up taking jobs for less pay.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Kidicious

I would like to know what innovations you think will be developed. Especially those that will put people back to work.

I'm not saying there aren't new discoveries to be made. I'm saying that these new discoveries are not going to come fast enough, and aren't going to create enough jobs, to keep the system going. Look at the Great Depression. The future will look like that, but worse.

First off I dont think that their is any technology that we can come with that will put more people to work. Second I cant predict the future and neither can you.
Thrid we need innovations and research to help cure deases such as AIDS, Cancer and other deadly deases. This would help all mankind.
Also why do you say that a Great Depression will come? And even if it does, we got out of it before and will again.

I dont know what economic classes you have taken but unemployment rate of about 4 to 5% is normal for a healthy economy. This means that their is enough jobs to go around for workers and that companies can find the people they need. If the unemployment rate were at 0 then this would cause wages to rise rapidly, in turn this would cause inflation and would in the end hurt people as inflation would go out fo controll and people's money would become useless and in end result in higher unemployment.

Right now the unemployment rate is aroun 6% in the United States, and this far from the 25% unemployment of the Great Depression. Now this is not good, and many companies will not be hiring this summur in the US. But it is not a crisis. Most of this is due to the 9-11 attacks and many economists are saying that economy will rebound with a years time and the stock market is already starting to come back, but this is manly due to the low interest rates which forced many to invest in the shockmarket to make money off their savings.

How could communism though give people more jobs? I mean the economy is really based on how people react and feel. If people think that things are going good, they will buy more stuff, and in turn companies will make more money and see that demand is rising and hire more people to meet the demand.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
And you're the one proclaiming the uselessness of inovation?

I'm not the f'king unibomber!

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I'm not the f'king unibomber!

No, you're just a hypocrite.

[GePap]

Where to start?

On the arguement of innovation:

Innovation is a result of human ingenuity and huma desire to know, our inquisitiveness and our ambitions. The rgeatest discoveries in human hisotry have been things like agriculture, Animal domestication, metalurgy, writing (and then printing), gunpowder and the basics of chemistry, so ofrth and so on, and none of these things were discovered thanks to either capitalism or commuism. The notion of vaccines did not come out of capitalism, neither did the steam engine nor the railroad nor a whole other set of things. So take say that it was capitalism that is responsbile for the invention of the internet is absurd. Capitalism isn't. It is responsible for the shape of the internet today, just as capitalism is not the reason for the invention of TV, but it is the reason for how it developed. No one here can possible argue that if edison had lived in Bellamy's world, he would not still have invented the things he invented, if only to be forever famous for having invented them. And you can;t becuase you can't claim to know how Edison thought the way he thought.


Che is correct: man is a social being. We evolved in groups, have always lived in groups. The notion that human beings came together to for groups is absurd. A human child is such an expensive things to raise that solitary creatures could not have done it.

On capitalism and individualism:I don;t think capitalism gives a sh1t about the individual. In fact, the "market" does not care about anything at all, save creating the METHOD of interaction that will lead to maximizing the creation of wealth and capital. As long as people act in a way beneficial to the market, the market flourishes. But the market flourishing has little to do with the happiness of individuals.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Oh, welcome back.

I guess more part-time jobs have been lost during the current recession than I was aware of. Good job John.

You're welcome. Last thing I want to do is post a broken link.

"Apparently", Che? I give you the link and you can't even bother to look it up to see if this Bald Assertion is correct?

In May 2003, there are 146,485,000 civilians in the available labor force, and of those, 482,000 of them are officially categorized as "Discouraged", or a whopping 0.329% of the work force. The number of unemployed that have been so for over 6 months (27 weeks or over) is 1,930,000, or 1.3175% of the population, for a total percentage of the population that is either long-termed unemployed or discouraged at 1.646% of the workforce. 10 years ago the combined figure was 1.7112%. The lowest I've seen the combined figures was for May of '98, where the figure was just over half that, at .805%.

Nowhere near 9%, buddy.