Post Archive
Region: Libertatem
HERE WE GO AGAIN!
Look communal. I used to be like you.....Except I was Centre-Left. But then I learned that Capitalism was better left alone and I shifted more towards Capitalism.
I prefer Interventionist Capitalism but it is still Capitalism. And I see that is much better then the state economical system that I originally wanted.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Jpv8DVE600k/U0mePfiAcVI/AAAAAAAALuI/VQkZ-KxQaCs/s1600/you+keep+using+that+word.png
Nope
It is. A form of it. Interventionism is Minimal Government interaction in the economy, but just enough to allow fairness and safety
I don't want to be "that guy" because I really did hate when you did this, but there's only one form of capitalism. Anything else is statist apologetics.
But really tho it's 3 am where I'm at and I'm supposed to be at a 5k in 5 hours so I'm going to go ahead and get a little rest in between ordeals.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman
I learned It the hard way. And now I get I must teach it.
Kay nighty night.
Communal Marxist Leninism is collapsing. Every self proclaimed marxist nation has started installing Capitalist policy's. If marxist Leninism is so great then why are nations giving up on it?
But Korea!
My only allegiance is to the bourgeois masters. You must be eliminated.
Pev, kick this commie scum!
TTA, you should become a libertarian Mormon transhumanist. Only then can you obtain your true potential as an awesome person with an awesome ideology.
But His Speech of Freedom!
I'm a Libertarian, Mormon, Transhumanist already though....
This is a corporation. Your call.
But you can be all of them at once!
If you want to call yourself anything, TTA, just call yourself a radical centrist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_center_(politics)
"Most support market-based solutions to social problems with strong governmental oversight in the public interest"
"problems with strong governmental oversight in the public interest"
"strong governmental oversight in the public interest"
"strong governmental oversight"
NOPE!
I prefer Libertarian Neoliberal Democrat with a Belief in Social Market Economy and Trickle down economics
Anyway I am off to sleep.
So just call yourself a liberal.
I despise the term 'trickle-down economics'. I don't even know why it's a point of contention, when it's so obviously true.
Fun fact: since 1980, the worker compensation-productivity gap has narrowed every time taxes were cut and widened whenever they were increased.
Source?
https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/t1.0-9/1975007_762401500460941_655979613_n.png
http://being-classical-liberal.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/wages-vs-productivity.html
Okay excuse me.
A belief in Supple-Side Economics
Hey!
"Crime -- especially youth-related -- is relatively low, thanks to the all-pervasive police force and progressive social policies in education and welfare."
Woo I am a libertarian nation done right. Except for my parental licencing program. It made sense to me at the time...
Hahaha
My Nation is more Liberal conservative. At the moment (So I am trying to get it)
Mine is a constitutional monarchy that is controled by the national socialist.
Updates on Stuff:
Congratulations to those that got into the top ten lowest tax burdens. I can't believe that [nation=short]Rotgeheim[/nation] has an average income tax rate of 95%!
I've sent out some more recruitment messages. I'd like some assistance.
I've got a lot on my hands, so I think I might want to give the APPEAL Act to someone else (Humph? Roads?) to finish off. I think it's crucial that we pass it during this Board Term.
He takes pride in that. He even made tax cuts once
The fun thing is he has one of the best economies in this region.
Here are some fun Lil' Statistics for y'all. brought to you by Westboro Baptist Church.
6817 - soldiers that God has killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
52,895 - pickets conducted by WBC.
929 - cities that have been visited by WBC.
1199 - weeks that WBC has held daily pickets on the mean streets of doomed america.
71 - people whom God has cast into hell since you loaded this page.
218,400,000+ - gallons of oil that God poured in the Gulf.
$17.54 trillion+ - national debt of doomed america.
8 - people that God saved in the flood.
16,000,000,000 - people that God killed in the flood.
144,000 - Jews that will be saved in these last days.
0 - nanoseconds of sleep that WBC members lose over your opinions and feeeeellllliiiiiings.
Those guys are a bad joke...anyway, I just landed backstage passes to a Sammy hagar concert. Im happy.....
Out of ten, that's pretty neat
It is kind of difficult to live when America has enforced penalties on every nation that isn't capitalist. Starving them has lead to revisionism. North Korea and cuba for example is lacking food, not because of systematic problems, but because the capitalist ocypus has stretched its tentacles on all of the world's resources and is keeping them away from the people of those countries. People starve everyday at the hands of capitalism, communist or not.
It isn't that we are incapable of feeding all other humans, it is because the failed distributive problems capitalism has. And don't give me that survival of the fittest BS. People are starving to death because of the world-wide economic system and people in the first world not giving a sh!t about it.
I hate politics.
Remind me again why I am here?
Um capitalist nations have a surplus of food. Why can't communist nations make as much food. O I know because the farms are run by the Workers.
Run by the government
Maybe if nations like North Korea invested in Agriculture instead of their Military then perhaps it could feed its people.
Woo #10!
I know! (Dont get the out of ten if youre not gonna give it a number though...)
Post self-deleted by Communal Militia.
It isn't a matter of not producing enough or revenue distribution. They lack some of the essential resources for people partly because of climate, terrain, and soil conditions because they are not particularly favorable for farming, and have a relatively short cropping season. Only about 17% of the total landmass, is well suited for cereal cultivation; the major portion of the country is rugged mountain terrain in north korea.
I also would like to point out that Capitalist nations most of the time have surplus in food for a reason. We produce a lot of food. In fact, we have so much that we waste $165 billion in food annually. The market dictates where all resources go and it operates poorly when you want to,you know, not starve people.
The bottom line is that we live at the expense of the third world people. Every advancement in the first world is a steal in the third world. This is equal and fair right? We are so egalitarian and humanitarian..
"WAAAH WE ARE NOLTH KOLEA AND THE ENVIRONMENT CONDITIONS ARE BAD AND ETC ETC"
Give me a break. If North Korea invested in Capitalism instead of cronyism then perhaps it could feed its people.
It very much is a matter of production - people suffer if they cannot create or obtain enough resources to sustain themselves. The terrible state of affairs in the Stalin-era USSR was a testament to that; thousands, if not tens of thousands, died of starvation in that time.
Capitalism, despite its inequality, is uncontested in terms of production. We may draw a lot of resources from the third world, but return a substantial amount of aid and technology; both sides would benefit from further fair trade.
As for egalitarianism, that is a joke at best and a lie at worst; people are only created equal through natural rights and under the law, not in terms of capacity. As morally wrong as that is, or seems to be, it is the truth and to deny it is to deny the nature of humanity and the civilization it has created.
Fact: We don't return anything to the people what we steal from.
All people have the same and equal moral value. Someone living in the U.S is as valuable as a person living in Nigeria. The fact of the matter is all are entitled to a share of sustainable resource.
Are you still going on about communism, do we have to prove you wrong again?
^ Ya that...
Good for you. Consider the following:
The standard of living is substantially higher in the U.S. than in Nigeria. Someone living in the U.S. is far less likely to get sick than someone in Nigeria. Someone living in the U.S. stands to make quite a bit more money than in Nigeria. People don't have the same physical, mental, or - as much as I hate to say it - monetary value, no matter how "morally" similar they are. Inequality exists, it can be a very bad thing in some cases, and there's nothing that can be done to change that.
What can be done is to raise the standard of living for everyone by taking into account and exploiting this inequality. A capitalist economy generates wealth through trade, while other economic models redistribute or, most likely (and least fortunately), subtract wealth.
Huh(shaking head) do they ever learn?
No, In communist society, people have to work to support the country. No TIME for education. Cmon, you know better than to suggest they learn..like I said, their people dont either.
The standard of living worldwide is unequal but possible. It's possible to make a society that distributes a higher quality of living worldwide, but it isn't accepted by the capitalist because it subtracts his wealth. The market of wealth cannot be amended to somehow stop deteriorating the lives of billions, it only can be removed from society in order to increase the standard of living for all. And there is plenty things we could do to bring about that change.
Hahahaha, that was a good one.
I would like to note that the Soviet Union had a 99.9% literacy rate, and increased the number of schools nation-wide by thousands a year.
The state also subsidized books and magazines so that the people could afford to read what they want to read.
The standard of living is improving in the third world, albeit slowly. It's so hard to accomplish worldwide growth during a recession prolonged by worldwide government intervention, but somehow we're actually managing it.
Anyway, the system you propose would be to reduce the wealth in wealth-generating countries and distribute it to countries that do little but drain it. We're already doing this to some degree (and I would prefer it if we actually cut back on this for the sake of economic recovery) because, well, the world is everyone's responsibility.
So too are our communities, cities, and countries in which we take residence, and herein lies a problem in your plan:
Penalizing innovators and subsidizing inaction never works. If wealth-generating countries are no better off in living standards than countries in desperate need of a bailout, what incentive do they have to generate wealth rather than, themselves, asking to be bailed out by another country? And thus the Tragedy of the Commons reappears.
If Soviet propaganda wasn't so widespread, maybe those people would have read in their newspapers "Food supply at all time low - stock up on nonperishable food items or perish yourself."
You mean they forcefully took control of countries who could already read? They also killed that industry, the currency was worthless and that's why they fell.
No, it fell because of the liberal policies that devalued everything about the revolution. If you want to look at it a different way, you can look at Gorbachev's political standing in the party and go from there...
Also, look at the countries' education before and after they were admitted to the soviet union...
If these food shortages were as prominent as you claim, don't you think the people living there would do everyting they could to leave?
I have a question for you communal, if communism was so wonderful, then why did people in the USSR say that nuclear war was better than a communist society. Does "better dead than red mean anything to you"?
Literacy was increased to near 100%. Something the Western world is still unable to achieve.
They'd have been rounded up and killed (or at least imprisoned) for trying, same as for any other act of dissent. Gulags didn't exist just for kicks, you know.
That, and the USSR was huge - consider that less than one fifth of people owned an automobile, and would have a tough time making it past the border on foot.
Check this out: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/Stalins%20Russia.htm
It addresses both sides of the argument nicely, which is something considering I never thought I'd see anyone defending the horrible living conditions of Stalin-era USSR.
There were more cases of poverty in the USSR, so homeless and literate. By the way America is about 96 percent, so the literacy rate is pretty good.
That is simply propaganda at its finest. Also, public transport dominated over private transport. Its fast, efficient, and environment friendly.
The unemployment rate was actually about 1-2% and all were paid a decent living wage for that time in history.
Not propaganda statistics
http://gulaghistory.org/nps/downloads/gulag-curriculum.pdf
Is it?
A DECENT WAGE? There were four hour long lines at grocery stores, four hour lines for bread. Where in god's name are you getting your facts?
Everything was rationed.
Propaganda, I mean, not public transport. (Also, I wouldn't see public transport working very well in American cities.)
Public transport only works in new york and chicago, public transport would not work in other american cities.
Makes sense, given their street patterns and congestion when private transport is introduced. There are a far greater number of smaller (or differently organized) cities in which it wouldn't work near as well.
Precisely
Wait, what about Los Angeles? I haven't heard of a good public transit system there, though I have heard that congestion is at its worst there.
Communal, really think about the meaning of better dead than red. If people in the USSR were believing in that saying, then perhaps communism isn't this wonderful saving idea that you preach that it is. If people would rather have nuclear war, there is a problem.
I believe extensive public transport should be extended to medium-sized cities as well. Not just the top cities.
"We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us."
Los Angeles is divided into two widespread areas, unlike Chicago and New York where everything is clustered. Los Angeles has horrible high way traffic, public transport wouldn't work.
No such thing as a bad city for public transportation. Only badly designed public transport systems :P
Everything isn't clustered, it would not work.
Notice that you pin the downfall of the soviet bloc at the whole movement itself, rather than what actually made it fall- liberal revisionists. No one wanted nuclear war. Ever.
Um... that was a western frase. McCarthyism and all that...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_red_than_dead
I'm not saying the Soviet Union was good - it wasn't. But that particular phrase was definitely the West's.
Railway, subway, and bus goes farther than you think...
Most American cities aren't clustered though, so rather than waiting for public transportation, you can get there quicker by car.
Or it could be that public transport simply wouldn't work very well in certain cities; not every metropolis has room for a subway system or perfectly-aligned streets.
A western saying that spread to the USSR that people believed in. Ever heard of the John Lennon wall in the Czech Republic? The Czechs would paint portraits of Lennon and The Beatles as protest because the USSR restricted western values. That was a major reason for rebellion, the desire for Western culture.
Oh, sure. Public transport is rarely faster than a car. Just a whole fvckload cheaper :P That's the point. It's something affordable that gives more mobility to those with less cash in their pockets.
Subways are incredibly expensive. Buses can go on routes, have a comparatively low initial cost and get the job done just as well, usually.
Also, for spread out cities, railways that connect entire sections (or several small cities together) work very well. Where I live we have a railway that goes along a 40-50km stretch of coast, giving you access to a huge amount of terrain without having to walk very far. Great for tourists and natives alike.
No one literally wanted nuclear war, duh. The hyperbole was such a gross exaggeration used to show the hatred of communism.
Ever study human geography? Look into it a bit, it explains why America does not have much public transport as other countries.
Communal, you talk of capitalism propaganda. I have a story for you. My uncle moved to the Czech Republic and married a woman named Sedanka. My aunt told her story of how the USSR came in and got rid of democracy, how they taught in schools that America and capitalism was evil, how to hate capitalism. She also tells of how people were executed for speaking out for wanting freedom, for wanting a chance for a better life. I'm quite disgusted you suggest the USSR was this wonderful empire, they killed, they brainwashed, they oppressed, they put people on the streets, how can suggest that they were positive and liberal polices killed them? You need a history lesson
I found human geography to be an incredibly dull topic for the short time I studied it. I have better things to spend my time on, thanks.
I stand by my view that there is no such thing as a bad place for a public transport system, only a badly designed one.
Well alright then, not mad we just have differing views
It only got that bad when the USSR saw its demise as a few liberal leaders started enacting unpopular policies.
Like Stalin and Lenin?
It was horrible from the beginning, this was happening when stalin and lenin enacted communism and started the USSR.
I mean. Lenin was an okay leader. It only really went to sh*t when Stalin came into power.
Marx, Lenin and....that third Communist guy who started with an "E" had good ideas.
RWU, you talk of Socialist propaganda. I have a story for you. My uncle moved to Iran and married a woman named Aisha. My aunt told her story of how the USA came in and got rid of democracy, how they taught in schools that the Soviet Union and Socialism was evil, how to hate Socialism. She also tells of how people were executed for speaking out for wanting freedom from the US installed "King of Kings," for wanting a chance for a better life. I'm quite disgusted you suggest the USA was this wonderful empire, they killed, they brainwashed, they oppressed, they put people on the streets, how can suggest that they were positive and liberal polices killed them? You need a history lesson
That's not Tue. The problems stated with the death of Lenin.
Under stalin and lenin, people were oppressed. Lenin and stalin were two horrible men in history
The problems started when world war 2 started, and the cold war later.
The Union did not go to crap till it's original leader (Lenin died)
- Lenin Ended the terrible Monarch Nobility.
Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.