BF2S Forums Net Neutrality

Dilbert_X wrote:

China seems to be doing OK for a command economy.

Yeah, they don't have empty ghost cities and faked economic data and the worst pollution on the planet or anything...

Jay wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Some morals are better than the 'morals' of corporations, I don't see why this is a bad thing.

We shouldn't have lead in petrol

Childrens toys shouldn't contain razor blades or poison

Cars should be able to survive a mild collision without killing everyone involved

I'm fine with these kinds of morals.

And how many laws were necessary to perform these tasks? Not a whole lot. There's a world of difference between banning ACM and writing a 1500 page law that fails miserably at revamping the health care system. Simple is good. When laws and regulations become complex it opens the door for abuse and exploitation.

but at least you're acknowledging that regulation isn't inherently bad.  You've come a long way, Jay.  I tend to agree - when you concentrate power, the key players with vested interests are going to exploit that concentration as much as possible.  We as a nation have to find a way to remove the incentives that lead to that exploitation

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

when you concentrate power, the key players with vested interests are going to exploit that concentration as much as possible.

that's why you limit the ways in which your system can be exploited. by nationalizing stuff, for instance.

we as a nation have to find a way to remove the incentives that lead to that exploitation

but. but but but... socialism is EVIL and... inefficient and... marxist!!!1one!11!!1eleven!!!!1

Cybargs wrote:

Shahter wrote:

ussr was the most ravaged by ww2 among all the participants. it recovered faster than anybody else and never had to take a singe cent from the free and the brave to do that (most others, basically, sold out). inefficient failure my ass.

but the russians didn't complain about taking money during ww2

uh-huh. they had to fight the monster created by the enlightened west, you know, and were nearly destroyed in the process.
and no, money were never taken - you can't shoot money at nazies, kiddie. other assets were very welcome though.

nor did they bother paying the rest off after the war.

they did. well, mostly. lend lease at least was covered completely, but then again, if you ask your money lender if you owe him, what answer to you expect?

western propaganda.

right.

sure the USSR recovered quick. by raping the resources and manufacture of all the countries they went through. I bet east germany was pretty happy with all of its factories being shipped to the east.

they had to do what they had to do. war has its impact, you know. by consolidating the resources and centralizing financial flows soviets empowered themselves to be able to live up to the enormity of the task they faced, which, btw, included building up warsaw pact nations as well, to the extent never seen before. but if you ask jay there, it was all totally inefficient and couldn't really work - only it, apparently, wasn't and it did.

Last edited by Shahter (2014-04-28 23:55:30)

Shahter wrote:

they had to do what they had to do. war has its impact, you know. by consolidating the resources and centralizing financial flows soviets empowered themselves to be able to live up to the enormity of the task they faced, which, btw, included building up warsaw pact nations as well, to the extent never seen before. but if you ask jay there, it was all totally inefficient and couldn't really work - only it, apparently, wasn't and it did.

Yeah because the warsaw pact lasted till this day and the soviet union had a contracting economy for decades. yeah such an efficient prospect that lasted long.

Shahter wrote:

@mac:

i dunno. you are so overweight, lazy and full of yourselves - i'm not sure we could really be allies. i like music though. and sports.


@cybargs:

yeah, yeah. heard that before. one case in the history of the world, the first try ever, which was being fucked up with and hindered in any way possible by the the rest if the powers in the world, and also grossly mismanaged, failed in the end. conclusion? - it was totally inefficient in every way.

there's this thing called "logic" kiddie. look it up.

How was it "fucked with and hindered" if the whole point of a communist regime is to be self sufficient? And how is it so pretty much every communist government has collapsed with it bar china cuba and nk? China stopped being communist after Deng came in.

Shahter wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

How was it "fucked with and hindered" if the whole point of a communist regime is to be self sufficient?

Shahter wrote:

grossly mismanaged

plus, there was that thing called "cold war". also "arms race". ever heard of those?

Cybargs wrote:

And how is it so pretty much every communist government has collapsed with it bar china cuba and nk?

Shahter wrote:

fucked up with and hindered in any way possible by the the rest of the world

no?

Cybargs wrote:

China stopped being communist after Deng came in.

chineeze i talked with disagree.

but it doesn't really matter. use wikipedia. find "logic". read. get back to me.

the arms race was just the nail in the coffin. Soviet union already had negative growth. There was a reason why the west had a positive economic output and can outspend the soviets.

there can never be true communism in china. Deng was the beginning of the end of china's communism, now they're "state capitalists." never was in their culture. why do you think 70%+ of philipines, malaysia and indonesian private sector are owned by ethnic chinese?

Shahter wrote:

there can never be true communism in china.

there can never be true communism anywhere. again, we are talking about efficiency of centralized planned economies, and chineeze are kicking the wolds collective ass using just that atm.

Yeah I'd enjoy to live in a city where the air quality is equivalent to 3 packs of smokes a day. what a great country.

edit: if china's working so well, why are so many emigrating?

Last edited by Cybargs (2014-04-29 02:27:26)

Jay wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

China seems to be doing OK for a command economy.

Yeah, they don't have empty ghost cities and faked economic data and the worst pollution on the planet or anything...

Pot-Kettle


Chinese pollution will never equal that already produced by the US.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2014-04-29 03:24:49)

Dilbert_X wrote:

Chinese pollution will never equal that already produced by the US.

...

have you ever been to china?

China's co2 output is already doubled of the US and it isn't slowing down. Even polluted NYC and LA are NOWHERE near the levels of any major chinese city. one fifth of the ENTIRE arable farmland in china is already polluted to beyond repair. never equal the US my arse

Dilbert_X wrote:

How much uranium has the US dumped on the ME?

That and the coal and oil the US has already burnt.
And so productively

you should take a trip to beijing or shanghai.

Dilbert_X wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

And how many laws were necessary to perform these tasks? Not a whole lot. There's a world of difference between banning ACM and writing a 1500 page law that fails miserably at revamping the health care system. Simple is good. When laws and regulations become complex it opens the door for abuse and exploitation.

but at least you're acknowledging that regulation isn't inherently bad.  You've come a long way, Jay.  I tend to agree - when you concentrate power, the key players with vested interests are going to exploit that concentration as much as possible.  We as a nation have to find a way to remove the incentives that lead to that exploitation

Come on Ken, baby steps, its only a few short years ago Jay thought Ayn Rand made sense.

I've never been an anarchist that believed in the total removal of government.  I've said from the very beginning that government should be small and it's focus narrow so that it can perform the tasks it should perform at least somewhat decently. It's roles should primarily be limited to those of justice and defense. Other things, like building infrastructure are certainly made easier when paid for by taxes rather than voluntary subscription. I simply despise everything beyond this. Despotism and central planning fails in every regard.

Jay wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

the arms race was just the nail in the coffin.

so the rest of powers in the world were fucking with soviet union? k, you are making progress.

Soviet union already had negative growth.

yeah, it was, as i said, grossly mismanaged.

There was a reason why the west had a positive economic output and can outspend the soviets.

of course there was a reason - the west managed to turn most of the world's economy into a ponzy scheme with themselves on top.

but we are not discussing that here, remember? (well, at least i'm not, as to what you are talking about i honestly can never say). anyway, it's about efficiency. and, i'm sorry to inform you, but none of the crap you've been posting in this thread makes any sense in that context.

there can never be true communism in china.

there can never be true communism anywhere. again, we are talking about efficiency of centralized planned economies, and chineeze are kicking the wolds collective ass using just that atm.

You know, I've worked with many people who grew up in the USSR or Warsaw Pact countries and not one single person has anything good to say about the Soviet system. You are the only person I've ever come across that actually thinks the system worked or did any sort of good. At my present company I work with Russians,  Belarussians,  Ukrainians, Kazakhs, Polish, Hungarian and Romanians. Not one would agree with anything you say. Their only fond memories are of gaming and exploiting the system of stupid rules devised in Moscow so that they could make their lives suck less..

western propoganda