Define communism for dum 'ol Lancer

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
No attempt made. People come up with ideas for products all the time. That doesn't mean that they are good ideas. Corporations are paying more and more for product development and marketing and starting to get diminishing returns. These ideas are getting expensive, especially when they are bad ideas like New Coke.

Something we agree on! THAT rocked, Kid!

I agree that ideas can be varying degrees of successful, but I have seen no evidence that there are "fewer ideas" out there, or that they're coming at a slower pace. Do you have a source, or just sorta....winging it?

R&D as a percentage of GDP

That breaks it down between industry and govt. There was a tremendous increase in R&D after WWII. That peaked in 1964, and has decreased quite a bit. Industry R&D has increased steadily since the 40s. It's now almost 2% of GDP. As far as successful product development I don't know about that, but it stands that industry R&D is earning diminishing returns to GDP.

I'm not sure what you are getting at. Of course the workers are part of the market. The market in the domestic economy is already saturated though. That's one reason why globalization is increasing profits. The other reason is the increased exploitation of workers.


What I'm getting at is that what you said initially (Actually by "markets" I was refering to places to sell goods and services which are currently produced.) isn't what you said just now (which is a re-phrasing of what I pointed out). Nor is there any particular evidence that the "domestic market" is saturated. Signs that this were true would be a dramatic slowdown of new construction of market-devices here (new car dealerships, malls, ext...) but this is not what is occuring. Again....do you have a source, or just using it cos it sounds good and supports your position?

Well the savings rate is less than 1%. If you want to get into the US market you are going to have to replace some other product or service that people consume. That requires substantial product differentiation, which is expensive. In contrast, selling TVs to a country that where most people have never seen TV isn't so hard so long as they have income.

Ok, what was the rate of successful product development during the Great Depression?

I have no idea, nor do I consider it to be important. Everyone who studies economics knows that an economy is a cyclical beast, and during the bad times, innovation can be expected to drop.

You reinforce my point. Innovation may very well decline when world population declines because of declining profits. Profits are needed for R&D, and product development.

This in no way changes the fact that the general trend, over time, has been a dramatic increase in innovation, nor does it offer even a shred of evidence that the rate of innovation has reached a peak and is on the verge of decline.

I haven't disputed either of those things. It's tough to get away from "strawman" strategy isn't it.

I don't know what the rate of innovation will be in the future. Know one can know that. But technological innovation is only one of the possible constraints to profit.

[MrFun]

I was at Borders earlier today browsing around and an interesting book caught my eye.

It's called the Black Book of Communism. I briefly examined the blurbs on the back, and scanned only part of the introduction. But basically, it's an 800 page book explicating in detail the various inhuman crimes that different communist leaders and their followers had committed.

Anyone else have heard of this book?

[Velociryx]

R&D as a percentage of GDP

Are we looking at the same chart? Cos the chart that the link you provided points to a big spike in the sixties, followed by a dip, and a more gradual increasing. One dip with the overall trend of increasing....I'm not really sure how this reinforces your point, but okies...

Well the savings rate is less than 1%. If you want to get into the US market you are going to have to replace some other product or service that people consume. That requires substantial product differentiation, which is expensive. In contrast, selling TVs to a country that where most people have never seen TV isn't so hard so long as they have income.

The industrialized world IS the place where new products hit first. It is false to assume that the market is "saturated here" every new gizmo that comes along gets shipped to here, Europe, and Japan first.

Sometimes those products replace other products, and sometimes not. (example: I have a game cube...I also have a PC (four, actually)...the game cube's invention in no way replaced the PC....they're similar but different enough to warrant the purchase of both).

Overall: Disagree, with no strong evidence on your part to disprove. Next item.

quote:

Ok, what was the rate of successful product development during the Great Depression?

I have no idea, nor do I consider it to be important. Everyone who studies economics knows that an economy is a cyclical beast, and during the bad times, innovation can be expected to drop.


You reinforce my point. Innovation may very well decline when world population declines because of declining profits. Profits are needed for R&D, and product development.

Bait and switch. Changing topics to avoid the issue. We were not talking about world population, we were talking about the cyclic nature of the economy. If world population suddenly begins to decline, the pie would shrink (causing an economic contraction) but its cyclical nature would continue. This came out of left field and I can't quite fathom why....except that you wanted to make it look like...you scored a point somehow?

And finally...the last:

quote:

Vel: This in no way changes the fact that the general trend, over time, has been a dramatic increase in innovation, nor does it offer even a shred of evidence that the rate of innovation has reached a peak and is on the verge of decline.


Kid: I haven't disputed either of those things. It's tough to get away from "strawman" strategy isn't it.

I'm sorry...is this: Maybe you think the rate of technological development will increase, but I don't. It's likely to decrease, although there probabaly will always be some development. not what you said?

I'm not sure how many different ways there are to interpret that statement, but it sure sounds like you're referring to an overall probable decrease.....or to put another way...strawman my arse....

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Mr. Fun...can't say that I've heard of it...bet it'll keep you up at night tho!

-=Vel=-

[Worthingtons]

Sorry to Join this debate late,

I think Communism is a system whereby the work system tries to be more 'fair' on those with less ability. Unfortunatly it can also punish those who excel just with workrate due to lack of incentives. It tends to result in a 'brain drain'. I think the current Capitalst model we have works ok although the wealth gap is appauling given much is inherited.

I think a system that appraises , in some non-monetary way, those making a good contribution and seeks to encourage those struggling to use thier ability best, would be sucessful. Insulating people from Poverty must remain an important objective. In a world where most nations around us are capitalist a Caring socialist envoronment can be the best hope for the communists?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
R&D as a percentage of GDP

Are we looking at the same chart? Cos the chart that the link you provided points to a big spike in the sixties, followed by a dip, and a more gradual increasing. One dip with the overall trend of increasing....I'm not really sure how this reinforces your point, but okies...

R&D as a % of GDP can not increase indefinitely. Furthermore, R&D functions as a way to differentiate products and maintain monopoly power. Increases in R&D expenditures need to be paid for somehow. Either wages need to decrease, or prices need to increase. Neither of those things can continue indefinitely, ceterus parabus.

Well the savings rate is less than 1%. If you want to get into the US market you are going to have to replace some other product or service that people consume. That requires substantial product differentiation, which is expensive. In contrast, selling TVs to a country that where most people have never seen TV isn't so hard so long as they have income.

The industrialized world IS the place where new products hit first. It is false to assume that the market is "saturated here" every new gizmo that comes along gets shipped to here, Europe, and Japan first.

That has nothing to do with the constraint of finding new markets. You're talking about product development, another different possible constraint.

Sometimes those products replace other products, and sometimes not. (example: I have a game cube...I also have a PC (four, actually)...the game cube's invention in no way replaced the PC....they're similar but different enough to warrant the purchase of both).

The point is that there is a limit to how many game cubes that you will buy. It's called the law of diminishing utility. New and different products must be marketed to increase profits. Even with new products much of the profit is offset by the declining profits or the producers of the product being replaced.

quote:

Ok, what was the rate of successful product development during the Great Depression?

I have no idea, nor do I consider it to be important. Everyone who studies economics knows that an economy is a cyclical beast, and during the bad times, innovation can be expected to drop.


You reinforce my point. Innovation may very well decline when world population declines because of declining profits. Profits are needed for R&D, and product development.

Bait and switch. Changing topics to avoid the issue. We were not talking about world population, we were talking about the cyclic nature of the economy. If world population suddenly begins to decline, the pie would shrink (causing an economic contraction) but its cyclical nature would continue. This came out of left field and I can't quite fathom why....except that you wanted to make it look like...you scored a point somehow?

We are absolutely talking about world population. That's one of the constraints to profit. It's got nothing to do with cycles. Population decrease is permanent. Do you have a theory of perpetual population increase?

And finally...the last:

quote:

Vel: This in no way changes the fact that the general trend, over time, has been a dramatic increase in innovation, nor does it offer even a shred of evidence that the rate of innovation has reached a peak and is on the verge of decline.


Kid: I haven't disputed either of those things. It's tough to get away from "strawman" strategy isn't it.

I'm sorry...is this: Maybe you think the rate of technological development will increase, but I don't. It's likely to decrease, although there probabaly will always be some development. not what you said?

I'm not sure how many different ways there are to interpret that statement, but it sure sounds like you're referring to an overall probable decrease.....or to put another way...strawman my arse....

I said that I don't think that technological development would increase at a faster rate. "Think" clearly implies that I don't claim to know, as you seem to claim to know that it will.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Mr. Fun...can't say that I've heard of it...bet it'll keep you up at night tho!

-=Vel=-

Here is an amazon.com link to some reviews of the book:


A few positive reviews, and one negative review

[Velociryx]

Welcome to the party, Worthingtons! Mayhaps you can be the newest whipping boy for the reds...I've nearly exhausted my supply of time here, although I'm sure they'll not shed any tears when I've gone...

Thanks for the link, Mr. Fun! I'll definitely check it out!

R&D as a % of GDP can not increase indefinitely

No....really?

But then, GDP can continue to increase ad infinitum, ceterus parabus.
(I can use latin too! WhoooHoo!) meaning that as a % of GDP, R&D doesn't HAVE to keep rising to ultimately be greater in (inflation adjusted) dollars. Amazing how that works!

Conclusion: You give me a graph which shows a HUGE, nearly continuous upswing, and point to the singular downward spike to "prove" your point.

Unsuccessfully, I might add.

Next item.

The point is that there is a limit to how many game cubes that you will buy. It's called the law of diminishing utility. New and different products must be marketed to increase profits. Even with new products much of the profit is offset by the declining profits or the producers of the product being replaced.

Entirely incorrect. Go back and review the conversation and you will discover that the key point being discussed HERE was market saturation in the US of A, rendering it difficult for new competitors to gain entry.

Conclusion: Bait and Switch...Kid loses focus and the point.

Next item.

We are absolutely talking about world population. That's one of the constraints to profit. It's got nothing to do with cycles. Population decrease is permanent. Do you have a theory of perpetual population increase?

Let's see then...I have some historical numbers to go by. Numbers that suggest that, at present, the world is experiencing VAST population growth.

At some point, we can expect it to level off, whereupon it would, if that happens, go through cyclical contractions akin to what the economy goes through now.

It's also entirely possible that continuing technological advances will push the "maximum upper limit" of population that the earth can support to new heights, as our ingenuity (and the savvy use of CAPITAL) allows us to do such things as build cities on the sea (Buckminster Fuller, circa 1030's), or under it, or on the moon, or on Mars, or.....

And with each new frontier, we open up whole new vistas of resources, and further increase the potential population threshold.

So...if you're asking do I believe that population growth could continue to rise forever....my answer would be that it's too soon to tell, but that the current trend is straight up, and that shows no signs of stopping.

Using history as a guide and all.

I said that I don't think that technological development would increase at a faster rate. "Think" clearly implies that I don't claim to know, as you seem to claim to know that it will.

Wiggle, wiggle, widdle worm! "It (technological innovation) will likely decrease." And you wonder why no one wants to debate in this fashion with you?! Great mother of God but it's a waste of time.



-=Vel=-

EDIT: And another fine example of that stellar internal logic. Here we have a Wikidpedia entry talking about "constraints"...and not even constraints, just "possible constraints" and suddenly, because Marx said it, it's taken into the lore of the debate as cannon. Irrefutable fact, cos you know, I read it on the 'net AND Marx said so, so of course it MUST be true.

Jesus....

[Velociryx]

And that's a wrap for me....I know you reds will be relieved to have your playground back.

I'm off again to go enslave some more of my fellow men and make them pray at the alter of capitalism.

See you on RevDay1

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
R&D as a % of GDP can not increase indefinitely

No....really?

But then, GDP can continue to increase ad infinitum, ceterus parabus.
(I can use latin too! WhoooHoo!) meaning that as a % of GDP, R&D doesn't HAVE to keep rising to ultimately be greater in (inflation adjusted) dollars. Amazing how that works!

Are you playing stupid or are you actually that stupid? If R&D is the driving force of GDP growth, you get diminishing returns from it, and it can't increase as a percentage of GDP then there is no growth in GDP.

Conclusion: You give me a graph which shows a HUGE, nearly continuous upswing, and point to the singular downward spike to "prove" your point.

I showed you a graph that shows that non-govt spending on R&D has continually increased, which supports my point. It can not continue to increase. At some point it must stop. That's a constraint to profit.

The point is that there is a limit to how many game cubes that you will buy. It's called the law of diminishing utility. New and different products must be marketed to increase profits. Even with new products much of the profit is offset by the declining profits or the producers of the product being replaced.

Entirely incorrect. Go back and review the conversation and you will discover that the key point being discussed HERE was market saturation in the US of A, rendering it difficult for new competitors to gain entry.

Your understanding of economics seems to be limited to that which supports your worldview. You have no capability of understanding it further. It's no wonder you use such pitiful debate strategies.

We are absolutely talking about world population. That's one of the constraints to profit. It's got nothing to do with cycles. Population decrease is permanent. Do you have a theory of perpetual population increase?

Let's see then...I have some historical numbers to go by. Numbers that suggest that, at present, the world is experiencing VAST population growth.

At some point, we can expect it to level off, whereupon it would, if that happens, go through cyclical contractions akin to what the economy goes through now.

It's also entirely possible that continuing technological advances will push the "maximum upper limit" of population that the earth can support to new heights, as our ingenuity (and the savvy use of CAPITAL) allows us to do such things as build cities on the sea (Buckminster Fuller, circa 1030's), or under it, or on the moon, or on Mars, or.....

And with each new frontier, we open up whole new vistas of resources, and further increase the potential population threshold.

So...if you're asking do I believe that population growth could continue to rise forever....my answer would be that it's too soon to tell, but that the current trend is straight up, and that shows no signs of stopping.

What in God's name are you talking about? Did you just make all this crap up just now? Source please. I'm attaching an graph of the world demographic projections accepted by every population expert that I know of. The peak date may vary, according to experts, but the trend does not.

[Ell_man]

Am I the only one who finds it funny that Kidicious asks for a source on Velociryx's conjectures then posts a graph with his very informative source being "every population expert that I know of"?

Concerning the possibility that economic growth will stop at one point, I personally believe that's false. There's always scarcity- people will never be completely satisfied with what they have. There will always be people who argue someone has too much and others have too little. People will always want more. I don't mean more in an evil materialistic way either. You want more leisure time, fullfilling relationships and other non- material goods too.

[Kidlicious]

Wanting more and paying more are two different things.

[Sandman]

Yes. Communism is an ideology steeped in the notion of plenty for everyone and of COMMUNAL (or state, which they'll tell you amounts to the same thing) ownership. This implies a number of things, best summed up by the phrase "each according to his ability, and each according to his needs" Which is the mantra for many, if not most communists here.

Ok, communists. Is 'for each according to his ability, to each according to his needs' your 'mantra'?

It's also entirely possible that continuing technological advances will push the "maximum upper limit" of population that the earth can support to new heights, as our ingenuity (and the savvy use of CAPITAL) allows us to do such things as build cities on the sea (Buckminster Fuller, circa 1030's), or under it, or on the moon, or on Mars, or....

If you're willing to entertain such notions, then perhaps you should be more careful when you're calling the communists on their sci-fi visions.

[Velociryx]

On my way to work, and I'll likely not be able to get back to the 'net for a couple weeks, minimum, so now I suspect you'll be crowing about your spectacular "victory" *shakes head laughing*

We can get an outsider (someone who didn't participate in the debate) to score it, but I think it will not end well for team red...I'm game if you are tho!)

And to these latest snotty little comments:

If you're willing to entertain such notions, then perhaps you should be more careful when you're calling the communists on their sci-fi visions.

Given that the technology exists RIGHT NOW to do most of the stuff on my list...yeah, I'd say that puts it a bit closer to reality than replicator technology. Sorry...didn't mean to disturb your communist wet dream. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming....

Am I the only one who finds it funny that Kidicious asks for a source on Velociryx's conjectures then posts a graph with his very informative source being "every population expert that I know of"?

Noticed that too, and had a good chuckle. Also note that I even AGREED that it was likely "at some point" that population would level off (which is essentially what the graph showed). The whole "population decrease is permanent" statement was pure rediculous....as if technology won't expand, thus raising the cap, or people will suddenly forget how to have kids...uh huh. But, it supports commie fantasy land, so of course, it's devoured as eagerly as that crusty old blowhard, Marx.

If R&D is the driving force of GDP growth, you get diminishing returns from it, and it can't increase as a percentage of GDP then there is no growth in GDP.


Ahhh...yes, IF R&D (defined as the formal research conducted BY corporations/government) is the sole force that increases GDP, you would be right. Since it's not (there's private inventors, whose work is not counted in R&D studies, there's market maturation, spinoff products requiring no r&d to develop, etc., etc., etc....), you're full of spoiled communist stew, as usual.

Your understanding of economics seems to be limited to that which supports your worldview. You have no capability of understanding it further. It's no wonder you use such pitiful debate strategies.


Notice here how when he didn't like my answer, rather than enlightening me and the good readers of this thread, he simply provided a "filler" answer which was generally disparaging, making himself look like the wise old teacher, and me the stumbling buffoon, and then skittered AWAY from the topic to avoid having to give particulars? Typical of team red. You'll see this basic move often. Study it well!

What in God's name are you talking about? Did you just make all this crap up just now? Source please. I'm attaching an graph of the world demographic projections accepted by every population expert that I know of. The peak date may vary, according to experts, but the trend does not.

Interesting that the graph you posted does not dispute what I said...namely, that at some point (I, like the "various experts" you cited, do not know exactly WHEN the peak will occur) but I SAID At some point, we can expect it to level off which is what the graph shows. Not my fault that the graph stops recording its predictions shortly after the drop, but I went a bit further and predicted that once said peak is reached, population would become cyclic, hovering near the peak, sometimes contracting, sometimes expanding. This is rather different from Kid's "population decrease is permanent" nonsense, but then, I've come to expect regular doses of nonsense from yonder side of the ideological fence.

Enjoyed it...and now you've got your sandbox back. Hopefully, someone from the Capitalist side will step in and pick up the slack, so this doesn't turn into another CCJ thread (Communist Circle Jerk...you know, where everyone sits in slack-jawed awe, admiring Marx, and the wonders of communism, taking turns extolling its virtues, etc., etc., etc)...most probably, you'll be in kinder, gentler hands, so those tender egos won't be at such risk.

I'll be back when I can...busy busy busy, what with all my economic slaves to tend to...

-=Vel=-

[MrFun]

Is there anyone who knows about the book, Black Book of Communism?


Or -- GASP -- even might have read the damn thing?