BF2S Forums Redistribution of wealth

Varegg wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Varegg wrote:

No it isn't and the question to both is really no ...

These questions is to general tbh ... think it was FM that brought it up some pages ago ... first you have to define what kind of society you want ...

Well, I guess it's about as general as your answer.. twice now. The question was deliberately general, open for interpretation.

How can a plain no be anything but a general answer when the question is so open to interpretation? ... never said it wasn't

Until the values of the society in question is defined you really can't answer those two questions any differently, if it rather was "is a safety net necessary in our present US capitalistic society?" (just as an example) ... then the answer would be yes and followed by a proper reasoning for why it should be yes of course ...

Proper reasoning is what lacks the most on this forum but we both agree on that

Wow, did you work hard on that one? At least I got a few more sentences out of you. That's one hell of a dance you do.

Shahter wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

I agree, that a planned economy wasn't obligatory and perhaps it was even beneficial in the built out of the Soviet Union, but society changed

yet another nonsence. societies like the one we had here during soviet times don't simply change - it can only be done forcefully from the very top. a fish rots from the head, dude. somebody mentioned orwell here and that's my point too: "prole's" are extermely inert, they don't change their ways by themselves.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

for better or for worse, and the benefits of the planned economy were not as effecient as a market economy and as you state that the failure of leadership to keep control caused the collapse. Sure, it was the authoritarian structure that prevented society from moving towards a more efficient market economy. When the leaders loosened their control, at that point it was all over.

you just contradicted yourself. by your logic when ussr switched towards open market economy it should have streghened it - in reality, most of the soviet economy had been rendered completely uncompetitive and failed. now, before you say something like "all of that was designed with planned economy in mind and unfit for global market" - what about now? it's been a fucking decade - why do you think nobody can establish any profitable business to speak of here, save raw resource extraction and trade?

Diesel_dyk wrote:

market economies are more efficient in the allocation of resources precisely because a bureaucracy is not involved.

not always, aparrently.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

With a market economy its a matter of regulating it to mute the negative effects. But as Galt has posted early, making profit is a huge motivator and it is the profit motive that creates the efficiencies, another name for that is greed and not all greed and wanting is bad. Once the leaders loosened control or lost control, the planned economy was doomed to fail because it simply could not compete with the efficiency of the market.

in russia's case any economy is doomed to fail here if it's open to the world market - simply because of the horrible climate and specific geographical features, and if you close the economy, which can only be done by exerting complete government control over it, you might as well plan it alltogether.

Planned economies always fail, Russia is a great example.

Shahter wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Planned economies always fail, Russia is a great example.

trolling now? well, good luck.

China tried and fucked itself over too. They just don't work.

Shahter wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

I agree, that a planned economy wasn't obligatory and perhaps it was even beneficial in the built out of the Soviet Union, but society changed

yet another nonsence. societies like the one we had here during soviet times don't simply change - it can only be done forcefully from the very top. a fish rots from the head, dude. somebody mentioned orwell here and that's my point too: "prole's" are extermely inert, they don't change their ways by themselves.

This is actually false. Change generally does not come from the top, the people on top tend to be ultra-conservative because they want to keep their place in society. Real meaningful change usually comes from the sector of people trying to become powerful but not quite there yet, the middle class, the bourgeois you were taught to hate.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

for better or for worse, and the benefits of the planned economy were not as effecient as a market economy and as you state that the failure of leadership to keep control caused the collapse. Sure, it was the authoritarian structure that prevented society from moving towards a more efficient market economy. When the leaders loosened their control, at that point it was all over.

Shahter wrote:

you just contradicted yourself. by your logic when ussr switched towards open market economy it should have streghened it - in reality, most of the soviet economy had been rendered completely uncompetitive and failed. now, before you say something like "all of that was designed with planned economy in mind and unfit for global market" - what about now? it's been a fucking decade - why do you think nobody can establish any profitable business to speak of here, save raw resource extraction and trade?

That's because you expected overnight success. You can't have a strong free market economy when the vast majority of the country is uneducated, especially in a modern society where technology rules the roost. It is far too early to say that Russia's economy has failed. Even here in America we had one of the worst economies in the world, one that was solely based on resource extraction for well over a hundred years after we declared our independence. It wasn't really until after WWII that we became dominant and that had more to do with the rest of the world being in ruins while our own manufacturing had come to dominate the landscape.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

market economies are more efficient in the allocation of resources precisely because a bureaucracy is not involved.

Shahter wrote:

not always, aparrently.

Again, there is so much corruption in your government and society that it's difficult to start a competitive business, especially when it's at the mercy of the Russian mob. You need a stronger justice system that protects businesses for them to thrive.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

With a market economy its a matter of regulating it to mute the negative effects. But as Galt has posted early, making profit is a huge motivator and it is the profit motive that creates the efficiencies, another name for that is greed and not all greed and wanting is bad. Once the leaders loosened control or lost control, the planned economy was doomed to fail because it simply could not compete with the efficiency of the market.

Shahter wrote:

in russia's case any economy is doomed to fail here if it's open to the world market - simply because of the horrible climate and specific geographical features, and if you close the economy, which can only be done by exerting complete government control over it, you might as well plan it alltogether.

Why? Because you're big? Ha! Sure, transporting goods across a region like Siberia is expensive and a total pain in the ass but you have some of the richest farmland in the world, rich enough that you could be the worlds breadbasket instead of the US yet you aren't exploiting it. There is so much unused land in Russia that you should be covetous of your situation instead of putting it down. You have a distinct advantage in this that no one else has. It comes back to your need for a stronger justice system. The Russian Mafia runs shit and needs to be put down if you want foreign investment etc. You have every opportunity in the world to succeed but it will take time, a lot more time than you are giving it.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

China tried and fucked itself over too. They just don't work.

yeah, apart from making it possible to build a superpower that can stand up against the most powerfull nations in teh progressive west - yeah, planned economied don't work at all.

'superpower'? Based on enslavement of the people and their minds? Russia may have had a scary military as does China, but there was nothing that would define it as a superpower other than a lot of propaganda. Bigger does not always equal better and the USSR proved it with it's fragility.

And the US owes how much money to China?

AussieReaper wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Shahter wrote:

yeah, apart from making it possible to build a superpower that can stand up against the most powerfull nations in teh progressive west - yeah, planned economied don't work at all.

'superpower'? Based on enslavement of the people and their minds? Russia may have had a scary military as does China, but there was nothing that would define it as a superpower other than a lot of propaganda. Bigger does not always equal better and the USSR proved it with it's fragility.

And the US owes how much money to China?

Works both ways reaps. If America is fucked, China can kiss goodbye its economy.

AussieReaper wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Point being? Any country being labeled a superpower is the subject of propaganda. We do, for some reason, spend 41.5% of the sum of the worlds military expenditures on our military. I've argued with lowing multiple times that this is silly and wasteful.

If you had saved a fraction of the amount spent in Iraq/Afghanistan the reality is you wouldn't be in the financial mess you currently are in. Sure the GFC would still have hit, but the budget wouldn't have to be financed from overseas.

@Cybargs - You do realise that is why the Chinese gave out the loan? They get it back through both interest and the exports to the US. They've played the situation brilliantly.

You can buy US bonds whenever. Still I wouldn't want to live in this shithole



China is a massive shithole. They got a lot more problems to fix than most people think.

Varegg wrote:

Spark wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Maybe the question is ..
Is a safety net necessary for a society?

This is the right question.

No it isn't and the question to both is really no ...

These questions is to general tbh ... think it was FM that brought it up some pages ago ... first you have to define what kind of society you want ...

Yes well I'm sorry about that... I was thinking of the word 'society' with its Greek meaning - namely that we're talking about a group of people with common interests culture etc who generally work together toward common goals.

Maybe it's not that clear any more but the reason humans came together in groups was to help each other survive. In that sense, survival and the general well-being of all members is still the primary goal in a society.

AussieReaper wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

If you had saved a fraction of the amount spent in Iraq/Afghanistan the reality is you wouldn't be in the financial mess you currently are in. Sure the GFC would still have hit, but the budget wouldn't have to be financed from overseas.

@Cybargs - You do realise that is why the Chinese gave out the loan? They get it back through both interest and the exports to the US. They've played the situation brilliantly.

We really haven't spent all that much more than we usually do on our military since the war began. "Oh, but that money could've been used on social programs!" Yeah, like that's less of a waste

Did I say spent on social programs? No. I said saved. You do know the difference between a budget surplus and budget deficit I assume?

FEOS actually answered this ages ago (assuming he was telling the truth) the money would have not been saved/spent on something more worthwhile either as it wouldn't exist for that purpose.

Can't really remember the exact reason, i only remember his explanation because the truth was surprising.

Last edited by m3thod (2009-11-10 15:20:53)

m3thod wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

We really haven't spent all that much more than we usually do on our military since the war began. "Oh, but that money could've been used on social programs!" Yeah, like that's less of a waste

Did I say spent on social programs? No. I said saved. You do know the difference between a budget surplus and budget deficit I assume?

FEOS actually answered this ages ago (assuming he was telling the truth) the money would have not been saved/spent on something more worthwhile either as it wouldn't exist for that purpose.

Can't really remember the exact reason, i only remember his explanation because the truth was surprising.

That's possible true but the money creation process by banks / government issue of notes to finance is now hampered by deflation, unemployment and the banks unwillingness to loan. The stimulus package is an injection into the system, but is only effective when the injection doesn't decrease the value of the dollar. You actually now run the risk of stagflation if the unemployment and downturn continue. The deflation wouldn't be as great if more $US were in the US or able to be created.

JohnG@lt wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

Tax money isn't 'lost' it pays for equiptment/supplies and for people's wages, who go on to spend that money. When you tax people, you don't loose any money, you just relocate it to be spent by other people.

The general issues with the notion of removing redistribution of wealth are:

Democracy. The large majority want things like strong social security, and that wins elections.

Also NOBODY wants free trade. A lot of the focus on non-free trade issues is aimed at things that help those at the bottom of the ladder (eg social welfare). The major aspects in which western societies violate free trade actually help the rich, not the poor. Copywrites, trademarks, patents, subsidies, government payed for research (military, university, etc), too big to fail, poitical/electoral systems, huge swathes of govenment policies and laws and on and on and on... all need to be removed of completely redesigned if you want a free market society. In fact, to sensibly get anywhere near a free market system you'd have to do this to the whole world.

This just gives some idea as to just how much most societies have been built up with the aim of keeping the rich and powerful rich and powerful. If you want a society that functions fairly without wealth distribution, you have to eliminate all the policies and laws that are helping out the rich more than the poor too, otherwise it's just an attack on the most vulnerable people in society.

Where on earth do you get your ideas from? First, we don't live in a Democracy, nor should we strive to be one. Democracy is nothing more than mob rule. Second, without patents, trademarks and copyrights no one would bother inventing anything or writing anything new. Why go through the hassle of inventing a new product when it can be copied verbatim as soon as it hits the shelves? This is the same argument that people make when they want all software to be open source and by intellectual property pirates to justify their arguments and they are complete fail. Patents, trademarks and copyrights are the absolute foundation of capitalism. None of these things are the exclusive privilege or domain of the rich either. In fact, they are one of the few ways open to a poor person to become rich. Come up with a new idea, patent it, and profit.

You really have no idea what a 'free market society' is. You are describing anarchy instead.

Actually I do know what a free market is, apparently you don't though. You apparently think free market economics are "complete fail". Free markets require the absence of government intervention in the market system. By it's very definition, a patent is a government granted monopoly market in which anyone who enters the market without the governments permission can be arrested. It's the perfect example of an anti-free market policy. If you support patents, copywrites and trademarks then you don't support free markets. Don't worry though, nobody actually does support free markets so you're in good company.

The patent systems in all western societies hugely favour the rich. The majority of patented research is publicly funded. The decisions as to what to fund are heavily influenced by the rich and powerful (eg pharmaceutical lobbies, high tech industries etc.). This is obviously of primary benefit to themselves. There is then a huge barrier to entry into most patent markets in the fact that securing a patent requires a substantial cost. Not too much for the rich, but enough to prevent the majority of the populace from entering the game.

As you didn't defend your argument that when you tax people you somehow lose money I'll assume that you agree that your argument was wrong.

There are arguments that societies really do need mechanisms to redustribute wealth in order to be successful, but it needs to be stressed that most of these mechanisms distribute wealth up NOT down.

Last edited by PureFodder (2009-11-10 16:07:24)

JohnG@lt wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

I agree, that a planned economy wasn't obligatory and perhaps it was even beneficial in the built out of the Soviet Union, but society changed

yet another nonsence. societies like the one we had here during soviet times don't simply change - it can only be done forcefully from the very top. a fish rots from the head, dude. somebody mentioned orwell here and that's my point too: "prole's" are extermely inert, they don't change their ways by themselves.

This is actually false. Change generally does not come from the top, the people on top tend to be ultra-conservative because they want to keep their place in society. Real meaningful change usually comes from the sector of people trying to become powerful but not quite there yet, the middle class, the bourgeois you were taught to hate.

"middle class"? "bourgeois"? in soviet union? "trying to become powerful" and managing to stay outside of gulag camps? really?!
/facepalm

JohnG@lt wrote:

Shahter wrote:

by your [Diesel_dyk's] logic when ussr switched towards open market economy it should have streghened it - in reality, most of the soviet economy had been rendered completely uncompetitive and failed. now, before you say something like "all of that was designed with planned economy in mind and unfit for global market" - what about now? it's been a fucking decade - why do you think nobody can establish any profitable business to speak of here, save raw resource extraction and trade?

That's because you expected overnight success. You can't have a strong free market economy when the vast majority of the country is uneducated, especially in a modern society where technology rules the roost. It is far too early to say that Russia's economy has failed. Even here in America we had one of the worst economies in the world, one that was solely based on resource extraction for well over a hundred years after we declared our independence. It wasn't really until after WWII that we became dominant and that had more to do with the rest of the world being in ruins while our own manufacturing had come to dominate the landscape.

orly? vast majority of the soviet union was uneducated? with obligatory free school for everybody and all levels of higher education and professional education, also free, available for anybody who was interested?
/facepalm

JohnG@lt wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

market economies are more efficient in the allocation of resources precisely because a bureaucracy is not involved.

Shahter wrote:

not always, aparrently.

Again, there is so much corruption in your government and society that it's difficult to start a competitive business, especially when it's at the mercy of the Russian mob. You need a stronger justice system that protects businesses for them to thrive.

bullshit. "justice" is a myth. if there's profit to be made it gets made, regardless of who gets most of it in the end - honest businessemen, corrupt bureaucrats, mafia, oligarkhs or whatever. what russian businesses really need protection from these days is foreign intervention and impossible competition on the world market - otherwise russian economy will remail little more than the huge oil/gag pipeline.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

With a market economy its a matter of regulating it to mute the negative effects. But as Galt has posted early, making profit is a huge motivator and it is the profit motive that creates the efficiencies, another name for that is greed and not all greed and wanting is bad. Once the leaders loosened control or lost control, the planned economy was doomed to fail because it simply could not compete with the efficiency of the market.

Shahter wrote:

in russia's case any economy is doomed to fail here if it's open to the world market - simply because of the horrible climate and specific geographical features, and if you close the economy, which can only be done by exerting complete government control over it, you might as well plan it alltogether.

Why? Because you're big? Ha! Sure, transporting goods across a region like Siberia is expensive and a total pain in the ass but you have some of the richest farmland in the world, rich enough that you could be the worlds breadbasket instead of the US yet you aren't exploiting it. There is so much unused land in Russia that you should be covetous of your situation instead of putting it down. You have a distinct advantage in this that no one else has. It comes back to your need for a stronger justice system. The Russian Mafia runs shit and needs to be put down if you want foreign investment etc. You have every opportunity in the world to succeed but it will take time, a lot more time than you are giving it.

wat? agriculture? in russia? with the winter lasting six bloody months? and russia's supposed to compete in this field with those, who only see snow a coupla times a year?
/facepalm

JohnG@lt wrote:

'superpower'? Based on enslavement of the people and their minds? Russia may have had a scary military as does China, but there was nothing that would define it as a superpower other than a lot of propaganda.

how many former ussr citizens have you spoken to? how many of them told you they were being enslaved and oppressed during soviet times? what you post here is what you've been fed by your own propaganda, dude - you've no idea what it was like to live in ussr at all, and no way to find out if you keep chewing on that line of crap.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Bigger does not always equal better and the USSR proved it with it's fragility.

"better"? you assume that socious constructs we know as "states" exist to make life "better" for their respective citizens. in a perfect world - yes. we do not live in a perfect world. in reality it so happens that it's usually the biggest and the most powerfull nations which can afford to provide better standarts of living for their people. ussr wasn't fragile, not any more so that any other country - it had, by blatant retardism or purposefully - i can't really say, but i assume there must have been outside support for that - simply been mismanaged. as the matter of a fact, if mr. obama is allowed to continue what he started (basically, what he's doing now may very well turn out to be to usa what mr. gorbachev and his "perestroyka" was to soviet union) it sure as hell looks like as you about to find out just how fragile your land of teh free and the brave really is.

now, don't get me wrong - the price to pay for the growth and stability of ussr was horrible. but the achievements were - and you can't deny it - nothing short of extraordinary. and to simply wave a hand and say "it dosnt' work" is, quite frankly, completely idiotic.

lowing wrote:

Ummmm the USSR lasted less than a lifetime, that is kinda like a blink of an eye in geo-political terms given the size of that regime. So yeah I think it is safe to say it was a failure and "did not work".

ussr failed, yes - for the reasons i mentioned above - but we are not discussing ussr alone here.