Yep...Canada.
Nope, but we should keep trying.
Agreed.
I hear ya. To many "wouldbe armchair dictators" to make any one ideology work effeciently or fairly.
To bad really.
Socialism Is the Only Way
- Thread starter darkbeaver
- Start date
To bad really.
Lone Wolf quoting Zzarchov, "There was an observation made that the economy of socialist Cuba has fared better than that of capitalist Haiti. There was an observation made that the economy of socialist Cuba has fared better than that of capitalist Haiti."
Zzarchove has never heard of Peurto Rico, the American Virgin Islands, or the British Virgin Islands, or any larger and yet prosperous island states like Japan or Great Britain. He's bad with islands. This kind of selectivity indicates what?
Zzarchove has never heard of Peurto Rico, the American Virgin Islands, or the British Virgin Islands, or any larger and yet prosperous island states like Japan or Great Britain. He's bad with islands. This kind of selectivity indicates what?
My family originally came from a so-called socialist state where, even today, we still have relatives. Let me tell you, socialism sounds well and good IF and that's a big IF, the powers that be aren't greedy, vengeful and in it for the power. Unfortunately, not unlike some capitalists, there's always the "human factor". Living under a socialist regime is not what it's cracked up to be and I'd much rather work under capitalism. I work hard every damn day and I'm rewarded for my hard work. Because of the fruits of my labour, I am able to give to various charities and support myself and my family reasonably well. Am I rich? Absolutely not. But I strive to make tomorrow better than today.
Under socialism, if I worked as hard as I do now, I'd be no forther ahead because someone else would decree that I have too much and so the benefits of my work should go to someone else instead because (maybe) they didn't work as hard and they don't have what I have. If I had 6 kids under socialism and 2 cows, I most likely would lose at least 1 cow because, afterall, I only need one right? If I had 2 fruit trees, 1-1/2 of my crop would be confiscated because, afterall, I only need 1/2. That's socialism. Problem is, the cow and the fruit would go to the powers that be and not to my neighbours, because, well, human nature will dictate that whomever is in charge always want more.
Gee, doesn't that sound familiar?? Think I'll stick with the "devil" I know, thank you very much.
JMO
Under socialism, if I worked as hard as I do now, I'd be no forther ahead because someone else would decree that I have too much and so the benefits of my work should go to someone else instead because (maybe) they didn't work as hard and they don't have what I have. If I had 6 kids under socialism and 2 cows, I most likely would lose at least 1 cow because, afterall, I only need one right? If I had 2 fruit trees, 1-1/2 of my crop would be confiscated because, afterall, I only need 1/2. That's socialism. Problem is, the cow and the fruit would go to the powers that be and not to my neighbours, because, well, human nature will dictate that whomever is in charge always want more.
Gee, doesn't that sound familiar?? Think I'll stick with the "devil" I know, thank you very much.
JMO
Indicates next-door neighbours who processed along different channels ... and you're losing the debate so it's time to look between lines for some anti-American rhetoric to put it back on your track so you can be right. That'll be 25 cents for the therapy session.
Woof!
An earlier post needs repeating:
Now we can look forward to page long quotation squares where you try and prove your opinions are more valid than anyone else's?
-------------------------------so sayeth the Nuggler on page 2 of this threadbare thread----------
Can we summarize any main points of agreement ?
Has the Darkbeaver rollicked all over the dam with his mania ?
Has Toro, our resident economist, also known as "the great one", been too bemused or bored to offer real guidance here?
How many more squirts of socialjism vs capitaljism are we to receive on the face ?
When will the people receive regular orgasms ?
Now we can look forward to page long quotation squares where you try and prove your opinions are more valid than anyone else's?
-------------------------------so sayeth the Nuggler on page 2 of this threadbare thread----------
Can we summarize any main points of agreement ?
Has the Darkbeaver rollicked all over the dam with his mania ?
Has Toro, our resident economist, also known as "the great one", been too bemused or bored to offer real guidance here?
How many more squirts of socialjism vs capitaljism are we to receive on the face ?
When will the people receive regular orgasms ?
The case of Rwanda is particularly poignant. Rwanda had enjoyed a reasonably healthy economy by third-world standards. Roughly half of the economy was devoted to agriculture, providing for the needs of the local population. The other half was devoted to export production of coffee and other commodities. An international quota system maintained reasonably stable prices for coffee producers, and coffee income was a major source of Rwandan public finances. A population growth of 3.2% per annum was negligible, and up until 1989 inflation remained low and food imports were minimal. The Rwandan economy was then totally destroyed - not by population growth, not by drought, and not by tribal conflict - but by the actions of international coffee traders and the IMF.
In his book The Globalization Of Poverty, economics professor Michel Chossudovsky examines this and many other third-world collapse scenarios. In the chapter Economic Genocide In Rwanda he explains in detail how international capital, with assistance from the U.S. government and the IMF, systematically reduced Rwanda to a state of poverty, famine, and genocidal civil war. The first blow was struck in 1989 when large U.S. coffee traders persuaded Washington to undermine the international quota system. In a matter of months, coffee prices to producers plummeted by 50%. Retail coffee prices remained high - 20 times what Rwandan producers were receiving. The difference was being pocketed by powerful international traders who controlled distribution and retail markets.
Nonetheless, the Rwandan government was coping with the situation as best it could. Restrictions on food imports and subsidies to coffee growers kept the domestic economy and society functioning. Similar government measures have been used routinely in the West to stabilize domestic economies. Nonetheless, by 1990 the Rwandan government needed some outside financing and had no choice but to turn to the IMF. Western governments too depend on debt financing, but they have more control over the terms of the loans. The terms attached to Rwanda's loans were dictated by the IMF, and those terms led directly to the destruction of the Rwandan economy.
The IMF, as usual, based its conditions on what is called "trade
RK Moore Globalization and the Revolutionary Imperative pg3
In his book The Globalization Of Poverty, economics professor Michel Chossudovsky examines this and many other third-world collapse scenarios. In the chapter Economic Genocide In Rwanda he explains in detail how international capital, with assistance from the U.S. government and the IMF, systematically reduced Rwanda to a state of poverty, famine, and genocidal civil war. The first blow was struck in 1989 when large U.S. coffee traders persuaded Washington to undermine the international quota system. In a matter of months, coffee prices to producers plummeted by 50%. Retail coffee prices remained high - 20 times what Rwandan producers were receiving. The difference was being pocketed by powerful international traders who controlled distribution and retail markets.
Nonetheless, the Rwandan government was coping with the situation as best it could. Restrictions on food imports and subsidies to coffee growers kept the domestic economy and society functioning. Similar government measures have been used routinely in the West to stabilize domestic economies. Nonetheless, by 1990 the Rwandan government needed some outside financing and had no choice but to turn to the IMF. Western governments too depend on debt financing, but they have more control over the terms of the loans. The terms attached to Rwanda's loans were dictated by the IMF, and those terms led directly to the destruction of the Rwandan economy.
The IMF, as usual, based its conditions on what is called "trade
RK Moore Globalization and the Revolutionary Imperative pg3
What was the real mistake Rwanda made ? No diversifying.
I thought you were a fan of diversity ?
If one product can bring down the whole economy then there isn't enough diversity.
But there's probably more details than just the internation coffee world conspiring against Rwanda.
However, should protectionism occur, there's too many studies to show that the Rwandans would have never had enough of anything to lose had protectionism ruled. The pie would have been too small to matter.
I thought you were a fan of diversity ?
If one product can bring down the whole economy then there isn't enough diversity.
But there's probably more details than just the internation coffee world conspiring against Rwanda.
However, should protectionism occur, there's too many studies to show that the Rwandans would have never had enough of anything to lose had protectionism ruled. The pie would have been too small to matter.
The greatest enemys of small bussiness and enterprise are those same capitalists you think you are but aren't. The true engine of capitalism is capital. You do not know the difference between small and medium commerce and capitalism.What the hell are you doining speaking in support of Walmart and similar capitalist institutions, the very mechanisms that destroy indepentent bussiness by the hundreds everyday. You mistakinly believe you are a capitalist and you mistakinly believe that employment drives the engine of capitalism, you're wrong, I'm actually on your side but you don't know what side you're on. Socialism is not your phucking enemy capitalism is, but you don't know the difference between commerce and capitalism. Enterprise is a fine and honourable way to make a living, I have never denied that, we are not talking about the same thing iART, I would be the last person in the world to deny you the right to use your talents to improve your lot in life, but if you unethically extracted many times the value of your goods and or services from your nieghbours I would be your mortal enemy.
Lone Wolf, do you mind if i call you Zzarchov"
"... and you're losing the debate so it's time to look between lines for some anti-American rhetoric to put it back on your track so you can be right. That'll be 25 cents for the therapy session."
You are too kind! Too kind too soon, too fast too. Surely the quality of anti-American rhetoric is not strained. As surely as the American military industrial complex and the CIS invented socialism, I am now a left winger. If you can't beat 'em...
Join me brother! I do it all for you!
"... and you're losing the debate so it's time to look between lines for some anti-American rhetoric to put it back on your track so you can be right. That'll be 25 cents for the therapy session."
You are too kind! Too kind too soon, too fast too. Surely the quality of anti-American rhetoric is not strained. As surely as the American military industrial complex and the CIS invented socialism, I am now a left winger. If you can't beat 'em...
Join me brother! I do it all for you!
Are you defending capitalism in some respect? Wow! I didn't expect that from you.
I am defending capitalism in no respect. Socialism in no way limits fair trade or commerce or for that matter fair profit. It does however in practice ensures that capital does not rule nor does it run amuck thruogh a society without the leash of democratic regulation.:smile:
s243a, to Darkbeaver, "What the hell are you doining speaking in support of Walmart... that destroy indepentent bussiness by the hundreds everyday..."
I have been to Walmart. Walmart is wonderful. Walmart has killed more stinking, grasping, capitalist running dogs than a suicide bomber on a bus. It's homeopathic. I feel real good just breathing the air at Walmart. I'd sure like to lick the boots of the owner, and support them for President of the Union of Walmart Socialist States.
But, what I say and a buck will get you a cup of coffee - at least at Walmart it still will.
I have been to Walmart. Walmart is wonderful. Walmart has killed more stinking, grasping, capitalist running dogs than a suicide bomber on a bus. It's homeopathic. I feel real good just breathing the air at Walmart. I'd sure like to lick the boots of the owner, and support them for President of the Union of Walmart Socialist States.
But, what I say and a buck will get you a cup of coffee - at least at Walmart it still will.
Well, I suppose what Socialism does and does not limit is a matter of definition. According to Walters definition Socialism does regulate fair comers. In fact socialism is not fare because when the government does allow companies to compete for the same services, the government programs do not have to be profitable but the private services do.
The government programs are paid for on the backs of the tax payer. The tax payer may not be able to afford the private service as a consequence of paying excessive levels of tax and if the tax payer can afford it, then the incentive is considerably diminished because the tax payer was already forced to pay for the crappy government service.
I do believe in some socialization but I believe the tax payer should be able to opt out of government services to some extent and get a tax rebate for doing so. Socialism is a form of economic fascism and well you talk about controls on privet industry where are the controls on government services? If a private industry doesn't offer a good service it goes out of business. If a government program is of inadequate quality the claim is it is "under funded". Without giving people the ability to opt out of government services their is little accountability for bureaucratic failures.
See, this is why no one takes you seriously. I am all for capitalism, I believe it is a system far better suited to the human race than socialism. I even like the idea of a useless rich elite, because I hope to attain enough wealth to be there one day. I have no problem with it being quite easy to "Fall from grace" mind you if you become stupid with your money and stop being useful to society (see Paris Hilton).
So I am an ardent capitalist. What I am not, is in favour of lying to support your viewpoint nor distorting reality in any way.
I belive Cuba is faring far better than its neighbours, I believe this is because it is Anti-American more than Socialist (though being Socialist helps maintain controls). Not because America is evil, but because its hard to thrive being the tiny fish next to the shark. Most Carribean states are simply too tiny to compete with the US economy and should either join a larger economy or merge into one fair sized economy (somewhat like Caricom).
I also believe in the horrors of United and Standard Fruit, of Slavery, The East India and Hudson's Bay Companies and any number of other major failings of the capitalist system.
This isn't because Im a communist, its because Im a realist and I can plainly see Capitalisms failings, if it were perfect we would live in Utopia (which we don't). Supporting a system doesn't mean being blind to its warts, it should mean you are aware of them and think it can still be managed.
Population of Cuba:
- 2006 estimate 11,382,820 (73rd)
Population of Iceland:
- December 2007 estimate 312,8721 (172nd)
GDP of cuba
GDP (PPP) 2006 estimate - Total $44.54 billion (2006 est.) (not ranked) - Per capita $4,100 (not ranked)
GDP of iceland
GDP (PPP) 2006 estimate - Total $12.172 billion (132nd) - Per capita 40,277 (2005) (5th)
Iceland if much smaller and had 10 times the GDP per capita. Clearly there are more factors to economic success then population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland
Actually under some theories of economic trade smaller economies benefit more from trade then larger economies.
s243a, "Iceland if much smaller and had 10 times the GDP. Clearly there are more factors to economic success then population."
Now s243a, s243a, let's think for a moment, s243A. Iceland was established by viking capitalist marauders!
Zzarchov will reach just deep enough into history to find the exceptional layer, will let the wheel spin to stop at his own finger. Then Zzarchov present the absolute rule of his opinion based on some most unsavoury historical interpretation (or fact). But when trying to use a stellar and positive example, he pulls out all the stops for his opinion, and chooses Cuba as his Miss America of socialism in action. Have you ever noticed that the more decidedly left leaning a person is, the more decidedly negative they are?
Have you ever noticed that the half the nations leftists are on Prozac?
Now s243a, s243a, let's think for a moment, s243A. Iceland was established by viking capitalist marauders!
Zzarchov will reach just deep enough into history to find the exceptional layer, will let the wheel spin to stop at his own finger. Then Zzarchov present the absolute rule of his opinion based on some most unsavoury historical interpretation (or fact). But when trying to use a stellar and positive example, he pulls out all the stops for his opinion, and chooses Cuba as his Miss America of socialism in action. Have you ever noticed that the more decidedly left leaning a person is, the more decidedly negative they are?
Have you ever noticed that the half the nations leftists are on Prozac?
s243a, s243a,
I say! I say!
s243a,
"Socialism is a form of economic fascism "
How is it that you sound so strident, so untrite, and can be perfectly right at the same time?
Yes, fascism without the fascist, socialism with the socialist is.
I say! I say!
s243a,
"Socialism is a form of economic fascism "
How is it that you sound so strident, so untrite, and can be perfectly right at the same time?
Yes, fascism without the fascist, socialism with the socialist is.