Night of the Living ComCap Debate....

[Velociryx]

But the data does not back up what you're saying, Kid.

The 80's weren't all that bad in terms of unemployment (despite productivity gains) was at 7.2%, marginally higher than it is right now.

Would it surprise you to know that during the 1980-2000 period, more than 49 MILLION jobs were added to the US economy (that is to say, new jobs - lost jobs = a gain of more than 49 million during that period). And (again, using your unique economic perspective), how would you account for this massive surge in net job creation?

Doesn't sound like a wheezing, dying system to me.

-=Vel=-
(and yes, I'm aware that the rest of the world is not as well off as the US, but since the US is the single biggest capitalist-oriented economy, it's a good one to look at for the purposes of our topical debate).

[Kidicious]

Lets compare the 90s to the 20s since you seem to think that the 90s boom means better times ahead. During the 20s job creation was greater than technological displacement, but the Great Depression followed because job creation hit a wall.

[Velociryx]

Didn't figure you'd want to tackle the figures above....they run too much counter to what you believe, don't they?

So of course, we'll pretend they don't exist.

-=Vel=-

(how surpirsing..... )

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
But the data does not back up what you're saying, Kid.

The 80's weren't all that bad in terms of unemployment (despite productivity gains) was at 7.2%, marginally higher than it is right now.

Would it surprise you to know that during the 1980-2000 period, more than 49 MILLION jobs were added to the US economy (that is to say, new jobs - lost jobs = a gain of more than 49 million during that period). And (again, using your unique economic perspective), how would you account for this massive surge in net job creation?

Doesn't sound like a wheezing, dying system to me.

-=Vel=-
(and yes, I'm aware that the rest of the world is not as well off as the US, but since the US is the single biggest capitalist-oriented economy, it's a good one to look at for the purposes of our topical debate).

There are three main causes for the job creation. One, debt, both consumer and govt. Two, and I think this is distinct from one, military build up. And Three, this is the biggest one, the purchase of business machines to make the productivity improvements.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Ogie,

Yes we had the longest expansion in history, but that says nothing about the future. The new economy was only one expansion period. It doesn't mean that capitalism has improved in the long run. For one, the rest of the world didn't have an expansion period like that. And two, we see now with the current recession that those days are over.

Yes yes the sky is falling the sky is falling Kidicious little.

You mentioned instability. Typically that means a more frequent and severe set of economic perterbations as the economy swings more wildly on every cycle.


On a seperate tact,

Its been mentioned a number of times that if only a western country had fallen to communism then we could see true communism at work.

Hmmm... how does one reconcile a less productive society (i.e. higher cost producer) in the current world market?

I think the answer is the only way communism could work is it would have to be a world order. And for my money the more countries requiring conversion the longer the odds of it actually happening.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I'm surprised that it is now productivity that is the boogeyman.

I've got it finally.

We simply must throw away all possessions live in stone age society wherein producitivty is nil and bingo we can implement communism. Everyone will now be happy.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
You mentioned instability. Typically that means a more frequent and severe set of economic perterbations as the economy swings more wildly on every cycle.

We have learned how to make capitalism more stable in the short cycle, but not the long. All the data points to the fact that we are heading for a long-cycle downturn, and there is nothing Greenspan can do about it.

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
On a seperate tact,

Its been mentioned a number of times that if only a western country had fallen to communism then we could see true communism at work.

Hmmm... how does one reconcile a less productive society (i.e. higher cost producer) in the current world market?

I think the answer is the only way communism could work is it would have to be a world order. And for my money the more countries requiring conversion the longer the odds of it actually happening.

Only the productive nations are significant. As you know the developing nations have to follow their lead. They will get assistance, and for that assistance they will make the necessary changes.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
I'm surprised that it is now productivity that is the boogeyman.

Nope. I've got nothing against productivity, especially if it brings the fall of capitalism.

[Velociryx]

But Kid....if you want me to look at even LONGER term trends, why look at 1990-2000, rather than 1980-2000? Is that not a shorter term trend?

We could go back as far as 1970?

1960?

Soon as you make up your mind, you pick.

-=Vel=-

[Meldor]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I'm stunned. Can you actually believe that a country that used wooden triangles to suvey land and used wooden oil derriks was somehow possibly in the same leage as Western Europe? The Balkans sure weren't. Poland wasn't. Slovakia wasn't. Bohemia wasn't. Hngary wasn't. These countries were al backwards by German, French, and British standards, let alone the US. Russia was barely out of the Medieval period, ahtuogh it has some pockets of highly advanced industry . . . imported from France.

I will grant that I am not a perfect Russian scholar but I would contend that at the end of Alexander II reign that Russia was on par with the rest of the world. It was during the time of Alexander III, that the revolts in Russia began. Russia stayed in turmoil until after WWI in 1920. It was the party of Lenin (among others) that kept them in that constant state of revolution and war.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
In 1871, no one knew it was a "vastly inferior system." Nor did they know it in 1918, when the Western powers all decided to invade and support the Tsarist armies. Russia was invaded while there were still multiple parties in the Soviets, not just the socialist parties, and let alone only the Bolsheviks.

My comments were directed at the Soviet Union post WWII when they did in fact become the "Evil Emmpire" to the Western world. It is no secret that Stalin had Hitler-like ideas of world domination. It is that which the west opposed. Not the revolution in Russia or the new parties. As for the invasion with multiparties still alive in Russia, lets see....It was on March 3rd 1918 that the Russians admitted defeat and surrendered to the German alliance in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, giving up a large chunk of territory and stabbing the allies in the back at the same time. In the later part of that month the English were forced to land at Murmansk to protect supplies (given to Russia by the English, French and Americans) from falling into the German hands and helping the German war effort. The following month the Japanese landed at Vladivostok. In July of that year the constitution pushed by Lenin was ratified. Seven days later (July 17) Nicholas II and his entire family were murdered. The next month the US took Vladivostok and a month later landed at Archangelsk. Even the French landing near the end of WWI could hardly be called "in support of the Tsars, as the line was dead and gone before then.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
In fact, given the USSRs industrial growth during the 1930s, the fact that it some of the most advanced weaponry in the world in WWII, and launched the 1st sattlite and man and woman into space, the failings of the USSR weren't all that apparent for a very long time.

While some industry was begun between the world wars, the US and the British had a hand in building Russia up to assist in opposing Germany during WWII. That is were they obtained a lot of the technology and industrial base that they used after the war. For the second part, the technology that they (and the US for that matter) used to put both the satellite and the first man is space was obtained from the Germans post WWII. Why did the Russians only get there by applying German tech? Why could they not go beyond the tech they got from Germany and beat us to the moon? Why do they essentially use the same space technology today that they did in the 60s and 70s. Except for stolen technology and that aquired through German aquisition, where is the inovation? Why did they build more factories but only upgrade them way behind Western advances (after gaining the tech and not inovationg it themselves? Stagnation. Look at the condition of the factories and industry today. It is far behind and grossly inferior to the Western standards.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It wasn't until the 1930s that the show trials and the purges began.

Tell that to the family of Tsar Nicholas II.
Tell that to the victims of the October revolt.
Tell that to the Menshiveks.
Tell that to the followers of Kolchak.
Stalin might have been the worst, but Lenin was no angel.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
So did the West magically know what was going to occur under Stalin fifteen years early and decided to invade then? Furthermore, given that the West at best turned a blind eye to Hitler and at worst funded him and supported him in his enslavement of Central Europe, his crushing of the Communists and Socialists in Germany, his support of Franco, your claims ring a little hollow.

Which was it, did they turn a blind eye or support him? Frankly, this one is even farther out there. The Nazi party crushed all of the parties in Germany not just the ones you are concerned with. The Western powers (England and France) didn't stand by and watch just because Hitler opposed Russia. The political situation in Europe was a complicated mess left not only by the Western countries remains of WWI but Russias as well. Russia first made peace and vast concessions to the Germans and Austrians and then repudiated the Treat once the Germans had been defeated by the west. Leaving vast amounts of land in question. Lenin himself had designs on a lot of Eastern Europe and parts of Turkey. That is what they conceded after the defeat at the German hands.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
So, how did they know that a multiparty democracy in 1918 was going to become an abatoir in the 1930s? How did they know in the 1930s that the USSR was going to slow down its industrial growth in the 1960s? How did they know before hand how it was going to be a vastly inferior system in order to oppose it so murderously?

So let's recap. The stabbing in the back the allies recieved at Brest-Litovsk. The fact that lenin started purges long pefore Stalin came to power, although Lenin did nothing as big as Stalin. The fact that Russia was treated as an ally in WWII and then, again stabbed us in the back after the war.

Let me make one thing perfectly clear, I am in no way demeaning the people of Russia or their occupied territories. They are agood and brave people. Many of them give their blood honestly and couragously on the field in both WWI and WWII. I ahve no arguement with the people themselves.

It is with the government system that was forced upin them by both Lenin and Stalin that I oppose. It is that system that has proven that communism is an attempt to go against human nature. The only way to even get the communist system going is by violence. Name one county to take the form without violence. The system oppresses human inovation and stagnates. Look at Cuba today. They have the support of most of South America and even parts of Western Europe, and yet they have stagnated and are dying a slow death. It is the system that does it. It is failed.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
But Kid....if you want me to look at even LONGER term trends, why look at 1990-2000, rather than 1980-2000? Is that not a shorter term trend?

We could go back as far as 1970?

1960?

Soon as you make up your mind, you pick.

-=Vel=-

The seventies and the early eighties were bad, even though increased govt spending and govt job creation helped. The 50s and 60s seem to be another bright spot. I think the biggest factor there is consumerism, but there are other big factors too.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Kidicious

We have learned how to make capitalism more stable in the short cycle, but not the long. All the data points to the fact that we are heading for a long-cycle downturn, and there is nothing Greenspan can do about it.

Some say that the learning is the hidden strength of capitalism. That it learns and adapts and evolves. While communism is a product of forcing a doctrine on others inflexible and unable to evolve.

Only the productive nations are significant. As you know the developing nations have to follow their lead. They will get assistance, and for that assistance they will make the necessary changes.

Still too many to have fall.

[Velociryx]

Oh, and by the way, doing as you asked, and looking at 1990-2000, instead of 1980-2000,

More than 24.5 MILLION net jobs added to the economy (after accounting for losses due to productivity, etc).

How is this possible, given what you've been telling us about the economy?

Could it be that maybe....just maybe, your "economic theory" has a whole in it the size of a freight train?

-=Vel=-

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Some say that the learning is the hidden strength of capitalism. That it learns and adapts and evolves. While communism is a product of forcing a doctrine on others inflexible and unable to evolve.

How are you going to create recovery from a depression without forcing a doctrine on others, cut taxes and lower the interest rate?

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Still too many to have fall.

They might not all fall at once, but we can stand to have our little Cubas too. They won't be any trouble.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Kidicious

How are you going to create recovery from a depression without forcing a doctrine on others, cut taxes and lower the interest rate?

War always used to be the answer. Maybe we can once and for get rid of the commies.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Oh, and by the way, doing as you asked, and looking at 1990-2000, instead of 1980-2000,

More than 24.5 MILLION net jobs added to the economy (after accounting for losses due to productivity, etc).

How is this possible, given what you've been telling us about the economy?

Could it be that maybe....just maybe, your "economic theory" has a whole in it the size of a freight train?

-=Vel=-

The 90s boom was a high tech boom. The demand for the new tools created jobs in itself. Now that the high tech sector has busted something else has to be done to create the jobs that continue to be lost at a rate of over 400,000 per week.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
War always used to be the answer. Maybe we can once and for get rid of the commies.

A war will not create the kind of jobs that it did then, because of productivity, better weapons and nukes. That option is off the table.

Oh, and you will never get ride of communism. You can't even get rid of poverty

[Meldor]

Vel,

Not to mention that if you look at any economic indicator, it has been expanding for the last 200 years. There have been small times of contraction, as in the 1920s, smaller recessions at other places, but over all the economy has continued to expand and stagnate or shrink. And that is Western world wide. Massive increases in both jobs and productivity. Unaccounted for by the statements made.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Meldor
Vel,

Not to mention that if you look at any economic indicator, it has been expanding for the last 200 years. There have been small times of contraction, as in the 1920s, smaller recessions at other places, but over all the economy has continued to expand and stagnate or shrink. And that is Western world wide. Massive increases in both jobs and productivity. Unaccounted for by the statements made.

No one said that capitalism wouldn't grow, certainly not Marx

[Velociryx]

Kid, this economic disneyland you have constructed for yourself might have worked to convince you that communism is god's preferred answer (oh wait! Can't say that, given that it's an atheist system) to the world's problems and that capitalism is doomed to fail, but you can't refute ANY of the numbers I've put on the table, can you? The US economy has been a job making MACHINE for the last twenty years...Almost fifty million jobs (net) added to the economy! That's....beyond huge!

First you tell me you want me to look at longer term data, then you compress the timeframe, looking at WEEKLY data (and I'd LOVE to see the cite where you pulled the 400,000 a week jobs lost!....care to share?).

So what's it going to be? Shall we look at long term trends, or do you want to focus on last week's economic news (given that we have been in a recession and are just now beginning to show signs of coming out of it).

Make up your flippin' mind!



-=Vel=-

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Kid little, keeps predicting the mother of all depressions.

As I flippantly remarked it takes a galvanizing effort to lead a nation out of a serious depression. FDR's new deal wasn't going to cut it were it not for WW2.

OTOH the malaise of a communist system would make sure there wouldn't be any galvanizing effort save for massive oppression. Picks your poison.

Personally I would be in favor of capitalism that has untapped boundaries in the forms of Bioscience frontiers, space exploration and settlement, Sea exploration and settlement, clean energy development etc.

Faith in mans ability to innovate and grow as opposed to the status quo.

By the by were it not for the Great Depressionof the 20's the US would not be in a superior positionin the 50-60's to take advantage of superior infrastructure builds done during new deal era. Cyclical I understand, but far better off than the abysmall growth of communism.

[Velociryx]

Now Og, you KNOW the aborigenes tribes in Australia, with their isolation (no competition from capitalistic societies until very recently), abundance of land and resources, and communal organization could have QUITE EASILY become the most advanced people on the planet....they just chose not to....

Good case study for communism, actually.

Note how they are essentially frozen in time.

No development beyond the stone age except for what has been borrowed from capitalist cultures as they moved in.

No drive or need to innovate = no progress.

And you want this for our future? ::shakes head sadly::

-=Vel=-

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Vel Vel Vel,

To be fair, you haven't checked yesterdays job creation rate for the aborigines have you?

Lol....

[Velociryx]

And btw, I think that this expression has become permanently affixed to my face thanks to these debates!

----> <----




-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Nope....that's top secret information...the AbCommParty won't release those numbers, nor will they release any information on thier sixth generation space shuttle, which they build underground, you see (it has warp nacells mounted on it, and can--rumor has it--reach warp 4!)



-=Vel=-

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Kid, this economic disneyland you have constructed for yourself might have worked to convince you that communism is god's preferred answer (oh wait! Can't say that, given that it's an atheist system) to the world's problems and that capitalism is doomed to fail, but you can't refute ANY of the numbers I've put on the table, can you? The US economy has been a job making MACHINE for the last twenty years...Almost fifty million jobs (net) added to the economy! That's....beyond huge!

I never said that jobs weren't created. I said that the umemployment rate is what matters. Another thing that matters is the inequality in income.

Originally posted by Velociryx
First you tell me you want me to look at longer term data, then you compress the timeframe, looking at WEEKLY data (and I'd LOVE to see the cite where you pulled the 400,000 a week jobs lost!....care to share?).

You're responsible for getting your own cites now since you decided to just pretend that I was making an argument that I wasn't making last time. Everyone knows that the weekly jobless claims have been over 400,000 for quite some time now.

Originally posted by Velociryx
So what's it going to be? Shall we look at long term trends, or do you want to focus on last week's economic news (given that we have been in a recession and are just now beginning to show signs of coming out of it).

Make up your flippin' mind!



-=Vel=-

You convenienly got confused again. I have no idea what you are talking about. I just explained the long term and short term trends.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
As I flippantly remarked it takes a galvanizing effort to lead a nation out of a serious depression. FDR's new deal wasn't going to cut it were it not for WW2.

I never said that it was. I'm the communist, remember?

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
By the by were it not for the Great Depressionof the 20's the US would not be in a superior positionin the 50-60's to take advantage of superior infrastructure builds done during new deal era. Cyclical I understand, but far better off than the abysmall growth of communism.

OMG, this is the most ridiculous thing said yet. Recessions and depressions cause permanent damage to the economy. I mean people have said that recessions are good for the economy, that is laughable, but the Great Depression, that is just totally absurd.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Nope just saying that even in bad times there is a silver lining. Were it not for the massive publics works programs enacted through FDR the US would not have been poised to become an even more productive and growing society once the depression was over.

So sorry your Mr. Gloomy Gus commie.

[Velociryx]

So...show me the site you pulled your data from? Where did you get YOUR numbers? That's what I'm asking.

-=Vel=-

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
So...show me the site you pulled your data from? Where did you get YOUR numbers? That's what I'm asking.

-=Vel=-

What's the problem with finding the numbers for yourself. Stop trying to exploit me.