I love how smart you try to make yourself sound. If you were half as smart as you think you are we wouldnt be having this argument.jonsimon wrote:
Have you taken any low level college courses on macro-economics? If so, you'd know that discretionary fiscal policy can easily create inflationary pressure. Way to fail.weamo8 wrote:
Wow. You are so smart jonsimon. How could I ever question you? His point is bullshit, and Reagan does not control inflation, the Federal Reserve does. And inflation does accompany a good economy. If you want a good economy you have to deal with inflation. Of course you want to keep it down for equilibrium, I never suggested otherwise, but it will always be there, unless you artifically pan it like China is doing which is hurting the world economy and the majority of the Chinese population.jonsimon wrote:
Way to turn a complex issue into a black and white statement. While it is true that inflation is always associated with growth, the amount of inflation may vary. In other words, there is not a direct relationship between the two, accelerating inflation will not stimulate growth, so controlling inflation is very important. Now shut up because you don't know what you're talking about and he had a valid point.
And maybe return to the topic at hand: Communism.
Have you taken any high level college courses on macro-economics? I didnt think so. So you can shut your ass up and get back to Communism.
well he didn't defeat the soviet unionCommie Killer wrote:
How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
Ronald Reagan
40th president of United States of America (1911 - 2004)
While this is coming from a guy who hates communism, Im pretty sure he understands it, I mean he defeated the Soviet Union. Anyways I have read excerpts from the writings of Lenin and Marx, I have to admit, I hate the entire theory of it.
Discuss.
Of course no one can completely control inflation. I thought that went without saying, but I guess not. Perhaps I should have been more clear. I was merely suggesting that the President has very little to do with inflation management. Managing that is the Fed's responsibility.Masques wrote:
Even an introductory course in economics would tell you that the Fed doesn't control inflation. It can only institute certain monetary policies to affect inflation.weamo8 wrote:
Wow. You are so smart jonsimon. How could I ever question you? His point is bullshit, and Reagan does not control inflation, the Federal Reserve does. And inflation does accompany a good economy. If you want a good economy you have to deal with inflation. Of course you want to keep it down for equilibrium, I never suggested otherwise, but it will always be there, unless you artifically pan it like China is doing which is hurting the world economy and the majority of the Chinese population.
Have you taken any high level college courses on macro-economics? I didnt think so. So you can shut your ass up and get back to Communism.
And re: inflation and a good economy...apparently you've never heard of stagflation.
Yes, I have heard of stagflation.
You and jonsimon try to pick my argument apart and try to use what you think are big words to refute what I am saying. However, whether the two of you will admit it or not, my overall argument is completely accurate, even if it is not all encompassing.
The USSR was not communist according to communist theory written by Marx and Engels. They predicted communism would occur in industrialized nations like Germany or England. Russia was marxist-leninist, and though people often called it communist it was not. The theory of communism enumerated in works like Kapital and The Communist Manifesto has never been tried.
His policies plus the stupidity of the leaders there did.herrr_smity wrote:
well he didn't defeat the soviet unionCommie Killer wrote:
How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
Ronald Reagan
40th president of United States of America (1911 - 2004)
While this is coming from a guy who hates communism, Im pretty sure he understands it, I mean he defeated the Soviet Union. Anyways I have read excerpts from the writings of Lenin and Marx, I have to admit, I hate the entire theory of it.
Discuss.
Saying that the Fed controls inflation is a pretty large error on your part...not at all "accurate" in any possible interpretation.weamo8 wrote:
Of course no one can completely control inflation. I thought that went without saying, but I guess not. Perhaps I should have been more clear. I was merely suggesting that the President has very little to do with inflation management. Managing that is the Fed's responsibility.
Yes, I have heard of stagflation.
You and jonsimon try to pick my argument apart and try to use what you think are big words to refute what I am saying. However, whether the two of you will admit it or not, my overall argument is completely accurate, even if it is not all encompassing.
Another basic lesson in economics: The president and congress can have significant influence on interest rates through a change in fiscal policy and/or wage and price controls (ie. a reduction in general demand).
Basically, Reagan tricked the Soviet Union into joining us in an arms race. It worked, but a lot of evidence now suggests that the Soviet Union would've fallen sometime in the late 90s if Reagan didn't engage us in that. Also, we would've been far less in debt if we hadn't done that.Commie Killer wrote:
His policies plus the stupidity of the leaders there did.herrr_smity wrote:
well he didn't defeat the soviet unionCommie Killer wrote:
How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
Ronald Reagan
40th president of United States of America (1911 - 2004)
While this is coming from a guy who hates communism, Im pretty sure he understands it, I mean he defeated the Soviet Union. Anyways I have read excerpts from the writings of Lenin and Marx, I have to admit, I hate the entire theory of it.
Discuss.
Of course, hindsight is 20-20....
Hear, hear.Turquoise wrote:
For the most part, I'm very supportive of capitalism, but....Fancy_Pollux wrote:
Capitalism = quest for profit = competition = improving products = progress.
If a capitalism is allowed to run its course for long enough without any government intervention whatsoever, a privatized form of Communism develops.
We usually refer to this as a monopoly or oligarchy. When one company or a small group of companies have virtually total control over a market, collusion often occurs, which screws the interest of the consumer.
Therefore, there are occasions when antitrust laws must be enforced in order to foster competition.
In short, both pure Socialism and pure Capitalism tend to fall apart. Usually, a certain amount of government intervention is necessary to sustain a healthy Capitalism (at least with respect to consumer rights). Therefore, this is a socialistic/communistic principle that is actually practical and essential to modern capitalism.
It all comes back to how the "quest for profit" entails many negative things along with the positive ones.
I agree... It's just that this idea of a socialistic capitalism must lean more in the capitalistic direction in order to work in a country like America. We're too large to be a true socialism. Ireland can get away with being more socialistic because it's so small in population compared to most countries.CameronPoe wrote:
Unworkable but nice in principle. The happy medium is the European model - the benefits of both capitalism and communism.
The U.K., France, and Germany are all starting to feel the pressure of becoming more capitalistic as they get larger. It becomes very difficult to keep a socialistic system functional when you have more than about 40 million people. Given that the U.K. and France are at about 60 million each, and Germany is at 80 million, they are all somewhat in the same boat as America is. They're too large to keep up their socialistic systems at the extent that they currently do for much longer. America passed that critical point long ago, and we're trying to play catch up when the real answer is freeing up markets, enforcing antitrust laws, and then letting states handle more of the social systems at their own discretion....
In short, America needs to decentralize more in economic policy.
Communism, FTW.
The reason why those states are feeling the crunch is due to declining birthrates and an aging population. Japan is having a similar problem, but without the extensive social services net that many European states have.Turquoise wrote:
I agree... It's just that this idea of a socialistic capitalism must lean more in the capitalistic direction in order to work in a country like America. We're too large to be a true socialism. Ireland can get away with being more socialistic because it's so small in population compared to most countries.CameronPoe wrote:
Unworkable but nice in principle. The happy medium is the European model - the benefits of both capitalism and communism.
The U.K., France, and Germany are all starting to feel the pressure of becoming more capitalistic as they get larger. It becomes very difficult to keep a socialistic system functional when you have more than about 40 million people. Given that the U.K. and France are at about 60 million each, and Germany is at 80 million, they are all somewhat in the same boat as America is. They're too large to keep up their socialistic systems at the extent that they currently do for much longer. America passed that critical point long ago, and we're trying to play catch up when the real answer is freeing up markets, enforcing antitrust laws, and then letting states handle more of the social systems at their own discretion....
In short, America needs to decentralize more in economic policy.
What has kept the US out of a similar predicament is its relatively young population and immigration.
in my view Marx ideas are genius, he just never stated in his works the time scale involved.
It could all work but not yet due to two things:
1) Marx said that the stages leading to true socialism would take years to change, Marx didn't mention that this could not be interfered or sped up with by a single or small amount of people(s), this is what Lenin and the Bolsheviks tried and failed to do and we are all vaguely aware of the legacy that followed from it.
2) He did not include human nature into his work, people have to evolve out their negative and competitive side for them to be able to coexist in a perfect socialist society. However at the moment it is in human nature to think we are better for something or that we should strive for things even if it means putting others down or beating them at something.
It is entirely possible that over time we will evolve this out of us and be capable of becoming truly socialist, however not for hundreds or maybe thousands of years.
It could all work but not yet due to two things:
1) Marx said that the stages leading to true socialism would take years to change, Marx didn't mention that this could not be interfered or sped up with by a single or small amount of people(s), this is what Lenin and the Bolsheviks tried and failed to do and we are all vaguely aware of the legacy that followed from it.
2) He did not include human nature into his work, people have to evolve out their negative and competitive side for them to be able to coexist in a perfect socialist society. However at the moment it is in human nature to think we are better for something or that we should strive for things even if it means putting others down or beating them at something.
It is entirely possible that over time we will evolve this out of us and be capable of becoming truly socialist, however not for hundreds or maybe thousands of years.
The significant part of the equation is competition, not the quest for profit.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
Capitalism = quest for profit = competition = improving products = progress.
If there's competition, there will be 'progress'. What I'm wondering is whether financial profit is the only possible incentive for competition.
Never underestimate the stupidity of the human race...
Sorry, are you calling yourself stupid?weamo8 wrote:
I love how smart you try to make yourself sound. If you were half as smart as you think you are we wouldnt be having this argument.jonsimon wrote:
Have you taken any low level college courses on macro-economics? If so, you'd know that discretionary fiscal policy can easily create inflationary pressure. Way to fail.weamo8 wrote:
Wow. You are so smart jonsimon. How could I ever question you? His point is bullshit, and Reagan does not control inflation, the Federal Reserve does. And inflation does accompany a good economy. If you want a good economy you have to deal with inflation. Of course you want to keep it down for equilibrium, I never suggested otherwise, but it will always be there, unless you artifically pan it like China is doing which is hurting the world economy and the majority of the Chinese population.
Have you taken any high level college courses on macro-economics? I didnt think so. So you can shut your ass up and get back to Communism.
As for my motives, I like correcting people when they make blatantly erroneous statements, got a problem?
I've remember a year or 2 ago a german friend of mine told me they were having a lot of problems where for some reason, they dropped quite a few dentists fromt the German social healthcare, so the people couldn't afford to go to the dentists that weren't government subsidized, and they either had to travel very far, and wait a very long time to see the few dentists that were on the government healthcare system.