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

[Kidlicious]

But the fittest don't need to kill to survive in nature. They only have to take all the resources.

[Berzerker]

Those resources usually need to be killed

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Those resources usually need to be killed

Someone might be a Social Darwinist and believe that ghettos are societies way of making the species stronger. Such a person could be a libertarian couldn't they?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Interesting, and I mean that. It still doesn't dispute the fact that the basic way to decide about undertaking a project is to examine the forcasted risk and return. You pursue the project if the return outways the risk. They profit that you make if you are successfull it over and above the risk. So I like your figures here, but I'm just wondering if you still disagree with my general assessment.

hmmm actually you sound more and more like you are adopting what I said all along.

What you don't seem to get is that a risk assessment is used even if there is ZERO chance of loss. If we went to management with a project with an 80% chance of a 2% return, an 18% chance of a 4% rate of return and a 2% chance of a 25% rate of return, it would not be approved.

Why ? Assume that the riskless rate of return you can get is 6% (nowadays it may be lower but its just an example). Then a company has its overhead which may mean that it needs an additional 2% for all the headquarters costs that will be there regardless. Then the project has to compete with all the other available projects. Different managers promote different projects and the reality is that most companies have more projects possible than they have capital in a given year. So for a project to get done it needs not only meet certain minimum thresholds but it must be more attractive than other projects.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
What you don't seem to get is that a risk assessment is used even if there is ZERO chance of loss.

I understand that completely. That's why I'm making my claim. If there is no risk and profit is made then how can profit be compensation for risk taking.

[Sava]

THIS THREAD SHALL DIE SOON!!! MUAHUHAHAHAHA

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I understand that completely. That's why I'm making my claim. If there is no risk and profit is made then how can profit be compensation for risk taking.

Because there are essentially riskless investments that earn a profit. So the base case is not merely profit but a return that equals that. Lets say that riskless investments yield 5% annually. Thats the beginning point. Then say that the company requires an additional 2% return for overhead amounts. So thats a return of 7% thats needed for any investment decision before risk gets factored in.

In an oil company, risk is high. wells are routinely drilled that have a 1 in 5 chance of finding commercial quantities. So the possible upsides on those projects must be high (80% chance of a ZERO return will do that)

[Berzerker]

Someone might be a Social Darwinist and believe that ghettos are societies way of making the species stronger. Such a person could be a libertarian couldn't they?

I've never heard a libertarian express such a belief, but yes. If a communist believed they were racially superior to black people does that mean communism is racist?

[techumseh]

Originally posted by Sava
THIS THREAD SHALL DIE SOON!!! MUAHUHAHAHAHA

I hope so. What a bunch of philosophical and economic drivel. Some people couldn't see the point if if they were poked by a spear.

[techumseh]

Originally posted by Berzerker


I've never heard a libertarian express such a belief, but yes. If a communist believed they were racially superior to black people does that mean communism is racist?

No. It means that the person in not a communist.

[Berzerker]

There are no racist communists?

[techumseh]

Originally posted by Berzerker
There are no racist communists?

It's pretty much contrary to the doctrine, wouldn't you say? Or are you really familiar with the subject?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker


I've never heard a libertarian express such a belief, but yes. If a communist believed they were racially superior to black people does that mean communism is racist?

I never said libertarianism was racist.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


Because there are essentially riskless investments that earn a profit. So the base case is not merely profit but a return that equals that. Lets say that riskless investments yield 5% annually. Thats the beginning point. Then say that the company requires an additional 2% return for overhead amounts. So thats a return of 7% thats needed for any investment decision before risk gets factored in.

In an oil company, risk is high. wells are routinely drilled that have a 1 in 5 chance of finding commercial quantities. So the possible upsides on those projects must be high (80% chance of a ZERO return will do that)

Uh.. You didn't really respond to me at all. I'll just bring it up in the next thread or something. Maybe we can come to a better understanding then.

[Berzerker]

It's pretty much contrary to the doctrine, wouldn't you say?

The doctrine says all races are equal and one cannot believe otherwise and still be a communist? Trust me, racism is not a philosophy or ideology, its much more ingrained than such ideas like communism. You will find racists in any large group of people, including commies.

I never said libertarianism was racist.

Can you answer a question once in a while? NO, not that one damn it