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 (151063)	9/8/2002 5:33:50 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1586514

Fine........Clinton gets credit for the implementation and the Reps. for thinking it up. For thinking it up, and for causing it to happen. After that Clinton had to implement it. .there was not a communist state in Russia. It was a dictatorship that controlled the wealth and power of the state.. It was a dictatorship and communist according to the normal useage of the world or socialist according to Marx's use of the term. These things are not mutually exlusive. ..that's not at all what Marx intended. Marx intedned a dictatorship as a tranistional phase. I don't think he planed it to last 70 years, but he expected it to exit. but you can not have a communistic dictatorship.........it would be an oxymoron. Not at all an oxymoron according to the normal use of the term, and if you want to specificaly focus on Marx then it would be a socialist dictatorship rather then communist. That's why he was ahead of his time. Its an idea who's time has not come and probably never will. 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. We do planning but we don't plan the details of the economy. It would be imposible to sort it all out effectively. We let the market do that for us. Under communism, things like demand and prices is not as relevant as in a capitalistic system. Under any economic system demand is relevant. If a communist system (whether or not you are refering to Marx's idea of "true communism") uses up resources producing things people don't want then it will have less resources to share. Prices are important to communicate the relative level of supply and demand. They do so far better then any person, comittee, party, or government could even if the people making the decisions where the wisest and most inteligent and most observent and most moral people the world has ever seen they would not be able to cope with this responsibility as well as a free market can. 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. The Kibbutz can know what to produce and how much because it is a small system operating in a capitalist system. There is actually some simularity to a company. A company doesn't usually have internal markets for its factors of production. The Kibbutz's aims and philosophy will be different then most private companies but it relates to the larger economy in a similar way. A nation's, esp. a large nation's, economy is much more complex. Even if everyone was wise and good we would not know how many products and services to produce without the signals given by prices in a market economy. You would be left with clumsy central planning without a functioning capitalist market. You can't just say "produce as much as you can", because producing more of one good or service leaves you with less resources to produce others (or to just enjoy a good rest and time with the family). I try to stay as close to the facts as possible. Facts are simple things. Facts are not like "socialism works" or "socialism causes all sorts of problems". Facts are specific. "Socialism works" is a theory. You can and should back up your theory with facts but they are not the same thing. I am not sure what you mean by economic ideas Ideas about how the economy of the US and other countries and the world works, could work, or should work. Ideas about how changeing economic systems would change incentives and outputs and peoples lives. Ideas about economics both practical and theoretical. 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. Not really. The question was where your economic ideas come from not what you would label them. Is there any expierences in your life that led you to where you are on this subject? Did some economic writing or class or other type of presentation of economic ideas make a lot of sense to you and thus lead you to some of your ideas and opinions? Its just a matter of curiosity. I don't think it effects the strength of your arguments either way. Tim