Communism v Socialism

[antagon]

yes. this has been dramatically more influential than the Fed, but where the characterization of 'centrally-planned economy' is relative, i dont think that even the pentagon and Fed combined with other extensions of US government compare to the proportions of some countries. the pliability of these organizations in the US should also be noted: we have authority but it's reasonably democratic, we have regulations but we have systemic regulatory capture, we have taxes but we have deductions.

 

[georgephillip]

What would change if capital controls and currency regulations reverted to Bretton Woods' standards?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

might i propose that the fed's role in the entire economy is too weak to consider it the central planner even if it is a central planning device?

If you want to remain totally ignorant that the Fed has doled out TRILLIONS to parties still to be named, then yes you can take that position.

 

[antagon]

What would change if capital controls and currency regulations reverted to Bretton Woods' standards?

i dont know all the details of the old system. i dont think that currency-fixing to gold makes any sense. the idea that dollars or any currency is valued by a single commodity injects what i see as an unnecessary middle man (the commodity) in the commerce equation.

pursuit of this middle man casts privilege on the elite who can control it and precipitates geopolitical hostility, corrosion of the environment and an ultimately unsustainable, unpredictable economic complex... i guess that indicates what i think might happen.

 

[antagon]

i wonder if frank made trillions any bigger if that would alter my opinion.

 

[georgephillip]

What would change if capital controls and currency regulations reverted to Bretton Woods' standards?

i dont know all the details of the old system. i dont think that currency-fixing to gold makes any sense. the idea that dollars or any currency is valued by a single commodity injects what i see as an unnecessary middle man (the commodity) in the commerce equation.

pursuit of this middle man casts privilege on the elite who can control it and precipitates geopolitical hostility, corrosion of the environment and an ultimately unsustainable, unpredictable economic complex... i guess that indicates what i think might happen.

Could currency regulations be reimposed without resorting to the gold standard?

Of the two issues, controlling the flight (or "free" flow) of capital seems the most important to me. One reason often offered by the left to explain why South Korea flourished since the end of WWII and Latin America didn't is that the Koreans' did not allow their capital to leave their country.

What happens to the global economy if capital is no freer than labor (or land) to cross borders?

 

[antagon]

What would change if capital controls and currency regulations reverted to Bretton Woods' standards?

i dont know all the details of the old system. i dont think that currency-fixing to gold makes any sense. the idea that dollars or any currency is valued by a single commodity injects what i see as an unnecessary middle man (the commodity) in the commerce equation.

pursuit of this middle man casts privilege on the elite who can control it and precipitates geopolitical hostility, corrosion of the environment and an ultimately unsustainable, unpredictable economic complex... i guess that indicates what i think might happen.

Could currency regulations be reimposed without resorting to the gold standard?

Of the two issues, controlling the flight (or "free" flow) of capital seems the most important to me. One reason often offered by the left to explain why South Korea flourished since the end of WWII and Latin America didn't is that the Koreans' did not allow their capital to leave their country.

What happens to the global economy if capital is no freer than labor (or land) to cross borders?

i think that countries which prioritize their economy with their factors are better off in the end. some cant afford to do it, like russia nowadays, and are bent on an export-based economy. the united states is already one of those countries which has taken the internal consumption methodology to heart. more important than finished capital or cash is the internal consumption of raw materials in this equation. if saudi arabia took the US approach, they would be an industry, commodity market and plastics powerhouse, and likely would still have some surplus to export.

they're the polar opposite. wealthy royals have everything and they have extreme measures in place to shrink the indigenous population and their access to the proceeds.

 

[JBeukema]

Okay, let's first establish that there is more than one form of communism (compare marxism to the Amish) and more than one form of socialism (compare progressivism, social democracy, and democratic socialism)

are these species or movements?

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amish

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

http://www.allbusiness.com/specialty-businesses/607164-1.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism

Not to mention the fact that the Communists and the national socialists were about as bitter enemies as can be, as well as were the Stalinists and the Anti-Stalinist left

 

[antagon]

yeah, i could see that maoists and amish are different species, but what about the soc dem vs dem soc thing... is there a defined difference? is it just a matter of degree?

this is your area of expertise.

 

[JBeukema]

The primary (and most significant) difference is this:

Social democrats embrace the capitalist mode of production, viewing it as the most resiliant, effective, productive, and efficient.

Democratic socialists, on the other hand, say things like this

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrA9zj94NuU]YouTube - MAXINE WATERS OUTS THE DEMS SOCIALIST AGENDA[/ame]

 

[antagon]

i see. its kind of in the noun/modifier relationship, i guess.

social capitalism!?

The two-tier approach directly contrasts with the traditional three-part economic model associated with capitalist economies: Upper class, middle class, and lower class.

Under Social-capitalist theory, the primary distinction between classes are not incomes or a poverty line. The distinction lies in an individuals independence from government/private controls. These controls may take the form of support or restraint by the government or charities. Examples: If an individual is dependent on private or government support for basic needs like housing or food, that person falls in Tier-Two. If an individual is dependent on government restraint through the criminal justice system or mental health system, that person also falls in Tier-Two. All Tier-Two individuals are defined by an active and ongoing relationship with government controls. They are not independent/productive members of the population. As such they are an economic liability.

Social capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

i dig it.