Tautoligical phrases are redundant, not associative (if I understand what you are trying to suggest). Either way, that still suggests 'perfect world' is subjective and almost meaningless imo.jonsimon wrote:
In the context, the phrase 'perfect world' refers to a world where communism works. The statement "In a perfect world" is always the beginning of a tautology.weamo8 wrote:
What in the hell does that mean "In a perfect world?" Are there any human beings? If so, are they all the same? Can you have underachievers, and overachievers, and still have a perfect world?Spark wrote:
I said in a perfect world.
Applying variables like 'human beings' is attemtping to translate it into practice - not what I was meaning.
Anyways, we actually agree, so I dont know why I am responding. I just think that there might be a lot of different versions of the "perfect world." The phrase seems ridiculous to me.
Short and sweet +1 for you.Spark wrote:
Beautiful in theory. In a perfect world, everyone WOULD be equal and there WOULD be no reason for states.
But theory doesn't translate perfectly to practice.
Curing cancer by pouring a quadrillion dollars into it is also beautiful in theory, but not applicable by reality.
No prob. However, you would be absolutely correct in thinking a price floor would increase inflation if the price floor is above the equillibrium, in which case, you will be forcing employers to pay their employees more than is necessary for the employees to agree to work.Miller wrote:
Oh, I get it... Now I will go research this stuff. Thanks for the correction.jonsimon wrote:
Sigh. A higher minimum wage will not increase inflation if the equillibrium price of labor is above the price floor. Raising minimum wage is just a way to gaurentee employers are paying their employees at equilibrium levels rather than exploiting those that are desperate enough to work at any wage, the poor for example.Miller wrote:
Well, if you want to blame someone for inflation, it shouldn't be Reagan, it should be the people that want higher minimum wages. That will increase inflation and have no benefit for you whatsoever if you are already working for higher than the minimum. And where did this strangling black people come from? I don't know anything about racism in his past. Reagan, actually gave Americans pride in their country while he was in office. Wish I could have been there for it, not just read about it over and over... Too bad I'm stuck in this hell hole called the Earth, in the middle of a war that no one recognizes, and surrounded by ignorant baffoons in the democratic party, and by spineless pussies on the republican side.
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.weamo8 wrote:
Yeah, economies doing well does cause inflation. I think we should destroy our economy so that the millions of Americans who already own a home (like me) get hosed so you can buy your little house. Good call.Elamdri wrote:
And we're gonna pay for the inflation when I go into the workforce. Meanwhile, you all get to retire with your nice million dollar homes with a set interest rate, while i'm lucky if I can find a house with an affordable mortgage.
Yeah, WooHoo Reagan. If he was alive today I'd give him a hug if he wasn't too busy strangling black people.
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.
One big reason why USSR collapsed was : 56% of it's industry worked on creating\producing weapons which were donated to the 3d world communist countries that never gave anything back . It could not last forever ...
Last edited by Longbow (2006-12-14 21:06:02)
A perfect world, in this context, would be one where the world followed communism as Marx wanted. A communist utopia, if you like.weamo8 wrote:
What in the hell does that mean "In a perfect world?" Are there any human beings? If so, are they all the same? Can you have underachievers, and overachievers, and still have a perfect world?Spark wrote:
I said in a perfect world.weamo8 wrote:
^^ Miller is dead on.
__________________________________
In my understanding Communism does not even work well in theory. That is to say, it does not work well with human beings. People need to see direct benefits on their work based on the work they did. Otherwise, they will not perform well.
Look to Office Space: There is a line in the movie that goes something like "People paid hourly will only work hard enough to not get fired." Very few people excel without direct benefit for themselves.
Applying variables like 'human beings' is attemtping to translate it into practice - not what I was meaning.
Anyways, we actually agree, so I dont know why I am responding. I just think that there might be a lot of different versions of the "perfect world." The phrase seems ridiculous to me.
But my point was that would never happen.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
AgreedSpark wrote:
A perfect world, in this context, would be one where the world followed communism as Marx wanted. A communist utopia, if you like.
But my point was that would never happen.[/b]
And it will never happen for reasons stated earlier in this thread.weamo8 wrote:
AgreedSpark wrote:
A perfect world, in this context, would be one where the world followed communism as Marx wanted. A communist utopia, if you like.
But my point was that would never happen.[/b]
Capitalism = quest for profit = competition = improving products = progress.
QFTFancy_Pollux wrote:
Capitalism = quest for profit = competition = improving products = progress.
Marxism is quite different from the Communism that developed when Lenin started influencing this ideological movement.
I think Marx made several good points, and the industrial class war he predicted has come true in several countries throughout the last century. Of course, this has yet to happen in America.
A lot of Marx's ideas are more relevant to countries that are in very bad shape. Communism was understandably a very appealing idea to desperate countries like Vietnam and Cuba. Of course, as the movie "Lord of War" points out, freedom fighters (like many of the Communist revolutionaries of the last century) are often worse than the oppressors they defeat.
Whatever the case, Marx should be respected for contributing a lot to economic theory and socioeconomic philosophy. For the most part, he never intended his ideas to support the authoritarian governments that later used him as an inspiration. He was actually someone that was very concerned with economic equality and social freedom.
Lenin is really the person to blame for transforming a good idea into a doctrine of oppression.
Of course, good ideas don't necessarily work well in reality anyway.
I think Marx made several good points, and the industrial class war he predicted has come true in several countries throughout the last century. Of course, this has yet to happen in America.
A lot of Marx's ideas are more relevant to countries that are in very bad shape. Communism was understandably a very appealing idea to desperate countries like Vietnam and Cuba. Of course, as the movie "Lord of War" points out, freedom fighters (like many of the Communist revolutionaries of the last century) are often worse than the oppressors they defeat.
Whatever the case, Marx should be respected for contributing a lot to economic theory and socioeconomic philosophy. For the most part, he never intended his ideas to support the authoritarian governments that later used him as an inspiration. He was actually someone that was very concerned with economic equality and social freedom.
Lenin is really the person to blame for transforming a good idea into a doctrine of oppression.
Of course, good ideas don't necessarily work well in reality anyway.
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.
In the end, I think Socialism and Capitalism are just two paths to the same thing - Totalitarianism. One leads to your Stalinist Communism and the other leads to your Facist-'1984'ism.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
In America an industrial class war didn't happen because no-one saw the need for one. No-one saw the need to replace a system that treated them very well.Turquoise wrote:
Marxism is quite different from the Communism that developed when Lenin started influencing this ideological movement.
I think Marx made several good points, and the industrial class war he predicted has come true in several countries throughout the last century. Of course, this has yet to happen in America.
A lot of Marx's ideas are more relevant to countries that are in very bad shape. Communism was understandably a very appealing idea to desperate countries like Vietnam and Cuba. Of course, as the movie "Lord of War" points out, freedom fighters (like many of the Communist revolutionaries of the last century) are often worse than the oppressors they defeat.
Whatever the case, Marx should be respected for contributing a lot to economic theory and socioeconomic philosophy. For the most part, he never intended his ideas to support the authoritarian governments that later used him as an inspiration. He was actually someone that was very concerned with economic equality and social freedom.
Lenin is really the person to blame for transforming a good idea into a doctrine of oppression.
Of course, good ideas don't necessarily work well in reality anyway.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Agreed... hence, this is why I said that many of Marx's ideas apply better to crappy countries...Spark wrote:
In America an industrial class war didn't happen because no-one saw the need for one. No-one saw the need to replace a system that treated them very well.
Everybody knows Socialists are better than Communists...get with it people!
economic darwinismElamdri wrote:
QFTFancy_Pollux wrote:
Capitalism = quest for profit = competition = improving products = progress.
Unworkable but nice in principle. The happy medium is the European model - the benefits of both capitalism and communism.
That's correct but where it fails is thatFancy_Pollux wrote:
Capitalism = quest for profit = competition = improving products = progress.
a = it places profit before people.
B = everything is produced as cheaply as possible (including labour/materials) to maximise profit
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.weamo8 wrote:
Yeah, economies doing well does cause inflation. I think we should destroy our economy so that the millions of Americans who already own a home (like me) get hosed so you can buy your little house. Good call.
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.
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.
Oh geez, the can of worms I have opened...
*commits ritual Seppuku*
*commits ritual Seppuku*
Well, let's put it this way. If the entire world was communist, this forum wouldn't exist because there would be no BF2.
I'd be Pong...in 2006!Fancy_Pollux wrote:
Well, let's put it this way. If the entire world was communist, this forum wouldn't exist because there would be no BF2.