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: TimF who wrote (138359)	7/30/2001 4:21:24 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1583868

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. Tim, again, I am not sure you can make that statement. Socialism is not so greatly different from capitalism and certainly capitalistic aspects can function very well within its umbrella. I am not sure there is a pure socialistic model where capitalism is excluded in totality. 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. I don't think there has been any country to come close to a communist model. Russia claimed it was an example of communism; by that I mean they claimed state ownership of industry on behalf of the Russian people but it was no more than a conservative dictatorship that retained the economic rewards to be gained from industry for there own benefit. As I said earlier, some companies like SAWS come close to a communistic model in that they are employee owned and run. UAL is another that is not successful....at least it does not appear so. The American view of communism usually is distorted and very misunderstood. And that's for good reason....American oligarchs and industrial leaders do not want the American people to get any ideas that would threaten their positions in the world. Of course, I am not saying that communism works...but rather that to the best of my knowledge, it has not been employed on a national level and so I don't think we know. 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. A tenet of communism is state ownership of production facilities. State ownership is another way of saying employee owned and run. The workers in a Russian steel factory before the fall of the Soviet Union were told they were the owners of that factory, and probably some believed it. In fact the ultimate goal of communism was something you might applaud: the elimination of gov't as we know it. ted