Boris' pissed off and he's telling you why

[Ned]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


A few things:

First, American railroads were built on a huge part with public subsidies. So when you claim that tycoons helped build America, it's true. It's also true that they were helped by public funds, which technically belong to every citizen. What you don't mention is that it took 50 years for this money to benefit to the working class, because again industrialization brought poverty and misery at its beginnings.
Who got enriched first? Dead chinese workers or the tycoons?

Who?

America!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Ned]

Originally posted by JohnT
I've gotta tell ya, this thread is pretty funny. The very same people who *****ed and moaned 20+ years ago about the crappy service they got from the ATT (government established) monopoly are now claiming that a world with near limitless options on phone services, with prices that are WAY below what ATT charged (both real and nominally), has lead to what was it... "worse quality and higher prices."

Obviously you never lived in a world where the long distance charges routinely 50 cents a minute and was a biyatch to connect to, and the idea of connecting to another country other than W. Europe? You might as well forget about it, and if you did, you were charged rates in excess of $2.00/minute. And I'm talking 1980 dollars, not 2003.

But then this one takes the cake:

In fact the Soviet Economy was doing fine. It was actually the precise reason that the Soviet economy was able to provide consumers with goods that they started getting less nervous of rebelling.

Permit me to Ming you:

Apolyton always amazes me in its constant demonstration of how belief almost constantly triumphs over fact and experience.

JohnT, Dittos. The left, as you and I both noted earlier, live in conspiracy-land. They essentially have no clue about how economies actually work. They believe that monopolies are better than competition! What a joke!

[Fake Boris]

A little precision TO EVERYONE CONTRIBUTING TO THIS THREAD


In all of my posts, I never meant "socialism" as an "economic system where the means of production are publicly owned".

Rather, I used it in the modern, Western sense that seems to prevail anywhere but in the US, in which it is "a social doctrine by which the government collects and redistributes part of a society's wealth to ensure an universal access to basic amenities such as healthcare, education, public transportation and unemployment insurance".

Please, no more mention of the USSR. I'm not even remotely talking about them.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Rather, I used it in the modern, Western sense that seems to prevail anywhere but in the US, in which it is "a social doctrine by which the government collects and redistributes part of a society's wealth to ensure an universal access to basic amenities such as healthcare, education, public transportation and unemployment insurance".

That's not socialism. If anything that's a mixed economic system which combines capitalism and socialism (or the free market and government control).

Marx would roll over in his grave if France was considered a socialist country. And btw, Social Democracy isn't socialism.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
A little precision TO EVERYONE CONTRIBUTING TO THIS THREAD


In all of my posts, I never meant "socialism" as an "economic system where the means of production are publicly owned".

Rather, I used it in the modern, Western sense that seems to prevail anywhere but in the US, in which it is "a social doctrine by which the government collects and redistributes part of a society's wealth to ensure an universal access to basic amenities such as healthcare, education, public transportation and unemployment insurance".

Please, no more mention of the USSR. I'm not even remotely talking about them.

We call that here in the United States the so-called social safty-net. We consider this to be an essential feature of modern society, not inconsistent with capitalism in any manner. In fact, we find that the Roman Empire somewhat invented this when they took care of orphans and provided pensions to elderly out of state funds.

Socialism here is the kind of polictical philosophy that says that the government must take over the means of production because, as you say, otherwise the corporations will run everything for their own profit and to the detriment of the worker. Socialist governments were found in the USSR and at one time in China. The only socialist government that I know of in the world today is Cuba.

Both parties here in the United States agree on a social-safety net. The argument is over the best way to implement it.

[Fake Boris]

That's not socialism. If anything that's a mixed economic system which combines capitalism and socialism (or the free market and government control).

Marx would roll over in his grave if France was considered a socialist country. And btw, Social Democracy isn't socialism.

You are a one-of-a-kind retarded idiot.

WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT THE TERM SOCIALISM HAS A DIFFERENT MEANING IN DIFFERENT PART OF THE WORLDS. NOW DO YOU CLAIM TO DETAIN THE TRUTH ABOUT THE GENUINE MEANING OF A WORD?

I don't care what Marx said in 1848. What happens right now is that SOCIALISM is synonym to SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY in many countries- EVEN IN THE DICTIONARY. I don't care what word we use. As long as we agree on the definition.

I AM MAKING SOME EFFORT IN ENSURING THAT PEOPLE FROM DIFFERENT ORIGINS AND LANGUAGES CAN AGREE ON SOME COMMON DEFINITIONS TO HAVE A POLITICAL DEBATE. TO THAT END, WHEN I REALIZED THAT WE DID NOT AGREE ON THE DEFINITON OF SOCIALISM, I QUICKLY POSTED AN ERRATA TO AVOID MISUNDERSTANDINGS.

AND WHAT DO YOU DO NEXT? YOU POST SOME DUMBASS **** TELLING ME THAT *OUR* DEFINITION OF SOCIALISM IS WRONG, THAT POLITICIANS, TEACHERS, PHILOSOPHERS ALONG WITH THE MASSES SHOULD STOP USING A WORD THEY HAVE BEEN USING FOR DECADES?

Who cares how many times will Marx ejaculate in his tomb, turn around or piss?

From now on, I will say social-democracy. Good. Next time this happens, instead of posting useless crap just say: "all right Boris, thanks for clearing the misunderstanding".
I doubt you would have done it. You'd rather have defended your position to the death.

[Ned]

OB, You never responded to my post on the first page obvserving what China is doing to modernize its country. I suggest that the third world ought to look to China, and perhaps, all of SE Asia and India, as models for improving their economies and the plight of the poor. The common factor in all of them is the massive investment from the West in new factories, etc., to produce products that are sold throughout the world.

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


You are a one-of-a-kind retarded idiot.

WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT THE TERM SOCIALISM HAS A DIFFERENT MEANING IN DIFFERENT PART OF THE WORLDS. NOW DO YOU CLAIM TO DETAIN THE TRUTH ABOUT THE GENUINE MEANING OF A WORD?

I don't care what Marx said in 1848. What happens right now is that SOCIALISM is synonym to SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY in many countries- EVEN IN THE DICTIONARY. I don't care what word we use. As long as we agree on the definition.

I AM MAKING SOME EFFORT IN ENSURING THAT PEOPLE FROM DIFFERENT ORIGINS AND LANGUAGES CAN AGREE ON SOME COMMON DEFINITIONS TO HAVE A POLITICAL DEBATE. TO THAT END, WHEN I REALIZED THAT WE DID NOT AGREE ON THE DEFINITON OF SOCIALISM, I QUICKLY POSTED AN ERRATA TO AVOID MISUNDERSTANDINGS.

AND WHAT DO YOU DO NEXT? YOU POST SOME DUMBASS **** TELLING ME THAT *OUR* DEFINITION OF SOCIALISM IS WRONG, THAT POLITICIANS, TEACHERS, PHILOSOPHERS ALONG WITH THE MASSES SHOULD STOP USING A WORD THEY HAVE BEEN USING FOR DECADES?

Who cares how many times will Marx ejaculate in his tomb, turn around or piss?

From now on, I will say social-democracy. Good. Next time this happens, instead of posting useless crap just say: "all right Boris, thanks for clearing the misunderstanding".
I doubt you would have done it. You'd rather have defended your position to the death.

Wow, I smell a BANNING coming on. Someone has a definate emotional problem if they get that worked up. Take a pill champ.

[Fake Boris]

All right, guys.
And especially Imran.

If a "Free Market" is regulated, how do you call a market that is not regulated?
Anarchy- no. This word encovers political power, not economic.
Find the word I'm looking for and I'll be happy. For now, I'll stick with "Savage-market" if that can please you.

Now. It seems that your conception of Free Market is very similar to my own conception of "Regulated Capitalism", of which I have given all the details in my numerous posts (btw, do you read each one of them?)

We are using different words to describe a similar thing. There is one major problem that arises from the word "free market" (other than the use of the term free to describe what is obviously regulated is dubious), however.

This problem lies in the fact that the US has never supported social-democracy outside of its borders. It's more of the opposite really. Supporting Free Market without the Social Democracy component is like supporting, in our new terminology, "Savage-Market".

Can anyone give a single evidence of the US government using sanctions or brute force to impose Social Democracy upon anyone?
Inversely, how many instances of the US government using force or persuasion to impose deregulation on a country (thus reducing its Social-democracy aspect to the benefit of its "Savage-Market" part)?

If "Social Democracy" is an important value of your society, how come you've done nothing to encourage it? If free market is about regulations, how come "encouraging" countries to forgo their regulations is supporting free market?
(In my own terminology, I would say that the US is encouraging capitalism on its outsides and some form of Regulated Capitalism in its insides).

Little fact: did you know that the US denounced Chavez' increase of "social democracy" as an anti-economic, criminal measure, and that it fully supported the corporate-directed rebellion against him?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Ned
OB, You never responded to my post on the first page obvserving what China is doing to modernize its country. I suggest that the third world ought to look to China, and perhaps, all of SE Asia and India, as models for improving their economies and the plight of the poor. The common factor in all of them is the massive investment from the West in new factories, etc., to produce products that are sold throughout the world.

And another common factor are the unusually low wages of the workers compared to the unusually high profits of the enterprises.

We can only laugh at the oligarchs' ludicrous hypocrisy when they claim that the free market is improving the poor's condition while they are filling their own pockets with millions.

Every human has just one life. Justice is an ABSOLUTE and IMMEDIATE requirement, that ought not be gradually bought through unnecessary sacrifice and perilous economic development.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle
Wow, I smell a BANNING coming on. Someone has a definate emotional problem if they get that worked up. Take a pill champ.

You don't get it. I'm a poet!

[Harry Tuttle]

Yeah, a poet who doesn't understand the words...

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Ned
The left, as you and I both noted earlier, live in conspiracy-land. They essentially have no clue about how economies actually work. They believe that monopolies are better than competition! What a joke!

Schumpeter I believe it was, a world famous Austrian economist, who was never a 'socialist' however that word is understood, but a conservative, thought monopolies to be a feasible way of running an effecient economy, since what really counts is not free-market competition, but the socalled 'entrepreneurial spirit' (I believe Bush is a believer in that too). Monopolies force people of an entrepreneurial mind to find new products to market instead of competing in a hopeless battle on the same product-line. In that sense monopolies actually increases the product line and hence are catalysts of economic growth.

So to accuse the left of conspiratorial thoughts is in this instance a little too harsh in my oppinion. And I don't think it neccesary to direct people's attention to the fact that quite recently the right have been very prone to believing in vast conspiracies.

[Ming]

Oncle Boris...
CHECK YOUR PM's...

And one more personal insult out of you and you are toast... AND CHILL TOO.

And other people... chill too

[Imran Siddiqui]

WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT THE TERM SOCIALISM HAS A DIFFERENT MEANING IN DIFFERENT PART OF THE WORLDS. NOW DO YOU CLAIM TO DETAIN THE TRUTH ABOUT THE GENUINE MEANING OF A WORD?

Yes, yes I do . I'm saying equating Social-Democracy to Socialism is a fallacy and any true socialist would kick you kick the balls for that. I don't care if some uninformed people think SD = socialism, that ain't it.

If a "Free Market" is regulated, how do you call a market that is not regulated?

A prefered term is Anarcho-Capitalism (which is kinda like Rand-ism, as opposed to Minarchists such as Milton Friedman).

Can anyone give a single evidence of the US government using sanctions or brute force to impose Social Democracy upon anyone?
Inversely, how many instances of the US government using force or persuasion to impose deregulation on a country

Do sanctions for human rights count?

And the reason the US doesn't push for welfare systems, etc., is because most countries in the world don't come anywhere close to Anarcho-Capitalism. Why back social democracy when the government controls most of the economy anyway? That'd be silly. On the other hand, many countries have their governments controling the economy. So the US pushes more deregulation so their people can have more economic freedom.

It'd be silly to push for more social democracy in most countries because their economies are in the grip of the government. However, this same series of events makes it good to push for privatization.

did you know that the US denounced Chavez' increase of "social democracy" as an anti-economic, criminal measure, and that it fully supported the corporate-directed rebellion against him?

I want a definitive cite that the US fully supported the rebellion against him. When Chavez was deposed, the government decried the coup, even though it opposed Chavez's policies. And Chavez's social programs did go too far in the government controling the economy.