Why has Communism failed everywhere ? A chance for commies to explain

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I'm glad for you. Don't think at all about the peasants toiling in the field.

I didn't give them a thought--- After all I work for a wage too

Ohh I just gave them a thought-- the guys in the fields are all driving big combines and own land worth millions.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Kid

First, you didn't answer a single question I posed and you've repeatedly dodged my questions. Now you say natural selection is compatable with libertarianism because species kill each other.

I didn't say that. I said that it is compatable with libertarianism because natural selection does not require killing at all. That's quite the opposite.

Does it matter that people eat other species to survive regardless of economics or ideology?

Nope. We aren't taking about interspecies relationships an all. We are talking about intraspecies relationships. Libertarianism has nothing really to do with Lions and Zebras.

I mean, you've jumped on Che's "capitalism is inherently violent and causes war" bandwagon without even acknowledging that violence and warfare (and eating other species) are inherently human.

According to your logic we shouldn't have any law at all to prevent violence since it's inherent in humanity. The purpose of law is to create justice so that people aren't compeled to use violence against each other.

And you're still wrong, survival of the fittest includes killing members of your species for reasons other than self-defense and libertarianism rejects this, therefore social Darwinism is not compatable with libertariansim. Does social Darwinism reject killing within a species for reasons other than actual self-defense or not? No, but Libertarianism does... So they are not compatable...

Irrelevent. I can't even imagine your purposes here.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Admit it, Kid and Flub: you guys just love going at each other in this thread. THere's no other fathomable reason as to why you keep posting in them with such intensity

I don't know about kid but I got a message from our secret capitalists club that it was my turn. We figure that every minute he spends here is a minute he is not getting ahead and forwarding his agenda.

You see . .. we did a risk assessment . .. .

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


Every business decision is based on the risk involved. A company may certainly invest for a guaranteed rate of return of 10 % but may reject a project with an 80% probability of a return of 20% if there is 15% chance of losing the entire investment and a further 5% chance of losses of 3 times the initial investment.

Different companies use different assessment methods and in fact may disagree greatly on the assumptions that go into the model. You see it all the time-- 2 big sophisticated companies are gung ho for a project while two more are unwilling to proceed.

That is simply because the risk cost varies. Some companies can't take as much risk.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber



I don't know about kid but I got a message from our secret capitalists club that it was my turn. We figure that every minute he spends here is a minute he is not getting ahead and forwarding his agenda.

You see . .. we did a risk assessment . .. .

What do you think I do here at school, hand out propaganda? There is already someone who does that.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


That is simply because the risk cost varies. Some companies can't take as much risk.

yes and no. Usually its because they have very different models. Big companies will vary greatly on something as simple as the projected 5 year average price of West Texas crude from 2010 to 2015. ( I said simple but did not mean easy to predict LOL)


Lets see, so you are calling the chance that I will make 1 million in gross revenue instead of 2 million or 3 million a "risk cost" even though it involves no costs or payments to anyone? Just asking because the last time you said risk cost you googled an article about insurance premiums which is very different. You do persevere. If you spent this much effort in a small service business you would be quite well off.

[Flubber]

Oh and some basic questions

1.a) Can a person be both a worker and a capitalist or must they be one or the other?

b) If its one or the other, how do you classify the large proportion of people that work every day but do own stock? How about the small business owner that works his behind off but employs a few people?

c) You have implied several times that I am a capitalist. On what criteria is that based



2.a) Is a worker paid a somewhat universal "fair wage" or are they paid based on the value of what they produce.

2b) if its the fair wage, how is a wage set unilaterally by the government employer more fair than a free market wage agreed in a competitive marketplace.

c) if its "value", how do you deal with people that produce immensely valuable or worthless products?

3. Do you believe in democracy as part of your system? Put simply if a majority of people clearly expressed a desire to reject it, would you accede to that?

b) Do you see incarceration or death as acceptable means to deal with people that voice dissent?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber



yes and no. Usually its because they have very different models. Big companies will vary greatly on something as simple as the projected 5 year average price of West Texas crude from 2010 to 2015. ( I said simple but did not mean easy to predict LOL)


Lets see, so you are calling the chance that I will make 1 million in gross revenue instead of 2 million or 3 million a "risk cost" even though it involves no costs or payments to anyone? Just asking because the last time tou said risk cost you googled an article about insurance premiums which is very different. You do persevere. If you spent this much effort in a small service business you would be quite well off.

I'm not saying anything about revenue. Risk cost is the cost for the probability of loss. However, if you purchase a new machine there's the risk that the machine won't perform well. Some companies can't afford to take the chance.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
Oh and some basic questions

1.a) Can a person be both a worker and a capitalist or must they be one or the other?

I don't know what some people are if they are either one. I know that some people are either one though.

b) If its one or the other, how do you classify the large proportion of people that work every day but do own stock? How about the small business owner that works his behind off but employs a few people?

I'm not really concerned with identifying all the capitalists. I don't really have anything out for them. My problem is with capitalism and people who do bad things within the system. While the institution of profit is unfair, I don't find is evil for people to make profit. People have to do what they have to do to take care of themselves and their families.

c) You have implied several times that I am a capitalist. On what criteria is that based

You are a vocal supporter of capitalism. People who support capitalism mush take the blame for it. It's one thing to operate withing the system. It's quite another to support it.

2.a) Is a worker paid a somewhat universal "fair wage" or are they paid based on the value of what they produce.

The value of what they produce will be equal to the labor put into making it since in a communist society you no longer have the surpluses and shortages that cause wage variation.

2b) if its the fair wage, how is a wage set unilaterally by the government employer more fair than a free market wage agreed in a competitive marketplace.

By efficient allocation of resources (labor).

c) if its "value", how do you deal with people that produce immensely valuable or worthless products?

You train the people who make the worthless things to make valuable things.

3. Do you believe in democracy as part of your system? Put simply if a majority of people clearly expressed a desire to reject it, would you accede to that?

I beleive that people should have a voice in govt, but I do not believe that the majority should be able to exploit the minority any more than I agree that they should be able to hold the minority as slaves.

b) Do you see incarceration or death as acceptable means to deal with people that voice dissent?

There should be no punishment for those who voice decent. Remember that communists do not think all alike and we value our right to free speech also.

[Kidlicious]

Dang. It's raining and my umbrella is in the car.

[Kidlicious]

I missed these at first.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Of course, people who are lousy at running businesses are better off working for people who are good at running businesses. Why does that shock you?

Who said the displaced workers would work. I''m speaking withing the context of a recession.

You mean neo-classical libertarians believe it's good for lousy businesses to survive? How do they survive without intervening to prop them up? Once you prop them up, you're taking resources from better run businesses and the result is a less effective economy with increased waste.

Neo-classical economists do not consider anyone superior to another. They predict that inefficient producers be displaced but that they instantly find an industry where they can produce efficiently.

[Berzerker]

Kid

I didn't say that. I said that it is compatable with libertarianism because natural selection does not require killing at all. That's quite the opposite.

This is what you said:

Natural selection is not limited to killing within species.

Now you said the opposite of that? The opposite would be: natural selection is limited to killing within species.

So natural selection doesn't even require killing? How do you think better predators evolve if genes producing a better killing machine are not selected? And you changed my argument - that survival of the fittest includes killing the competition - to something about "natural selection" within a species. This was about whether or not survival of the fittest - social Darwinism - is compatable with libertarianism. You said yes but you keep changing both our arguments.

And once again you're wrong, natural selection does require killing unless you can live off a thermal vent or some other inanimate resource. That's one way nature selects - you can't select for advantageous killing genes if those genes don't improve the ability to consume other life forms. Even grazing animals become better at consuming because natural selection chooses characteristics that improve their ability to consume. Large molars for chewing grass and leaves did not evolve because killing is not required, but because killing IS required to produce better ways to consume.

Nope. We aren't taking about interspecies relationships an all.

I am, you merely changed what I said. Survival of the fittest includes killing the competition. Lions kill hyenas, hyenas kill cheetahs and smaller predators, etc... You are the one who turned that into something about intraspecies relationships, not me.

We are talking about intraspecies relationships.

You may be talking about that but I sure didn't limit myself to killing off competitors within a species.

Libertarianism has nothing really to do with Lions and Zebras.

No kidding! You said the strong cause the weak to die by denying the weak resources and I pointed out that lions do not consume all the grasses zebras consume to prove you wrong.

According to your logic we shouldn't have any law at all to prevent violence since it's inherent in humanity.

Where did I say that? I'm not the one claiming social Darwinsim is compatable with libertariansim, I'm refuting that notion.

Irrelevent. I can't even imagine your purposes here.

Irrelevant? That's what this is all about - whether or not social Darwinism is compatable with libertariansim.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Of course I know what sunken costs are. Sunken costs are still costs, are they not?

Look I'm going to give you thins formula. I don't want to debate about it. I'm done. If you don't understand it I will explain it to you.

a + b - c - d = e

a = Revenue
b = Non risk related costs
c = risk avoidance costs
d = Real costs of risks not avoided
e = profit

edit: fixed the error in the dim hope that Flubber will understand it.

Actually, your fix still doesn't make sense in the context you're talking about since you don't add non risk related costs to your revenue.

But more to the point, it useless to what Flubber and I are talking about. Play along with your equation:

You are deciding whether to invest $100 million in a project that you figure has a 95% chance of a successful 20% ROI, but a 5% chance of complete failure (we're keeping this simple - obviously there are normally various possible outcomes). You go through your risk assessment and determine that it's worth the risk, since a riskless return is only 3%. Lo and behold, the project is a success, and you get your 20% return. Let's plug that into your equation:

$120MM (revenue) - $100MM (non-risk related cost) = $20MM profit

Where's the risk cost again?

[Flubber]

Decent answers generally. This one requires a little follow up

Originally posted by Kidicious
I beleive that people should have a voice in govt, but I do not believe that the majority should be able to exploit the minority any more than I agree that they should be able to hold the minority as slaves.

Obviously in a democracy as well there are certain enshrined rights which are not seen as simply revokable at the will of the majority.

Would it be youir intention that certain principles be enshrined, perhaps as constitutional rights, and therefore be more difficult to change.


If so who decides what these principles are ?? My problem is when you talk about not allowing the majority to rule, then obviously someone else has set the rules (even if it was some decision by a prior majority).

But rights are a funny thing. What if your systemis tried and the economy stagnates such that a majority becomes convinced that the old ways were better. Does the clear majority have the right to say that the exploitation concept is silly and our right to work for whom we choose is paramount.

Note that you could still have the state offering its "fair wage" but I suspect it would be like the public service now and become a place where people earn LESS money

[Berzerker]

Who said the displaced workers would work.

You said some libertarians believe its better for the economy if poorly run businesses are allowed to fold. You are changing your argument again.

I''m speaking withing the context of a recession.

So you've added a new context and pretend its the original context in which you didn't even mention anything about a recession. There you go again...

Neo-classical economists do not consider anyone superior to another. They predict that inefficient producers be displaced but that they instantly find an industry where they can produce efficiently.

Where did I mention "superiority"? If the implication of an efficient and inefficient business is that the former is "superior", then neo-classical libertarians do believe that some people are superior to others.