Keeping it Simple

[daniel_m]

I'd disagree with you there man. I spent about half of my life in the USSR (both while it was still intact and after the collapse.).
The pitiful standards were a result of a lot of things that I can write a book about. I don't think the duty to the social good was one of them.

Dude, I don't care if you lived nine tenths of your life in the USSR. What you think isn't really important; the actual causes are.

While I certainly agree that the capitalistic approach has proven itself, the collapse of the USSR had nothing to do with that system not being viable or being inferior (I don't think it was, at least not in the ideas, in execution - maybe).

It had EVERYTHING to do with the system not being viable and CERTAINLY inferior. Go ahead, write your book, I'd interested to see by what reasoning you contradict the verdicts of Soviet economists themselves.


While you do have a healthy middle class, I think the society would have benefited substantially from a better distribution of wealth. If the top class had about half of it's wealth taken in taxes and the $ were used for the good of society (e.g. your secondary education and health care SUCK), you'd still have plenty of incentives for people to wanna get to the top, and yet, the standards of living would be much better on average.
I don't think it's OK that some pro boxer can punch someone in the face for half an hour and get 20 mil for it. 100 grand is probably the max that effort deserves.

Socialist Bullshit. 'Distribution of Wealth'! You speak as if there is purposely designed mechanism that performs this role. Wealth is 'distributed' by the function of supply and demand. Capitalism is willing to let prices decide how wealth gets 'distributed' to a far greater degree than communism. Simple as that. What do the results of such a practice say? Look all around you dude.

 

[daniel_m]

Originally posted by ElCubano



Cuba is also a terrible example....

What you said makes it an even better example. Not only is it a bust in theory, nations that have embraced such a theory have failed miserably in applying it; most, such as Cuba, have even wilfully mismanaged it. So much for the warm and cozy 'social good' ideal.

 

[ElCubano]

Originally posted by daniel_m


What you said makes it an even better example. Not only is it a bust in theory, nations that have embraced such a theory have failed miserably in applying it; most, such as Cuba, have even wilfully mismanaged it. So much for the warm and cozy 'social good' ideal.

Hey, I agree 100% with your statements about Communism; but Fidel's "La Revolucion" was a farce. It is a dictatorship and a bad example to use when comparing Communism and Capatalism ...for Cuba has Both..

 

[vladiator]

Originally posted by rs7


Vlad,

Damn fine English! My Russian friend has been here 30 years and is brilliant, but can't spell "cat".

RS7

Thanks, RS. I wish the same applied to my pronunciation... I mean, it's OK enough for foreigners to think that I'm from here, but the locals spot the accent most of the time

Originally posted by rs7

The collapse of the USSR was Reagan, and the US outspending the Soviets. This was just one of those cosmic accidents.

Reagan was told about "The Red Menace". And about the "Star Wars" project. So being Reagan, he figured we were going to be invaded by Mars, and gave the okey dokey to the "Star Wars" deal. Spent those suckers right into the ground!!!

You are right, it did play a major part in it. But the main reason was that for such a system to work, the right people have to be at the helm.
If we had only chosen the quiet evolutionary path instead of just breaking everything apart and enabling the criminal circles to get intertwined with everything else thereby... But the folks who were in charge of each little "republic" that used to make up the union saw it as a chance to "rule" for a while and be there own bosses... Russia got the benefit of automatically getting all the former relationships, treaties, agreements etc that used to be between the USSR and the rest of the world. The rest of the 15 republics had start from scratch (I'm from one of those originally...)
It's certainly getting better now than it used to be 10 years ago, but it's very hard to get rid of the mafia clans that got to power. They are the ones who like it the way it is...
I used to dream of making it big in this country, and then coming back and running for president, to try and make a change for the people. With a PhD in finance from the US and (hopefully by then) a good carreer track record, I think I could stand a chance...

But then again, during our last elections, a bunch of really promising candidates either got assassinated or were forced to get out of the stage... I think it may take another Stalin with a really strong team to uproot and the idiots and criminals in power there.

Originally posted by rs7


Market impossible to trade today. Up, down, up, down. Time to quit for the day. I know when I am not smart enough to figure it out.

I have yet to make a single trade... Nothing fits the criteria so far...

 

[vladiator]

Originally posted by daniel_m

Socialist Bullshit. 'Distribution of Wealth'! You speak as if there is purposely designed mechanism that performs this role. Wealth is 'distributed' by the function of supply and demand. Capitalism is willing to let prices decide how wealth gets 'distributed' to a far greater degree than communism. Simple as that. What do the results of such a practice say? Look all around you dude.

You know man, I almost wanna reply to your crappy reasoning, but what the F### is the point. If you aren't smart enough to know the difference between comunism and socialism and use those interchangeably - then I rest my case.
Happy trading, snob.

PS I was talking about equity - meaning fairness of the social system. You have to be blind not to see that if you had a better treatment of society from bottom up, all would benefit. You don't have to sacrifice the incentives to entrepreneurship etc.
Look around? I am looking dude. And honestly, it's not as impressive as your "proud to be born here" self seems to think. There are some really great things, I agree. But there as also a lot of others that could easily be done to improve the standards of living substantially at no/little price. But noone will do them. Why? B/c there's no capitalistic incentive to do them. An example? Besides your highways, the roads in most cities suck big time compared to Europe. Why? B/c it's a PUBLIC GOOD! And you have to raise taxes to pay for it. The same goes for a bunch of other "public goods." See, what people like you don't seem to understand is that if the capitalism worked the way you think it does, you'd not be able to drive for ten minutes without having to pay someone a fee for crossing their land. What you have IS a mixture of socialism and pure capitalism. Maybe you or I won't see it in our lifetime, but if this country is to remain in the lead, the mixture will have to change somewhat towards more of the former.
You think it's fair that Bill Gates has those what, 40 bil and it was gonna take about 3 bil to rebuilt the whole country of Croatia after the war there? Honestly, I don't understand how someone could have that much money without giving most of it away to improve the lives of those who need it much more.
But you'd not understand that anyway. You just keep looking the other way when you see someone in trouble.

 

[rs7]

Hey Vlad,

Excellent post. And of course there is a HUGE difference between socialism and communism. I think Daniel_M was probably just typing too fast and got ahead of himself. I know that he knows this.

Your example of the public roads (infrastructure) is quite valid. Certainly reality includes social programs. The trick is to make them profitable here. Which is also the problem. It leads to corruption to too great a degree. But still better than Russia. Their crime is either better organized, or the criminals more brutal. Or both. (Are you Ukrainian?)

Market gave me a headache today. As difficult as I have ever seen. Got me on both sides today. The "SIMPLE" approach was to lay off like you. I should have. At least I was tentative, so that saved me a bundle.

RS

 

[vladiator]

Originally posted by daniel_m

Socialist Bullshit. 'Distribution of Wealth'! You speak as if there is purposely designed mechanism that performs this role. Wealth is 'distributed' by the function of supply and demand.

There IS such a mechanism. It's called TAXATION! And ALL capitalistic societies have those.
The supply and demand logic you are referring to seems to have come from an undergrad econ textbook. C'mon man, most of the wealth in this country is INHERITED. See any supply demand story there? There are many things that are in demand, but b/c of the "free-rider" problem, if you don't get people to pay for them, noone will. Those are the things the socialism is much better taking care of. An example - an average level of knowledge of a high-school grad in the former USSR in sciences is somewhere around the level of a college senior in the states. I know b/c I was one of the former and I have taught the latter several times...

 

[Madison]

Originally posted by vladiator

if the capitalism worked the way you think it does, you'd not be able to drive for ten minutes without having to pay someone a fee for crossing their land.

or, maybe, neighboring landowners in a truly capitalist system like that would start competing with each other for traffic, having price wars, making travel more convenient, and providing the best possible road surface over the land to attract more customers.

 

[daniel_m]

PS I was talking about equity - meaning fairness of the social system. You have to be blind not to see that if you had a better treatment of society from bottom up, all would benefit.

Dude, I agree with you that things can be made better. It's just that it seems that every time such a proposal is mentioned, socialist policies are presented as the solution. We need a 'solution' (is there a solution? or do we settle for trade-offs?) that preserves the precious individual liberty capitalism provides AND helps to alleviate the problems it 'causes' (it doesn't REALLy cause them).


Look around? I am looking dude. And honestly, it's not as impressive as your "proud to be born here" self seems to think.

Well, I wasn't born here dude, I come from a former socialist country (yeah I do know the socialsit/commst difference), Yugoslavia. 'Impressiveness' is obviously a subjective matter, and, insofar as it is, I say it is TREMENDOUSLY IMPRESSIVE.

There are some really great things, I agree. But there as also a lot of others that could easily be done to improve the standards of living substantially at no/little price. But noone will do them. Why? B/c there's not capitalistic incentive to do them. An example? Besides your highways, the roads in most cities suck big time compared to Europe. Why? B/c it's a PUBLIC GOOD! And you have to raise taxes to pay for it. The same goes for a bunch of other "public goods." See, what people like you don't seem to understand is that if the capitalism worked the way you think it does, you'd not be able to drive for ten minutes without having to pay someone the fee for crossing their land.

Oh come on man, wake up. Do you think you're the first one to think that government involvement is the key to making these social improvements? Check your history books; government enterprise was the cornerstone of economic policy for decades; here and in Europe. What that history has taught us is that government enterprises, far from being a solution to problems, cause many new ones. Net result of their actions is that resources are poorly allocated and all society ends up footing the bill. (and in most cases, the very people it was designed to help - the poor and 'underprivileged' - are left paying the heaviest cost.)

If society's 'ills' are going to be solved, the solution is going to have to be in the domain of private enterprise (perhaps with some minimal governmental assistance). At present, there is a distinct lack of political will on the part of the government to enact such policies that would provide economic incentives to private enterprise to profit from providing solutions to the problems you've outlined. Unfortunately that lack of will is rooted in quite a rational fear that instituting such policy would lead such a government to be demonized both by the opposition and voting public.


What you have IS a mixture of socialism and pure capitalism. Maybe you or I won't see it in our lifetime, but if this country is to remain in the lead, the mixture will have to change somewhat towards more of the former.

I doubt it, but I might be wrong. I'm watching with interest what unfolds with the Chinese experiment.

You think it's fair that Bill Gates has those what, 40 bil and it was gonna take about 3 bil to rebuilt the whole country of Croatia after the war there? Honestly, I don't understand how someone could have that much money without giving most of it away to improve the lives of those who need it much more.

So what should we do? Take it from him? Force him to use it for some 'socially beneficial' purpose? And for what reason should we do so? Because vladiator's mind cannot grasp the concept of somebody having and keeping so much money. Gimme a break.

 

[rs7]

Originally posted by vladiator

There IS such a mechanism. It's called TAXATION! And ALL capitalistic societies have those.
The supply and demand logic you are referring to seems to have come from an undergrad econ textbook. C'mon man, most of the wealth in this country is INHERITED. See any supply demand story there? There are many things that are in demand, but b/c of the "free-rider" problem, if you don't get people to pay for them, noone will. Those are the things the socialism is much better taking care of. An example - an average level of knowledge of a high-school grad in the former USSR in sciences is somewhere around the level of a college senior in the states. I know b/c I was one of the former and I have taught the latter several times...

Can't argue with any of this. But that is only because it is true and accurate.

Like I said about Johnson's Great Society...it was a good idea that didn't work as planned. And it was truly needed at that time (I'd like to think we have come far since then). I hated LBJ when he was president, because of Viet Nam. But his social programs, and his social conscious were admirable. He will be remembered by historians as a great president. But he was so unpopular by 1968 because of his war policies, he refused to run for re-election. But he did more for civil rights, and productive social programs than anyone. Too bad they ran into fraud and corruption.

Even taxes cannot be used and distributed without the politicians and others with power to take their piece of the action. Is there such a thing as a government that works properly? When I was a young child, common wisdom said Madagascar had it together. A truly viable democracy. They had just gotten their independence (from France I think). Now that they have had it for 40 years, they have managed to create a mess. Power and money do that.

But still, I wouldn't give up on our system. It's better than anything else and maybe eventually we will get it right. Our interpretation of the Constitution, and even the Constitution itself is a work in progress. And our social programs evolve. And they ebb and flow. Wasn't that long ago that Social Security was an issue of divisiveness between Republicans and Democrats. Now it is a favored issue of both.

And I said "no political discussion" in this thread. Well that was this morning. I always said the morning and afternoon were separate events

Peace and all that jazz,
RS7