Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (138357)	7/30/2001 1:46:09 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583867

>>> Tim and Harry, first socialism works but not the way capitalism does...does not mean that capitalism is necessarily better. Secondly, level of socialism determines the degree of incentives. There are forms of socialism in both Norway and Sweden. In Norway, however, there seem to be more incentives to grow and prosper. >>> In Norway and maybe Sweden there is still enough capitalism to work at least to an extent. Any attempt at total or pure socialism in a country with millions of people is almost definitely doomed to abject failure. >>> As for communism, I don't know how you can make your statement since to my knowledge no country in the world has established an economy based on communism as outlined by K. Marx. So I don't think we know what the results would be under a communistic form of gov't and economy. >>> The closer a country has come to trying to follow those principles the more disastrous the consequences have been. In fact, I have found that companies which employ one aspect of communism....ownership by employees...companies like SAWS...tend to do very well economically. SAWS was doing so well, it just got bought out. >>> An employee owned company operating in a free market is completely compatible with capitalism. It is privately owned and responsive to market signals, not publicly owned or the beneficiary of a government granted monopoly. >>> Tim

To: tejek who wrote (138357)	7/30/2001 6:41:30 PM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583867

Ted Re..Secondly, level of socialism determines the degree of incentives. <<<<< That's like saying hardly pregnant. Either you are or aren't. A blended down socialism isn't socialism anymore. In Norway, however, there seem to be more incentives to grow and prosper. Those incentives are are called capitalism. As for communism, I don't know how you can make your statement since to my knowledge no country in the world has established an economy based on communism as outlined by K. Marx. <<<< Many countries started out with Marx in mind, but were forced to try alternatives. Lenin himself, was a strong proponent of Marx, but had to change to save the regime. So I don't think we know what the results would be under a communistic form of gov't and economy We certainly have had communities based upon Marx; if not the whole country. They haven't been able to grow either.. Go figure. In fact, I have found that companies which employ one aspect of communism....ownership by employees...companies like SAWS...tend to do very well economically. SAWS was doing so well, it just got bought out. There is a huge difference between employee ownership, and socialism. And UAL hasn't done well by the way.