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 (151048)	9/7/2002 2:12:42 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1586458

Tim, you said that that the US rate is "normally lower" than Germany's. Try normally lower then Europe's. I do admit I mentioned Germany before but Germany has traditionally had lower unemployment then most of Europe. The US is closer to the size of the EC then it is to the size and population of Germany. If you take an area of the US that had the same size or the same population of Germany and had among the lowest employment rates in the US I'm sure you could find more then one that had an unmployment rate consistantly lower then Germany's. Look, Tim, you said Germany originally; I am very literal. The use of Germany was a bad choice so let's end it here before I have a virtual tantrum to counter your virtual smack. <g> Let me see here........Clinton is president, he proposes welfare reform and gets it passed but giving him credit makes no sense. Even if Clinton plagiarized the Rep. welfare reforms word for word, why should he not get credit. One can have a great idea and if you do nada with it, all it is is a great idea. Coming up with the idea is about 1/4 of the work......getting it implemented and making it work is the hard part. He gets some credit for signing it, but it was a Republican initative from the begining and never would have been possible if it wasn't for the Republican congress. If Clinton did not push for it, it still would have happened with a Republican congress unless he vetoed it. Clinton didn't even start pushing it until the Republicans won and it was almost inevitible (atleast without Clinton's strong opposition to it). He saw the way the wind was blowing and go ahead of it, but since he did sign the bill and not fight it I suppose I can give him a little credit, I just think the Republicans in congress deserve more. Fine........Clinton gets credit for the implementation and the Reps. for thinking it up. They were not socialist nor communist countries........they were dictatorships in which the wealth and production were controlled by the dictators on top, and not the people as Marx intended. To my knowledge we have not seen a communist economic model in play with the exception of the kibbutzim. They where largely socialist in fact and called themselves either socialist or communist. The fact that they where dictatorships is irrevlevant to this. Its the most relevent part of the discussion.......there was not a communist state in Russia. It was a dictatorship that controlled the wealth and power of the state........that's not at all what Marx intended. Socialism does not require democracy. Socialism is when the government controls the economy or at least the major factors of production. Capitalism and socialism are opposites but neither is either equal to or opposite of either democracy or dictatorship. You could have a socialist democracy, or a socialist dictatorship and you could also have either type of government with a capitalist economic system. You can have a capitalist dictator.......that's the model China is moving towards but you can not have a communistic dictatorship.........it would be an oxymoron......at least not under what Marx proposed. Marx actually called for the elimination of the state.......in his view, there would be little if any need for gov't once the communist model was working properly. However, totalitarian gov't is central to Marxist Leninism ideology. To a Marxist Leninist, a communistic dictatorship would not be an oxymoron; in fact that's what existed in Russia. BTW I think Marx would have been insulted knowing that people considered Lenin a communist. Marx intent was take out the greed and depravation that common with most existing economic models. Whatever Marx's intent was it ignored both human nature in regard to motivations That's why he was ahead of his time. and the fact that no individual or group has the ability to effictivly plan an economy. An economy is too complex. Huh? We do economic planning in this country all the time. The problem in Russia was not its complexity but the motivation and the goals of the planners. If you have a free market system where prices are charged for things and those prices can adjust freely then producers get feedback on what is in demand and consumers get feedback on what is available by the adjustment of prices. What mechanism would carry this information if you don't have a free market and price information. Under communism, things like demand and prices is not as relevant as in a capitalistic system. Even if we somehow could evolve to the point where we don't need the incentive of profit (a silly and naive idea in my opinion) we still would not have the ability to make a modern economy function offically without the information carried by prices in a free market. The problem is you are trying to understand this from a capitalist perspective. Using the kibbutz as an example, their economic model is to produce goods and services that benefit the entire kibbutz whether they are consumed by the kibbutz or sold to others outside the kibbutz. All the revenue and profits belong to the kibbutz. Every member of the kibbutz shares equally in those profits. How the profits are distributed depends on the particular economic model of the kibbutz. The motive for producing the products is to insure the well being of all the members of the kibbutz, not just one or two individuals. Its communal living arrangement. For someone raised in a capitalist environment, its very hard to accept the notion of working solely towards a common goal for the community instead of the individual. That's not to say the system is bad, just different. One Israeli friend grew up on a kibbutz......when he reached adulthood he left because he didn't like the system. There are times when he regrets his decision but nonetheless continues to live and work in a capitalist system. For others the kibbutz works for them.....and they are born, live and die in the same kibbutz. I guess it depends on your personality and nature. How about a deal, if I pick out a book by Hayek or someone similer (maybe two Hayek's books where not big for the most part) I'll read some Marx or a book but some socialist leaning economist that you pick. I might learn something and I think you would have a better understanding of the problems with socialism. Tim, I understand the problems with socialism. The difference I think between you and I is that I have lived in Europe for a while and experienced some aspects of their eco. model, and as an undergrad, political science was one of my majors so I did considerable reading on the subject of socialism and communism. Many Americans have almost an allergic reaction to the words socialism and communism, and I think its an overreaction. My German friends are just as aggressive and capitalistic as my American friends; one of the major differences I see is that they have a kind of net under them that gives them a sense of security that we don't have. At the same time, they seem to chafe under the restrictive laws in their country but then we do too.......I just don't how much worse their situation is compared to ours. By no means do they think the American system is better......in fact, they see a lot wrong with it but then they complain about their system too. Where you get your opinions is important......if its not based on fact, then there's no point in arguing IMO. To the extent that facts can be said to point to any economic conclustion then point to the idea that free markets are the greatest creators of human wealth and well being in human history. However it can be argued that some ideas have not been implimented and of course there is no controled expiriments to conclusivly prove there is nothing better. In any case economics (and still less economic philosophy or what used to be called "political economy" is not a simple collection of facts. Facts are like 1+1 =2, but you need theory and ideas to show that 1+1 is the question that needs to be asked. I was talking about your understanding of socialism and communism.......fact seems to be intertwined with myth. I try to stay as close to the facts as possible. That's why I read three different versions in addition to our own of what went on in Palestine. IMO the myth and prejudices are what color the truth and lead to war. Where do you get your economic ideas from? I don't think it's relevant to the issue at hand but it has become a matter of curiosity. (and if you say "from the facts", I'll give you a little virtual smack <g>) I am not sure what you mean by economic ideas. Do you mean my stock picks or when I develop property? Or do you mean economic models? If you are wondering if I am a capitalist, the answer is yes. However, I understand the issue of the common good......and I blend that in with my capitalistic perspective. Let me know if that answers your question. ted Enter symbols or keywords for search: QuotesStock TalkChartsNewsPeople Symbol Lookup Subject Titles Only Full Text Go to Top Terms of Use Got a comment, question or suggestion? Contact Silicon Investor.