Prostitution and Communism

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
But it didn't work, obviously. The full price for the bread still had to be paid, by adding extra charges or excises in luxury goods. People paid the price for cheap bread by having many luxuries unaffordable. A color TV in the GDR cost about 6,000 Marks, which equals the wage of about half a year for a worker. The cheapest car cost 10,000 Marks, and did not deserve to be called "car" at that. The cheapest real car was about 20,000 Marks.

I don't think the reason that TVs were so expensive was because bread was so cheap. The USSR was jacking the price up for TVs because bread was so cheap. The price of TVs was so high because the USSR couldn't make them efficiently and most resources were devoted to making weapons.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


Not to threadjack but don't farmer supports/subsidies lead to grains being sold at prices that are inadequate to actually support the farmer?

Yes, but the subsidy makes up for it.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Most of the begging for food, is just to get money to feed their addictions.

hmm but are they begging for food so that they don't HAVE to use their money for food?

here, I have never had a beggar ask for food-- they always ask for money. One guy asked for money since he "hadn't eaten in two days"-- I fished into my bag and gave him an orange. After I turned the corner, I watched him for a while . .. he never ate the orange. I don't know about you but if I hadn't eaten in days I would tend to eat pretty immediately once I did have food. He put it in his knapsack.

Maybe he was allergic to citris or was saving it for later but I tend to think he was simply lying.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Yes, but the subsidy makes up for it.

Isn't that what I said ?? ( putting a but in there makes it sound as if you thought you said something different-- bottom line is that grain is cheaper than it would be in a freer market)

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber



hmm but are they begging for food so that they don't HAVE to use their money for food?

here, I have never had a beggar ask for food-- they always ask for money. One guy asked for money since he "hadn't eaten in two days"-- I fished into my bag and gave him an orange. After I turned the corner, I watched him for a while . .. he never ate the orange. I don't know about you but if I hadn't eaten in days I would tend to eat pretty immediately once I did have food. He put it in his knapsack.

Maybe he was allergic to citris or was saving it for later but I tend to think he was simply lying.

The "will work for food" signs are popular here, but people just hand them money, and don't have them do any work.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I don't know if all of those benefit society. I'll give you "mowing your lawn" though. Let's say you enjoy mowing your lawn and you planted grass just to mow your own lawn. That's not the same kind of work as having a job where you have to mow lawns all day long. Maybe you like to mow lawns you you have chosen that for a career, but you still have to do it all day long, and sometimes you won't want to go to work, but will have to anyway.

Is there a point in that litany of the obvious ? Seriously what are you trying to say. Is a person required to do things that benefit society?


oh and I kinda do enjoy mowing my lawn. Its just brainless activity with immediate feedback since you so quickly see the improvement

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
Is a person required to do things that benefit society?

I think they should have to do their share.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I don't think the reason that TVs were so expensive was because bread was so cheap. The USSR was jacking the price up for TVs because bread was so cheap. The price of TVs was so high because the USSR couldn't make them efficiently and most resources were devoted to making weapons.

Bread and TVs (or cars for that matter) are only placeholder words for basic goods and luxury goods. And the former (basic food, rent, normal clothing) were subsidized by the latter (TV sets, cars, delicacies, fashion clothes etc). The purpose of this was, that everyone was guaranteed to have basic goods affordable.

If you (the socialist government) make one side cheaper, you have to finance that by making the other side more expensive. In its basics, the pre-communist (socialist) economy was still very capitalistic. Workers wouldn't work without wage and everything had to be paid for.

So if you make basic goods ("bread"), cheaper by law, you have to give the baker or bread factory a compensation for the losses it makes by selling their product cheap. Where to take this money? Let's check the possibilities:

a) with tax money. Obviously pretty dumb. If you subsidize basic goods (which everyone needs) with taxes (which everyone pays), you didn't make them cheaper.

b) by borrowing money. Doesn't work on the long run, and was one of the reasons why the whole thing crashed.

c) by, gulp, making other goods more expensive. You can have your minimal needs for little cost, but if you want to be "teh 1337 d00d" and have a color TV, you pay for it, and dearly.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


The "will work for food" signs are popular here, but people just hand them money, and don't have them do any work.

The guys here that want labour work just stand around in an area within a block or two from a homeless shelter. These folks are NOT the same individuals that have their hands out on the street corners

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I think they should have to do their share.

Theres the rub-- what is their share? I remember an old thread where you indicated that in your society, Mrs flubber would be REQUIRED to work? Is that where you are headed?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Bread and TVs (or cars for that matter) are only placeholder words for basic goods and luxury goods.

OK

And the former (basic food, rent, normal clothing) were subsidized by the latter (TV sets, cars, delicacies, fashion clothes etc).

No. It's a matter of resource allocation and supply, the money is only the means of allocation. TVs were scarce, so they needed to carry a high price, otherwise there would be shortages. This could be because there were not enough factories to make TVs or it could be because there is some input resource needed to make TVs that was in short supply. Now they may have needed that resource to make bread and so may have subsidized bread by making the resource available to farmers first, but this we don't know. We only know that the bread is sold at below cost. If this is what you are saying that didn't work, why are you saying that. Shouldn't the bread have been susidized.

If you (the socialist government) make one side cheaper, you have to finance that by making the other side more expensive. In its basics, the pre-communist (socialist) economy was still very capitalistic. Workers wouldn't work without wage and everything had to be paid for.

I don't call using money capitalism. All of the resource allocation is planned, or at least most of it.

So if you make basic goods ("bread"), cheaper by law, you have to give the baker or bread factory a compensation for the losses it makes by selling their product cheap. Where to take this money? Let's check the possibilities:

a) with tax money. Obviously pretty dumb. If you subsidize basic goods (which everyone needs) with taxes (which everyone pays), you didn't make them cheaper.

b) by borrowing money. Doesn't work on the long run, and was one of the reasons why the whole thing crashed.

c) by, gulp, making other goods more expensive. You can have your minimal needs for little cost, but if you want to be "teh 1337 d00d" and have a color TV, you pay for it, and dearly.

You're confusing the fact the the resource allocation was planned. So making bread cheaper did not make the supply of TVs shorter. The supply of both bread and TVs was set, and then the prices were planned to do two things.

1) distribute the goods efficiently (meaning fairly etc.)

2) bring in the money back into the system for continued use.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
Theres the rub-- what is their share? I remember an old thread where you indicated that in your society, Mrs flubber would be REQUIRED to work? Is that where you are headed?

Well if house work is not the same as having the resonsiblities of a real job, then yes. Imagine a planned economy where only the men had to have jobs. Of course that wouldn't work. You're talking about laying off almost half the workforce.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Well if house work is not the same as having the resonsiblities of a real job, then yes. Imagine a planned economy where only the men had to have jobs. Of course that wouldn't work. You're talking about laying off almost half the workforce.

I'm not talking about laying ANYBODY off. I just say that a person that does not wish to work and who have means of support should have that choice. I'm not advocating sit-on-your-ass welfare.

Currently in reality, Mrs. Flubber works part-time-- it seems to work well for us and I would have STRONG objection to anyone telling us we have to organize our life some other way.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


I'm not talking about laying ANYBODY off. I just say that a person that does not wish to work and who have means of support should have that choice. I'm not advocating sit-on-your-ass welfare.

Currently in reality, Mrs. Flubber works part-time-- it seems to work well for us and I would have STRONG objection to anyone telling us we have to organize our life some other way.

It seems acceptable to have one parent work part time to be available to get things done at home.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


It seems acceptable to have one parent work part time to be available to get things done at home.

My question is why does it have to be "acceptable" and to whom? Why shouldn't Mrs Flubber NOT work all if that is here wish and the family unit is willing to get by with less resources?