Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Which is what makes you so hard to take seriously. Because you are woefully uneducated about the U.S. Constitution, liberty, and economics...I believe in a mixed economy.
“Nothing, indeed, seems at first more plausible, or is more likely to appeal to reasonable people, than the idea that our goal must be neither the extreme decentralization of free competition nor the complete centralization of a single plan but some judicious mixture of the two methods.
Yet mere common sense proves a treacherous guide in this field. Although competition can bear some admixture of regulation, it cannot be combined with planning to any extent we like without ceasing to operate as an effective guide to production. Nor is “planning” a medicine which, taken in small doses, can produce the effects for which one might hope from its thoroughgoing application.
Both competition and central direction become poor and inefficient tools if they are incomplete; they are alternative principles used to solve the same problem, and a mixture of the two means that neither will really work and that the result will be worse than if either system had been consistently relied upon.
Or, to express it differently, planning and competition can be combined only by planning for competition but not by planning against competition.”
The irony of that statement. By it's very definition - "social ownership" is central control.Socialism isn't defined by central control of an economy. It is defined by the social ownership and democratic control of the means of production. In Marxist theory the wage laborer is freed from exploitation by private ownership of the capitalist class.
“It is important clearly to see the causes of this admitted ineffectiveness of parliaments when it comes to a detailed administration of the economic affairs of a nation. The fault is neither with the individual representatives nor with parliamentary institutions as such but with the contradictions inherent in the task with which they are charged. They are not asked to act where they can agree, but to produce agreement on everything—the whole direction of the resources of the nation. For such a task the system of majority decision is, however, not suited. Majorities will be found where it is a choice between limited alternatives; but it is a superstition to believe that there must be a majority view on everything. There is no reason why there should be a majority in favor of any one of the different possible courses of positive action if their number is legion. Every member of the legislative assembly might prefer some particular plan for the direction of economic activity to no plan, yet no one plan may appear preferable to a majority to no plan at all.”
Not everyone would get to decide what products Apple makes, only those employed in the production of the products. They would also have a say in how the surplus was distributed among the producers of the products.The irony of that statement. By it's very definition - "social ownership" is central control.Socialism isn't defined by central control of an economy. It is defined by the social ownership and democratic control of the means of production. In Marxist theory the wage laborer is freed from exploitation by private ownership of the capitalist class.
It is a complete and total fallacy to believe that 330 million Americans can share "social ownership". You will have 50 million differences on how that "social ownership" will function. Who wins? Who gets to decide which products Apple builds and which products Apple eliminates in that "social ownership"?
Socialism isn't defined by central control of an economy. It is defined by the social ownership and democratic control of the means of production. In Marxist theory the wage laborer is freed from exploitation by private ownership of the capitalist class.I'm sorry....is your Google broke?Define socialism for the class.
(In a nutshell....centralized control of an economy - including but not limited to - means of production, distribution, regulation, money supply, etc.).
Not everyone would get to decide what products Apple makes, only those employed in the production of the products. They would also have a say in how the surplus was distributed among the producers of the products.The irony of that statement. By it's very definition - "social ownership" is central control.Socialism isn't defined by central control of an economy. It is defined by the social ownership and democratic control of the means of production. In Marxist theory the wage laborer is freed from exploitation by private ownership of the capitalist class.
It is a complete and total fallacy to believe that 330 million Americans can share "social ownership". You will have 50 million differences on how that "social ownership" will function. Who wins? Who gets to decide which products Apple builds and which products Apple eliminates in that "social ownership"?
Social ownership takes different forms. In general it deprives private appropriation of the surplus value of commodities.Socialism isn't defined by central control of an economy. It is defined by the social ownership and democratic control of the means of production. In Marxist theory the wage laborer is freed from exploitation by private ownership of the capitalist class.I'm sorry....is your Google broke?Define socialism for the class.
(In a nutshell....centralized control of an economy - including but not limited to - means of production, distribution, regulation, money supply, etc.).
Define "social ownership".
Can you elaborate?Not everyone would get to decide what products Apple makes, only those employed in the production of the products. They would also have a say in how the surplus was distributed among the producers of the products.The irony of that statement. By it's very definition - "social ownership" is central control.Socialism isn't defined by central control of an economy. It is defined by the social ownership and democratic control of the means of production. In Marxist theory the wage laborer is freed from exploitation by private ownership of the capitalist class.
It is a complete and total fallacy to believe that 330 million Americans can share "social ownership". You will have 50 million differences on how that "social ownership" will function. Who wins? Who gets to decide which products Apple builds and which products Apple eliminates in that "social ownership"?
Which is one of the reasons why oil production has collapsed in Venezuela.
Social ownership takes different forms. In general it deprives private appropriation of the surplus value of commodities.Socialism isn't defined by central control of an economy. It is defined by the social ownership and democratic control of the means of production. In Marxist theory the wage laborer is freed from exploitation by private ownership of the capitalist class.I'm sorry....is your Google broke?Define socialism for the class.
(In a nutshell....centralized control of an economy - including but not limited to - means of production, distribution, regulation, money supply, etc.).
Define "social ownership".
Can you elaborate?Not everyone would get to decide what products Apple makes, only those employed in the production of the products. They would also have a say in how the surplus was distributed among the producers of the products.The irony of that statement. By it's very definition - "social ownership" is central control.Socialism isn't defined by central control of an economy. It is defined by the social ownership and democratic control of the means of production. In Marxist theory the wage laborer is freed from exploitation by private ownership of the capitalist class.
It is a complete and total fallacy to believe that 330 million Americans can share "social ownership". You will have 50 million differences on how that "social ownership" will function. Who wins? Who gets to decide which products Apple builds and which products Apple eliminates in that "social ownership"?
Which is one of the reasons why oil production has collapsed in Venezuela.
Define socialism for the class.Populist is a political ideology, socialism is an economic ideology. You're terribly confused. The political (populist) decision was for the economic (socialism) decision.It was a populist policy, nothing to do with socialism.
It was pure socialism and nothing you can do will change that fact. You can't deny reality out of existence.
Exactly! In other words...centralized control. Just as I said.Not everyone would get to decide what products Apple makes, only those employed in the production of the products.The irony of that statement. By it's very definition - "social ownership" is central control.Socialism isn't defined by central control of an economy. It is defined by the social ownership and democratic control of the means of production. In Marxist theory the wage laborer is freed from exploitation by private ownership of the capitalist class.
It is a complete and total fallacy to believe that 330 million Americans can share "social ownership". You will have 50 million differences on how that "social ownership" will function. Who wins? Who gets to decide which products Apple builds and which products Apple eliminates in that "social ownership"?
That beautifully summarizes the absurdity of socialism. In short - they cannot articulate the "form" of the socialism they desire, how the socialism will "function", or the ultimate "results" they are looking to achieve through socialism. Once again I yield to Friedrich Hayek.Social ownership takes different forms. In general it deprives private appropriation of the surplus value of commodities.
From there it continues to the truly scary point - where a path is ultimately chosen which almost nobody desired simply because there was no way to obtain a consensus. But rather than abandoning the socialism, they charge ahead in a direction that nobody wanted...“In the discussions leading to the decision, the goal of planning will have been described by some such term as “common welfare,” which only conceals the absence of real agreement on the ends of planning”
And finally, as it all comes crashing down, the desperate turn towards fascism to rescue it all (especially since the consensus can never be reached)...“Then it will appear that the agreement on the desirability of planning is not supported by agreement on the ends the plan is to serve. The effect of the people’s agreeing that there must be central planning, without agreeing on the ends, will be rather as if a group of people were to commit themselves to take a journey together without agreeing where they want to go: with the result that they may all have to make a journey which most of them do not want at all”
“The cry for an economic dictator is a characteristic stage in the movement toward planning”
Control by the government is one form, it's called public ownership, but it is not the only form. The cooperative is another. Collective ownership is yet another.Social ownership takes different forms. In general it deprives private appropriation of the surplus value of commodities.Socialism isn't defined by central control of an economy. It is defined by the social ownership and democratic control of the means of production. In Marxist theory the wage laborer is freed from exploitation by private ownership of the capitalist class.I'm sorry....is your Google broke?Define socialism for the class.
(In a nutshell....centralized control of an economy - including but not limited to - means of production, distribution, regulation, money supply, etc.).
Define "social ownership".
So, in other words it is controlled by government. In other words, the government controls the means of production, and thus it also controls monetary policy, fiscal policy, and every other aspect of the business cycle.
That is not equivalent to my scenario.Can you elaborate?Not everyone would get to decide what products Apple makes, only those employed in the production of the products. They would also have a say in how the surplus was distributed among the producers of the products.The irony of that statement. By it's very definition - "social ownership" is central control.Socialism isn't defined by central control of an economy. It is defined by the social ownership and democratic control of the means of production. In Marxist theory the wage laborer is freed from exploitation by private ownership of the capitalist class.
It is a complete and total fallacy to believe that 330 million Americans can share "social ownership". You will have 50 million differences on how that "social ownership" will function. Who wins? Who gets to decide which products Apple builds and which products Apple eliminates in that "social ownership"?
Which is one of the reasons why oil production has collapsed in Venezuela.
Sure, Maduro nationalized the oil fields that were being run by professionals. He installed his toadies to run the place, but, they have no concept of maintenance, or proper operating procedures so oil production has plummeted.
"As Venezuela’s foreign currency reserves have shrunk to $10.4 billion USD, so have the country’s goods in stock, against the background of gas, energy and medicine shortages, crime rates spiraling out of the government’s control and popular dissatisfaction building up across all sectors of society. The scarcity of the Maduro era is reflected in Venezuela’s oil output volumes, which since 2011 have fallen by almost 500 000 barrels per day to 2 mbpd and will sink to an even greater degree with Caracas’s obligation to reach 1.972 mbpd within the framework of the OPEC/non-OPEC Vienna Agreements. While Maduro have managed to avoid any major political destabilization by tightening control on the nation’s natural resources and is intent to see his 5-year tenure run out peacefully in 2018, his chances of retaining the post of Venezuela’s President beyond 2018 are close to naught.
The latest moves signal that on a mid-term horizon the Venezuelan military might be on the verge of taking over the oil sector. After President Nicolas Maduro created CAMIMPEG (Military Company of the Mining, Oil and Gas Industries) in February 2016, PDVSA was compelled to conclude several servicing contracts with the newly-created entity. It should be stated that the physical security at Venezuela’s oil sites has worsened palpably throughout the last few years (reflecting the general trend in the country), with paramilitary gangs raging even in oil-producing states such as Zulia, however, the merging of Venezuela’s military with the state-owned oil sector goes beyond this. Leading members of the Venezuelan army have been nominated to high-ranking posts within PDVSA, replacing oil-sector savvy for a military mindset."
Maduro’s Last Stand: Military Takes Over Struggling Oil Sector | OilPrice.com
That is decentralizing control within the business. Centralized control is having a private owner or board of directors dictate what products are to be made.Exactly! In other words...centralized control. Just as I said.Not everyone would get to decide what products Apple makes, only those employed in the production of the products.The irony of that statement. By it's very definition - "social ownership" is central control.Socialism isn't defined by central control of an economy. It is defined by the social ownership and democratic control of the means of production. In Marxist theory the wage laborer is freed from exploitation by private ownership of the capitalist class.
It is a complete and total fallacy to believe that 330 million Americans can share "social ownership". You will have 50 million differences on how that "social ownership" will function. Who wins? Who gets to decide which products Apple builds and which products Apple eliminates in that "social ownership"?
Control by the government is one form, it's called public ownership, but it is not the only form. The cooperative is another. Collective ownership is yet another.Social ownership takes different forms. In general it deprives private appropriation of the surplus value of commodities.Socialism isn't defined by central control of an economy. It is defined by the social ownership and democratic control of the means of production. In Marxist theory the wage laborer is freed from exploitation by private ownership of the capitalist class.I'm sorry....is your Google broke?
(In a nutshell....centralized control of an economy - including but not limited to - means of production, distribution, regulation, money supply, etc.).
Define "social ownership".
So, in other words it is controlled by government. In other words, the government controls the means of production, and thus it also controls monetary policy, fiscal policy, and every other aspect of the business cycle.
Government controls monetary policy and fiscal policy in the US. I guess you think we are living in a socialist country.
That is not equivalent to my scenario.Can you elaborate?Not everyone would get to decide what products Apple makes, only those employed in the production of the products. They would also have a say in how the surplus was distributed among the producers of the products.The irony of that statement. By it's very definition - "social ownership" is central control.
It is a complete and total fallacy to believe that 330 million Americans can share "social ownership". You will have 50 million differences on how that "social ownership" will function. Who wins? Who gets to decide which products Apple builds and which products Apple eliminates in that "social ownership"?
Which is one of the reasons why oil production has collapsed in Venezuela.
Sure, Maduro nationalized the oil fields that were being run by professionals. He installed his toadies to run the place, but, they have no concept of maintenance, or proper operating procedures so oil production has plummeted.
"As Venezuela’s foreign currency reserves have shrunk to $10.4 billion USD, so have the country’s goods in stock, against the background of gas, energy and medicine shortages, crime rates spiraling out of the government’s control and popular dissatisfaction building up across all sectors of society. The scarcity of the Maduro era is reflected in Venezuela’s oil output volumes, which since 2011 have fallen by almost 500 000 barrels per day to 2 mbpd and will sink to an even greater degree with Caracas’s obligation to reach 1.972 mbpd within the framework of the OPEC/non-OPEC Vienna Agreements. While Maduro have managed to avoid any major political destabilization by tightening control on the nation’s natural resources and is intent to see his 5-year tenure run out peacefully in 2018, his chances of retaining the post of Venezuela’s President beyond 2018 are close to naught.
The latest moves signal that on a mid-term horizon the Venezuelan military might be on the verge of taking over the oil sector. After President Nicolas Maduro created CAMIMPEG (Military Company of the Mining, Oil and Gas Industries) in February 2016, PDVSA was compelled to conclude several servicing contracts with the newly-created entity. It should be stated that the physical security at Venezuela’s oil sites has worsened palpably throughout the last few years (reflecting the general trend in the country), with paramilitary gangs raging even in oil-producing states such as Zulia, however, the merging of Venezuela’s military with the state-owned oil sector goes beyond this. Leading members of the Venezuelan army have been nominated to high-ranking posts within PDVSA, replacing oil-sector savvy for a military mindset."
Maduro’s Last Stand: Military Takes Over Struggling Oil Sector | OilPrice.com
In my scenario the workers were given democratic control over what they produced, and how surplus was to be allocated and distributed to the producers of the commodity.
In your scenario an incompetent dictator came in and destroyed the productive ability of the workers.
See the difference?
How do you know what our Founders intended?Control by the government is one form, it's called public ownership, but it is not the only form. The cooperative is another. Collective ownership is yet another.Social ownership takes different forms. In general it deprives private appropriation of the surplus value of commodities.Socialism isn't defined by central control of an economy. It is defined by the social ownership and democratic control of the means of production. In Marxist theory the wage laborer is freed from exploitation by private ownership of the capitalist class.
Define "social ownership".
So, in other words it is controlled by government. In other words, the government controls the means of production, and thus it also controls monetary policy, fiscal policy, and every other aspect of the business cycle.
Government controls monetary policy and fiscal policy in the US. I guess you think we are living in a socialist country.
In many ways the US IS a socialist country. Far more than the Founders ever intended. There are many cooperative owned companies in the US. Define "collective ownership" and please provide an example.
How do you know what our Founders intended?Control by the government is one form, it's called public ownership, but it is not the only form. The cooperative is another. Collective ownership is yet another.Social ownership takes different forms. In general it deprives private appropriation of the surplus value of commodities.Define "social ownership".
So, in other words it is controlled by government. In other words, the government controls the means of production, and thus it also controls monetary policy, fiscal policy, and every other aspect of the business cycle.
Government controls monetary policy and fiscal policy in the US. I guess you think we are living in a socialist country.
In many ways the US IS a socialist country. Far more than the Founders ever intended. There are many cooperative owned companies in the US. Define "collective ownership" and please provide an example.
