prove to me that communism isn't immoral as heck

[General Ludd]

Communism, it's unreal.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ned
It is interesting that the communists primarily defend communism by attacking capitalism and the capitalists defend capitalism by attacking prior examples of communism. But, with few exceptions, even communists do not defend the prior examples of communism, while all capitilists point with pride to the success of capitalist systems.

This is playing rather loose with the facts. One could easily point to the successes of the welfare state which was regarded at the time as dangerously subversive. In Canada, when Tommy Douglas gave residents of his province universal health care, he was labelled an evil and dangerous red.

I can say with confidence that New Zealand was a far better place to live when the state ran most of our lives rather than the market. Lower crime, better standards of education and health care, more opportunity, zero unemployment and almost no poverty.

Terrible, wasn't it?

[SKILORD]

http://www.mackinac.org/article.asp?ID=30

EDIT: I read Aga's post and smiled, knowing he had left out som (or perhaps even most) of the facts. The afforelinked website has a bias more in keeping with my own views and shows different statistics than Aga shows.

In 1950, New Zealand ranked as one of the ten wealthiest countries on the planet, with a relatively free economy and strong protections for enterprise and property. Then, under the growing influence of welfare state ideas that were blossoming in Britain, the United States and most of the Western world as well, the country took a hard turn toward statism—the notion that government should be at the center of economic and social life.

The next twenty years produced "Kiwi socialism"—a harvest of big government and economic malaise. Increasingly, New Zealanders found themselves victims of exorbitant tariffs, massive farm subsidies, a huge public debt, chronic budget deficits, rising inflation, a top marginal income tax rate of 66 percent, and a gold-plated welfare system.

The central government in those years became involved in virtually every aspect of economic life. It established its own monopolies in the rail, telecommunications, and electric power businesses. About the only things that grew during the period from 1975 to 1983 were unemployment, taxes, and government spending.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Agathon


This is playing rather loose with the facts. One could easily point to the successes of the welfare state which was regarded at the time as dangerously subversive. In Canada, when Tommy Douglas gave residents of his province universal health care, he was labelled an evil and dangerous red.

I can say with confidence that New Zealand was a far better place to live when the state ran most of our lives rather than the market. Lower crime, better standards of education and health care, more opportunity, zero unemployment and almost no poverty.

Terrible, wasn't it?

dont new zealanders jokingly call their country "the other third world country" or something. their currency has been in the crapper.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by SKILORD

http://www.mackinac.org/article.asp?ID=30

EDIT: I read Aga's post and smiled, knowing he had left out som (or perhaps even most) of the facts. The afforelinked website has a bias more in keeping with my own views and shows different statistics than Aga shows.

And you expected something different from Agathon??

[Agathon]

Originally posted by SKILORD

http://www.mackinac.org/article.asp?ID=30

EDIT: I read Aga's post and smiled, knowing he had left out som (or perhaps even most) of the facts. The afforelinked website has a bias more in keeping with my own views and shows different statistics than Aga shows.

Except it has nothing to do with the facts. New Zealand's economic problems were mainly the result of being restricted in its chief export market when Britain joined the Common Market in the early seventies. Most of us thought that was a bit stiff, since there are monuments to dead soldiers who died fighting for Britain all over our country.

There was also a silly move by the (Conservative) government of the time to construct megaprojects (refineries, etc.) which we didn't really need. That didn't help matters.

People do say that NZ is becoming a third world country. That is a bit of an exaggeration, but your post obscures the fact that much of the trouble was caused by ill thought out market reforms. For nearly twenty years New Zealanders were told that this would make everything OK again, except it didn't. Crime and unemployment became real problems, where they weren't before.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by SKILORD


Is it not the parent's money? And therefore isn't it the parent's right to bequeath it upon whom they will? There will be fortunate people in any form of government and no amount of bloodletting will alleviate this. Could the parent's not also give it to the poor? They could. The offspring are in no way entitled to this money and unless they were you cannot hold up the 'freedom to give aaway your money after your demise' as a problem with capitalism.

It is.
But here is one thing where our POVs differ:
You seem to value property very much and therefore also the freedom of giving this property away at will, be it the Offspring or be it poorer people.

I on the other hand rather think of wealth as being a reward for your own work.
And this doesn´t apply if your parents are very rich. If they are, and leave all of their wealth for you, you can be a lazy dumbass and maybe never really have worked, and nevertheless grow richer just because the Companies of your Parents (which are administrated by managers and not by you) make more than enough Profit to support your Lifestyle.

So, Laws which apply to many other people, i.e. that, if you show good archivements, you are rewarded by gaining wealth and if you don´t show them, but instead are punished by sliding into poverty don´t aply to you, just because your Parents are rich enough.
(Of course even those laws are just idealized, and to many people in Capitalism (i.e. the poorer people) the first thing (gaining wealth or being promoted for good Performance) often doesn´t apply, whereas the second one, i.e. the danger of sliding into poverty is always present like a Sword of Damocles, looming over their heads)

You state that the parents could also give the money away to the poor. But I disagree, as I think that this very very rarely hapens and the Property of the Parents is most of the times left to their Offsprings (and therefore could promote them in becoming decadent people who do no realy work and rather soend most of the time in their lifes partying).

Setting a (even if generous) limit to the money you can leave to your children would do a lot to prevent this (because even if they had a god start (better Education and the money they nhrit from their parents and maybe their contacts) due to wealthy parents, they would have to work to support their lifes, because they wouldn´t get any of their parents Companies (which make Profit) and the amount of money they inherit would also not be enough, to support the Lifestyle they got used to for their whole lifes.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST


It is.
But here is one thing where our POVs differ:
You seem to value property very much and therefore also the freedom of giving this property away at will, be it the Offspring or be it poorer people.

I on the other hand rather think of wealth as being a reward for your own work.
And this doesn´t apply if your parents are very rich. If they are, and leave all of their wealth for you, you can be a lazy dumbass and maybe never really have worked, and nevertheless grow richer just because the Companies of your Parents (which are administrated by managers and not by you) make more than enough Profit to support your Lifestyle.

So, Laws which apply to many other people, i.e. that, if you show good archivements, you are rewarded by gaining wealth and if you don´t show them, but instead are punished by sliding into poverty don´t aply to you, just because your Parents are rich enough.
(Of course even those laws are just idealized, and to many people in Capitalism (i.e. the poorer people) the first thing (gaining wealth or being promoted for good Performance) often doesn´t apply, whereas the second one, i.e. the danger of sliding into poverty is always present like a Sword of Damocles, looming over their heads)

You state that the parents could also give the money away to the poor. But I disagree, as I think that this very very rarely hapens and the Property of the Parents is most of the times left to their Offsprings (and therefore could promote them in becoming decadent people who do no realy work and rather soend most of the time in their lifes partying).

u should support the inheritance tax then.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by SKILORD
I can't see what you mean? How could a system dedicated to profit, cutting corners and so forth, be seen as wasteful?

Wasteful in terms of resources. How many cars are produced each year and how many are actually needed? Same with home appliances and all sorts of other things. Perhaps each unit takes less to produce, but overall, the excess production adds up to a huge waste of resources.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Wasteful in terms of resources. How many cars are produced each year and how many are actually needed? Same with home appliances and all sorts of other things. Perhaps each unit takes less to produce, but overall, the excess production adds up to a huge waste of resources.

consumerism. and obviously we don't "need" any cars. we could all walk around in jungles picking berries. what good is it to demand a person can only buy what they need(communism reference)? I don't think ppl would appreciate that.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by yavoon


u should support the inheritance tax then.

Inheritance Tax is a way to limit the property the children, yes. But it wouldn´t prevent the children from very rich parents to stll get enough money/property, that they would never evr have to work (at least, as long the Tax isn´t very very high for high amounts of money ).

But I rather think of a rigid Limit.
I.e. no mater how wealthy you are, the maximal amount each of your children gets is limited to a certain amount of money be it 1 Milion Dollar per Children, be it 2 Million.
And further no Companies may be left for your Children, only maybe one or two houses, where they can live.
On the other hand (if the property their parents have is much more than the limit they are allowed to inherit to their children) the children wouldn´t have to pay inheritance Taxes for the money they get (whereas poorer people still would have to pay Inheritance Taxes).

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST


Inheritance Tax is a way to limit the property the children, yes. But it wouldn´t prevent the children from very rich parents to stll get enough money/property, that they would never evr have to work (at least, as long the Tax isn´t very very high for high amounts of money ).

But I rather think of a rigid Limit.
I.e. no mater how wealthy you are, the maximal amount each of your children gets is limited to a certain amount of money be it 1 Milion Dollar per Children, be it 2 Million.
And further no Companies may be left for your Children, only maybe one or two houses, where they can live.
On the other hand (if the property their parents have is much more than the limit they are allowed to inherit to their children) the children wouldn´t have to pay inheritance Taxes for the money they get (whereas poorer people still would have to pay Inheritance Taxes).

u'd be shocked how easy it is to be parted from ur money. there are two main problems in life. having money and not having money.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by yavoon

dont new zealanders jokingly call their country "the other third world country" or something. their currency has been in the crapper.

Since NZ depends heavily upon agricultural exports and tourism that is no bad thing. Of course it means that consumer electronics can be a bit pricey, but the necessities of life are pretty cheap.

I used to pay about 300 US$ a month to rent a 3 bedroom house on a 1/4 acre block of land.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Agathon


Since NZ depends heavily upon agricultural exports and tourism that is no bad thing. Of course it means that consumer electronics can be a bit pricey, but the necessities of life are pretty cheap.

I used to pay about 300 US$ a month to rent a 3 bedroom house on a 1/4 acre block of land.

new zealand is a sweet place. I'd love to live there someday. no jobs though.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST


Inheritance Tax is a way to limit the property the children, yes. But it wouldn´t prevent the children from very rich parents to stll get enough money/property, that they would never evr have to work (at least, as long the Tax isn´t very very high for high amounts of money ).

But I rather think of a rigid Limit.
I.e. no mater how wealthy you are, the maximal amount each of your children gets is limited to a certain amount of money be it 1 Milion Dollar per Children, be it 2 Million.
And further no Companies may be left for your Children, only maybe one or two houses, where they can live.
On the other hand (if the property their parents have is much more than the limit they are allowed to inherit to their children) the children wouldn´t have to pay inheritance Taxes for the money they get (whereas poorer people still would have to pay Inheritance Taxes).

How dare the people of America wish to pass on their lifelong work to their children!