Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[georgephillip]

Had the minimum wage been linked to productivity increases over the last forty years it would be over $20 an hour today.

That's a great way to increase productivity, replace all those low skilled workers with automation.

Imagine how productive our agricultural sector would be if we deported all the illegals hand picking our crops.

We'd build machines to do it and one worker would pick as much as 20 illegals.

Imagine if the 80.4% gains in productivity between 1973 and 2011 had followed the same pattern of hourly compensation for the typical worker observed between 1948 to 1973 instead of going to greedy CEOs looking for their next free lunch?

If you had paid attention to what was said you would know that the increase in productivity was not necessarily an issue of the labor, but rather the machines now doing the work better and faster. So by your standards we should put more money in the machines account. What you and your left wing extremists will never accept is, labor is not responsible for the increase in productivity and the extra profits are put into better machines. Many like you object to machines and want people to do the work instead. Maybe you would prefer that we revert to our agrarian roots where capital was the excess production of the individual. The problem with that is, the majority of us want more prosperity than that, and capitalism as regulated has improved the lot of 99% of the people.

As a liberal, not a left wing extremist, I want what is best FOR ALL PEOPLE not just an elitist work force.

How is productivity measured by BLS?

Productivity is measured by comparing the amount of goods and services produced with the inputs which were used in production. Labor productivity is the ratio of the output of goods and services to the labor hours devoted to the production of that output.

What is the most commonly used productivity measure?

Output per hour of all persons—labor productivity—is the most commonly used productivity measure. Labor is an easily-identified input to virtually every production process. In the U.S. nonfarm business sector, labor cost represents more than sixty percent of the value of output produced. Output per hour in the nonfarm business sector is the productivity statistic most often cited by the press.
​

When will the left wing recognize it is not the individual worker, but rather the COMBINATION OF THE WORKER AND THE MACHINES HE USES to produce the goods manufactured (or services) proportionately.

What happens when the machine replaces enough workers that capitalism can no longer provide enough US jobs that pay a living wage, Guaranteed Annual Wage or bigger prisons and more wars?

 

[kaz]

Imagine if the 80.4% gains in productivity between 1973 and 2011 had followed the same pattern of hourly compensation for the typical worker observed between 1948 to 1973 instead of going to greedy CEOs looking for their next free lunch?

Yes, comrade, the proletariat is oppressed by the bourgeoisie. Workers of the world unite!

The workers had nothing to do with the productivity gains, BTW. The people who create value should be compensated for it. And that extends far beyond the "CEO."

All workers have everything to do with productivity gains, and not just parasites earning 354 times what the average worker does even if the parasites toss table scraps to loyal stooges like you.

Maybe the reason you earn such a crappy living isn't because anyone is greedy, it's because you're butt lazy and you don't give a shit about your job or your employer.

BTW, I'd be the one dishing out the table scraps, not the ones getting them...

 

[Andylusion]

Actually, the job I was remembering was one I held in 1974, but the numbers would be similar to those you've posted. It's possible my memory is corrupted regarding some specifics of pay. However, as far as benefits are concerned, there were none other than vacation pay and overtime.

The apartments I rented for $175 and $190 a month were about 700 to 800 square feet with a separate bedroom compared to a 400 to 500 square foot single I live in today with a market rent of $944 per month.

I'm not calling for a return to the '70s but it is worth noting how the richest 1% of US workers earned about 9% of total income then and close to 25% today. Had the minimum wage been linked to productivity increases over the last forty years it would be over $20 an hour today.

Had the minimum wage been linked to productivity increases over the last forty years it would be over $20 an hour today.

That's a great way to increase productivity, replace all those low skilled workers with automation.

Imagine how productive our agricultural sector would be if we deported all the illegals hand picking our crops.

We'd build machines to do it and one worker would pick as much as 20 illegals.

Imagine if the 80.4% gains in productivity between 1973 and 2011 had followed the same pattern of hourly compensation for the typical worker observed between 1948 to 1973 instead of going to greedy CEOs looking for their next free lunch?

No CEO, no jobs at all. No CEO no gains of productivity. No CEO, no employment for anyone.

You are making many assumptions, about economic systems you know nothing about. The Soviet Union failed. Human kind has tried it your way, with far more natural resources than even the US has, and the result was economic destruction. No CEO..... but people starved.

Apparently diverting all those resources away from the people who know hot to create wealth, wasn't a win for the Soviet people.

 

[georgephillip]

Had the minimum wage been linked to productivity increases over the last forty years it would be over $20 an hour today.

That's a great way to increase productivity, replace all those low skilled workers with automation.

Imagine how productive our agricultural sector would be if we deported all the illegals hand picking our crops.

We'd build machines to do it and one worker would pick as much as 20 illegals.

Imagine if the 80.4% gains in productivity between 1973 and 2011 had followed the same pattern of hourly compensation for the typical worker observed between 1948 to 1973 instead of going to greedy CEOs looking for their next free lunch?

No CEO, no jobs at all. No CEO no gains of productivity. No CEO, no employment for anyone.

You are making many assumptions, about economic systems you know nothing about. The Soviet Union failed. Human kind has tried it your way, with far more natural resources than even the US has, and the result was economic destruction. No CEO..... but people starved.

Apparently diverting all those resources away from the people who know hot to create wealth, wasn't a win for the Soviet people.

Let's see how much we know about the USSR and its dependence on western capitalism.

Anthony C. Sutton worked for a time at the same place as Thomas Sowell.

Do you find his views on Soviet technology believable?

"In a few words: there is no such thing as Soviet technology. Almost all — perhaps 90-95 percent — came directly or indirectly from the United States and its allies. In effect the United States and the NATO countries have built the Soviet Union. Its industrial and its military capabilities.

"This massive construction job has taken 50 years.

"Since the Revolution in 1917. It has been carried out through trade and the sale of plants, equipment and technical assistance.[2]

"Sutton's next three major published books — Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler and Wall Street and FDR — detailed Wall Street's involvement in the Bolshevik Revolution (in order to destroy Russia as an economic competitor and turn it into 'a captive market and a technical colony to be exploited by a few high-powered American financiers and the corporations under their control'[3]) as well as its decisive contributions to the rise of Adolf Hitler and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, whose policies he assessed as being essentially the same, namely 'corporate socialism' planned by the big corporations.[4]

"Sutton concluded that this was all part of the economic power elites' 'long-range program of nurturing collectivism'[1] and fostering 'corporate socialism' in order to ensure 'monopoly acquisition of wealth', because it 'would fade away if it were exposed to the activity of a free market'".[5]

Antony C. Sutton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[dnsmith35]

All workers have everything to do with productivity gains, and not just parasites earning 354 times what the average worker does even if the parasites toss table scraps to loyal stooges like you.

You have it backwards. The workers get 60% of the cost of manufacturing or providing a service. The MACHINES have been the KEY TO HIGHER PRODUCTIVITY, not the workers. Most CEOs don't earn 354 or 154 or even 50 times the workers in his plants. That is true only of the super rich who don't make their money off of production but instead they get it from gains from capital investment.

Since the productivity gains are from investment in automated machines, whoever pays for the machines deserve the gain in profits from that productivity.

I think really that the basic issue is that left wing extremists cry about labor because of their lack of economics understanding. There is no inherent fairness in compensation other than for what that labor does to increase productivity. There is no inherent fairness of paying any one for more than their PERSONAL productivity. Now, I have said it two ways. Do you think you possibly understand the economic issues relative to compensation?

I suspect that much of the mechanical contributions to productivity is greatly responsible for wage stagnation, and I further believe it was the attempts by labor to gain a larger share of the profits which have brought about the development of auto-machinery. That is especially true in the Automobile manufacturing industry. Effectively labor caused their own problems.

 

[dnsmith35]

Imagine if the 80.4% gains in productivity between 1973 and 2011 had followed the same pattern of hourly compensation for the typical worker observed between 1948 to 1973 instead of going to greedy CEOs looking for their next free lunch?

If you had paid attention to what was said you would know that the increase in productivity was not necessarily an issue of the labor, but rather the machines now doing the work better and faster. So by your standards we should put more money in the machines account. What you and your left wing extremists will never accept is, labor is not responsible for the increase in productivity and the extra profits are put into better machines. Many like you object to machines and want people to do the work instead. Maybe you would prefer that we revert to our agrarian roots where capital was the excess production of the individual. The problem with that is, the majority of us want more prosperity than that, and capitalism as regulated has improved the lot of 99% of the people.

As a liberal, not a left wing extremist, I want what is best FOR ALL PEOPLE not just an elitist work force.

How is productivity measured by BLS?

Productivity is measured by comparing the amount of goods and services produced with the inputs which were used in production. Labor productivity is the ratio of the output of goods and services to the labor hours devoted to the production of that output.

What is the most commonly used productivity measure?

Output per hour of all persons—labor productivity—is the most commonly used productivity measure. Labor is an easily-identified input to virtually every production process. In the U.S. nonfarm business sector, labor cost represents more than sixty percent of the value of output produced. Output per hour in the nonfarm business sector is the productivity statistic most often cited by the press.
​

When will the left wing recognize it is not the individual worker, but rather the COMBINATION OF THE WORKER AND THE MACHINES HE USES to produce the goods manufactured (or services) proportionately.

What happens when the machine replaces enough workers that capitalism can no longer provide enough US jobs that pay a living wage, Guaranteed Annual Wage or bigger prisons and more wars?

It is up to the workers to make themselves useful or they will not have jobs. There will always be a need for someone to operate and repair the machines, program them to do the job, and verify it is done correctly. In my original career it was considered the ideal performance if a person did his job to the point it was no longer needed, THEN we retrained and did something new. That is especially imperative that workers continue to do that.

 

[dnsmith35]

Imagine if the 80.4% gains in productivity between 1973 and 2011 had followed the same pattern of hourly compensation for the typical worker observed between 1948 to 1973 instead of going to greedy CEOs looking for their next free lunch?

No CEO, no jobs at all. No CEO no gains of productivity. No CEO, no employment for anyone.

You are making many assumptions, about economic systems you know nothing about. The Soviet Union failed. Human kind has tried it your way, with far more natural resources than even the US has, and the result was economic destruction. No CEO..... but people starved.

Apparently diverting all those resources away from the people who know hot to create wealth, wasn't a win for the Soviet people.

Let's see how much we know about the USSR and its dependence on western capitalism.

Anthony C. Sutton worked for a time at the same place as Thomas Sowell.

Do you find his views on Soviet technology believable?

"In a few words: there is no such thing as Soviet technology. Almost all — perhaps 90-95 percent — came directly or indirectly from the United States and its allies. In effect the United States and the NATO countries have built the Soviet Union. Its industrial and its military capabilities.

"This massive construction job has taken 50 years.

"Since the Revolution in 1917. It has been carried out through trade and the sale of plants, equipment and technical assistance.[2]

"Sutton's next three major published books — Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler and Wall Street and FDR — detailed Wall Street's involvement in the Bolshevik Revolution (in order to destroy Russia as an economic competitor and turn it into 'a captive market and a technical colony to be exploited by a few high-powered American financiers and the corporations under their control'[3]) as well as its decisive contributions to the rise of Adolf Hitler and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, whose policies he assessed as being essentially the same, namely 'corporate socialism' planned by the big corporations.[4]

"Sutton concluded that this was all part of the economic power elites' 'long-range program of nurturing collectivism'[1] and fostering 'corporate socialism' in order to ensure 'monopoly acquisition of wealth', because it 'would fade away if it were exposed to the activity of a free market'".[5]

Antony C. Sutton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sutton has take many liberties in his ATTEMPT to understand why the USSR failed or how much was relative to Wall Street.

He was correct that the USSR got their technology from the US.

 

[dnsmith35]

It all comes down to, "what comes first, the chicken or the egg." If we want an agrarian economy by which most people produce their own needs and what ever is in excess of their own needs can be traded for someone else's excess production for the better of both.

Or we want an industrial economy by which in which many people work to produce goods such that they can be paid a wage and the goods can be marketed to others such that the economy has the money to pay the wages.

If we choose the industrial economy, then we have to recognize that capital is nothing more than the profits made by marketing the goods and services produce by labor (with major assistance from automation) such that those who created and run the industry make sufficient to justify their continued investment based on their own interpretation as to how much that profit must be. You cannot justify my income, nor can I justify yours. We much each determine what we want, to continue the investment.

It goes back to the old Law of Marginal Utility. When applied to goods or services the law tends to suggest there is a diminishing marginal utility since after we have sufficient quantity of one product, additional product is not as satisfying.

An example would be water; a gallon available in the now will satisfy our thirst. To have 50 gallons in the now is less satisfying.

But with money, it is different. If we increase the size of the marginal unit at ever step, we can continue to get an increased satisfaction from those larger amounts such that the marginal utility continues to increase; and since man has an unlimited desire for wealth, increasing the size of the marginal unit creates an INCREASING MARGINAL UTILITY.

That holds true when talking about business owners and managers. Most business enterprises are small businesses and the owner is basically the CEO, the COO, the CFO all rolled into one. When one thinks of CEOs strictly in the sense of large corporations, or the stock holders of a larger corporation you tend to attribute higher earnings to all CEOs that is factual.

In our industrial economy capital is no longer the "excess production" of a worker, but rather the profits of the industry after the cost of all production and distribution is paid.

 

[dnsmith35]

When you think of very highly paid CEOs, think of the fortune 500, and even many of them are not paid 354 times what their non supervisory labor is paid.

 

[georgephillip]

If you had paid attention to what was said you would know that the increase in productivity was not necessarily an issue of the labor, but rather the machines now doing the work better and faster. So by your standards we should put more money in the machines account. What you and your left wing extremists will never accept is, labor is not responsible for the increase in productivity and the extra profits are put into better machines. Many like you object to machines and want people to do the work instead. Maybe you would prefer that we revert to our agrarian roots where capital was the excess production of the individual. The problem with that is, the majority of us want more prosperity than that, and capitalism as regulated has improved the lot of 99% of the people.

As a liberal, not a left wing extremist, I want what is best FOR ALL PEOPLE not just an elitist work force.

How is productivity measured by BLS?

Productivity is measured by comparing the amount of goods and services produced with the inputs which were used in production. Labor productivity is the ratio of the output of goods and services to the labor hours devoted to the production of that output.

What is the most commonly used productivity measure?

Output per hour of all persons—labor productivity—is the most commonly used productivity measure. Labor is an easily-identified input to virtually every production process. In the U.S. nonfarm business sector, labor cost represents more than sixty percent of the value of output produced. Output per hour in the nonfarm business sector is the productivity statistic most often cited by the press.
​

When will the left wing recognize it is not the individual worker, but rather the COMBINATION OF THE WORKER AND THE MACHINES HE USES to produce the goods manufactured (or services) proportionately.

What happens when the machine replaces enough workers that capitalism can no longer provide enough US jobs that pay a living wage, Guaranteed Annual Wage or bigger prisons and more wars?

It is up to the workers to make themselves useful or they will not have jobs. There will always be a need for someone to operate and repair the machines, program them to do the job, and verify it is done correctly. In my original career it was considered the ideal performance if a person did his job to the point it was no longer needed, THEN we retrained and did something new. That is especially imperative that workers continue to do that.

Who payed for the retraining?
Did you expect to find a new job at a similar rate of pay or at McDonald's?
If we've reached a point where the private sector finds better returns creating jobs outside the US, what chance do individuals here have of making themselves useful to an economic system that has moved on to greener pastures?

 

[georgephillip]

No CEO, no jobs at all. No CEO no gains of productivity. No CEO, no employment for anyone.

You are making many assumptions, about economic systems you know nothing about. The Soviet Union failed. Human kind has tried it your way, with far more natural resources than even the US has, and the result was economic destruction. No CEO..... but people starved.

Apparently diverting all those resources away from the people who know hot to create wealth, wasn't a win for the Soviet people.

Let's see how much we know about the USSR and its dependence on western capitalism.

Anthony C. Sutton worked for a time at the same place as Thomas Sowell.

Do you find his views on Soviet technology believable?

"In a few words: there is no such thing as Soviet technology. Almost all — perhaps 90-95 percent — came directly or indirectly from the United States and its allies. In effect the United States and the NATO countries have built the Soviet Union. Its industrial and its military capabilities.

"This massive construction job has taken 50 years.

"Since the Revolution in 1917. It has been carried out through trade and the sale of plants, equipment and technical assistance.[2]

"Sutton's next three major published books — Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler and Wall Street and FDR — detailed Wall Street's involvement in the Bolshevik Revolution (in order to destroy Russia as an economic competitor and turn it into 'a captive market and a technical colony to be exploited by a few high-powered American financiers and the corporations under their control'[3]) as well as its decisive contributions to the rise of Adolf Hitler and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, whose policies he assessed as being essentially the same, namely 'corporate socialism' planned by the big corporations.[4]

"Sutton concluded that this was all part of the economic power elites' 'long-range program of nurturing collectivism'[1] and fostering 'corporate socialism' in order to ensure 'monopoly acquisition of wealth', because it 'would fade away if it were exposed to the activity of a free market'".[5]

Antony C. Sutton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sutton has take many liberties in his ATTEMPT to understand why the USSR failed or how much was relative to Wall Street.

He was correct that the USSR got their technology from the US.

Do you think Lenin relied on Wall Street to feed the Russian people when the Bolsheveks came to power?

 

[dnsmith35]

What happens when the machine replaces enough workers that capitalism can no longer provide enough US jobs that pay a living wage, Guaranteed Annual Wage or bigger prisons and more wars?

It is up to the workers to make themselves useful or they will not have jobs. There will always be a need for someone to operate and repair the machines, program them to do the job, and verify it is done correctly. In my original career it was considered the ideal performance if a person did his job to the point it was no longer needed, THEN we retrained and did something new. That is especially imperative that workers continue to do that.

Who payed for the retraining?

People who want jobs and have motivation and ambition. In some cases the government does.

Did you expect to find a new job at a similar rate of pay or at McDonald's?

People on average will find a job in their own industry and not lose much pay as a newbie in the job.

If we've reached a point where the private sector finds better returns creating jobs outside the US, what chance do individuals here have of making themselves useful to an economic system that has moved on to greener pastures?

How many times does someone have to pound a truism into your head? For every job off shored between 1 and 1.7 jobs are created in the US. Are you that unable to understand English? If so, why do you join a thread which requires not only English, but knowledge of economics, which you do not have.

Offshoring creates as many U.S. jobs as it kills, study says - The Washington Post

The researchers found that increasing offshore jobs by 1 percent is linked to a 1.72 percent increase in overall U.S. employment of native workers, though they describe the effect as neutral overall because the 0.72 percent difference is too small to be statistically significant. Offshoring also tends to push native U.S. workers toward more complex jobs, while offshore workers tend to specialize in less-skilled employment.

The paper also examined the impact of immigrants and found that immigration had an even more positive effect on jobs for native-born U.S. workers: Every 1 percent increase in immigrant jobs boosted aggregate employment for American-born workers by 3.9 percent.​

 

[dnsmith35]

Let's see how much we know about the USSR and its dependence on western capitalism.

Anthony C. Sutton worked for a time at the same place as Thomas Sowell.

Do you find his views on Soviet technology believable?

"In a few words: there is no such thing as Soviet technology. Almost all — perhaps 90-95 percent — came directly or indirectly from the United States and its allies. In effect the United States and the NATO countries have built the Soviet Union. Its industrial and its military capabilities.

"This massive construction job has taken 50 years.

"Since the Revolution in 1917. It has been carried out through trade and the sale of plants, equipment and technical assistance.[2]

"Sutton's next three major published books — Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler and Wall Street and FDR — detailed Wall Street's involvement in the Bolshevik Revolution (in order to destroy Russia as an economic competitor and turn it into 'a captive market and a technical colony to be exploited by a few high-powered American financiers and the corporations under their control'[3]) as well as its decisive contributions to the rise of Adolf Hitler and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, whose policies he assessed as being essentially the same, namely 'corporate socialism' planned by the big corporations.[4]

"Sutton concluded that this was all part of the economic power elites' 'long-range program of nurturing collectivism'[1] and fostering 'corporate socialism' in order to ensure 'monopoly acquisition of wealth', because it 'would fade away if it were exposed to the activity of a free market'".[5]

Antony C. Sutton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sutton has take many liberties in his ATTEMPT to understand why the USSR failed or how much was relative to Wall Street.

He was correct that the USSR got their technology from the US.

Do you think Lenin relied on Wall Street to feed the Russian people when the Bolsheveks came to power?

The facts are neither Lenin or anyone else did much of a job feeding the hungry Russians. The system failed miserably from beginning to end in spite of using US technology.

 

[georgephillip]

Sutton has take many liberties in his ATTEMPT to understand why the USSR failed or how much was relative to Wall Street.

He was correct that the USSR got their technology from the US.

Do you think Lenin relied on Wall Street to feed the Russian people when the Bolsheveks came to power?

The facts are neither Lenin or anyone else did much of a job feeding the hungry Russians. The system failed miserably from beginning to end in spite of using US technology.

Wall Street used the Red Cross in Russia in 1917 to supply Lenin with food and other essentials. John Foster Dulles alleged that New York bankers "viewed the American Red Cross as a virtual arm of government..."

 

[Andylusion]

No CEO, no jobs at all. No CEO no gains of productivity. No CEO, no employment for anyone.

You are making many assumptions, about economic systems you know nothing about. The Soviet Union failed. Human kind has tried it your way, with far more natural resources than even the US has, and the result was economic destruction. No CEO..... but people starved.

Apparently diverting all those resources away from the people who know hot to create wealth, wasn't a win for the Soviet people.

Let's see how much we know about the USSR and its dependence on western capitalism.

Anthony C. Sutton worked for a time at the same place as Thomas Sowell.

Do you find his views on Soviet technology believable?

"In a few words: there is no such thing as Soviet technology. Almost all — perhaps 90-95 percent — came directly or indirectly from the United States and its allies. In effect the United States and the NATO countries have built the Soviet Union. Its industrial and its military capabilities.

"This massive construction job has taken 50 years.

"Since the Revolution in 1917. It has been carried out through trade and the sale of plants, equipment and technical assistance.[2]

"Sutton's next three major published books — Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler and Wall Street and FDR — detailed Wall Street's involvement in the Bolshevik Revolution (in order to destroy Russia as an economic competitor and turn it into 'a captive market and a technical colony to be exploited by a few high-powered American financiers and the corporations under their control'[3]) as well as its decisive contributions to the rise of Adolf Hitler and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, whose policies he assessed as being essentially the same, namely 'corporate socialism' planned by the big corporations.[4]

"Sutton concluded that this was all part of the economic power elites' 'long-range program of nurturing collectivism'[1] and fostering 'corporate socialism' in order to ensure 'monopoly acquisition of wealth', because it 'would fade away if it were exposed to the activity of a free market'".[5]

Antony C. Sutton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sutton has take many liberties in his ATTEMPT to understand why the USSR failed or how much was relative to Wall Street.

He was correct that the USSR got their technology from the US.

I was going to say.... doesn't the fact the USSR relied on our technology, kind of support my position?

After all, technological advancement is a function of the economic system. When there is no profit motive to investing capital into risky R&D project, logically no one does it.

I mean seriously, how much of all the technology we have today, was built on the research performed by Bell Labs. And why did the company do this? Well of course to sell those advancements, or capitalize on those advancements themselves.

In the USSR, where there is no profit motive, where CEOs of state run companies have zero to gain, and tons to lose in risky investments... naturally there was no investment into new unproven technology. That's why they waited for us to create it, so they could import it. Of course this meant the USSR was consistently behind the rest of the world... which is yet another perfect example of how Socialism fails everyone, and benefits only the super rich in government.

 

[dnsmith35]

Do you think Lenin relied on Wall Street to feed the Russian people when the Bolsheveks came to power?

The facts are neither Lenin or anyone else did much of a job feeding the hungry Russians. The system failed miserably from beginning to end in spite of using US technology.

Wall Street used the Red Cross in Russia in 1917 to supply Lenin with food and other essentials. John Foster Dulles alleged that New York bankers "viewed the American Red Cross as a virtual arm of government..."

Wow! So what other irrelevant and useless information do you want to share. OF COURSE OUR GOVERNMENT CHOOSE TO INTERFERE IN THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION. What else is old?

Regardless, the Russian people went hungry, even with the FOOD AID TO RUSSIA.

BTW, what part of ALLEGE is fact?

 

[georgephillip]

Let's see how much we know about the USSR and its dependence on western capitalism.

Anthony C. Sutton worked for a time at the same place as Thomas Sowell.

Do you find his views on Soviet technology believable?

"In a few words: there is no such thing as Soviet technology. Almost all — perhaps 90-95 percent — came directly or indirectly from the United States and its allies. In effect the United States and the NATO countries have built the Soviet Union. Its industrial and its military capabilities.

"This massive construction job has taken 50 years.

"Since the Revolution in 1917. It has been carried out through trade and the sale of plants, equipment and technical assistance.[2]

"Sutton's next three major published books — Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler and Wall Street and FDR — detailed Wall Street's involvement in the Bolshevik Revolution (in order to destroy Russia as an economic competitor and turn it into 'a captive market and a technical colony to be exploited by a few high-powered American financiers and the corporations under their control'[3]) as well as its decisive contributions to the rise of Adolf Hitler and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, whose policies he assessed as being essentially the same, namely 'corporate socialism' planned by the big corporations.[4]

"Sutton concluded that this was all part of the economic power elites' 'long-range program of nurturing collectivism'[1] and fostering 'corporate socialism' in order to ensure 'monopoly acquisition of wealth', because it 'would fade away if it were exposed to the activity of a free market'".[5]

Antony C. Sutton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sutton has take many liberties in his ATTEMPT to understand why the USSR failed or how much was relative to Wall Street.

He was correct that the USSR got their technology from the US.

I was going to say.... doesn't the fact the USSR relied on our technology, kind of support my position?

After all, technological advancement is a function of the economic system. When there is no profit motive to investing capital into risky R&D project, logically no one does it.

I mean seriously, how much of all the technology we have today, was built on the research performed by Bell Labs. And why did the company do this? Well of course to sell those advancements, or capitalize on those advancements themselves.

In the USSR, where there is no profit motive, where CEOs of state run companies have zero to gain, and tons to lose in risky investments... naturally there was no investment into new unproven technology. That's why they waited for us to create it, so they could import it. Of course this meant the USSR was consistently behind the rest of the world... which is yet another perfect example of how Socialism fails everyone, and benefits only the super rich in government.

The counter argument Chomsky and others make would point out socialism was disbanded in the USSR when Lenin dissolved the worker soviets (councils) and took their power for himself and a small cohort of elites in control of an all powerful state.

 

[georgephillip]

The facts are neither Lenin or anyone else did much of a job feeding the hungry Russians. The system failed miserably from beginning to end in spite of using US technology.

Wall Street used the Red Cross in Russia in 1917 to supply Lenin with food and other essentials. John Foster Dulles alleged that New York bankers "viewed the American Red Cross as a virtual arm of government..."

Wow! So what other irrelevant and useless information do you want to share. OF COURSE OUR GOVERNMENT CHOOSE TO INTERFERE IN THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION. What else is old?

Regardless, the Russian people went hungry, even with the FOOD AID TO RUSSIA.

BTW, what part of ALLEGE is fact?

Do you think Lenin's revolution would have been successful without Wall Street's help?
Note the question says nothing about OUR GOVERNMENT.

 

[dnsmith35]

Sutton has take many liberties in his ATTEMPT to understand why the USSR failed or how much was relative to Wall Street.

He was correct that the USSR got their technology from the US.

I was going to say.... doesn't the fact the USSR relied on our technology, kind of support my position?

After all, technological advancement is a function of the economic system. When there is no profit motive to investing capital into risky R&D project, logically no one does it.

I mean seriously, how much of all the technology we have today, was built on the research performed by Bell Labs. And why did the company do this? Well of course to sell those advancements, or capitalize on those advancements themselves.

In the USSR, where there is no profit motive, where CEOs of state run companies have zero to gain, and tons to lose in risky investments... naturally there was no investment into new unproven technology. That's why they waited for us to create it, so they could import it. Of course this meant the USSR was consistently behind the rest of the world... which is yet another perfect example of how Socialism fails everyone, and benefits only the super rich in government.

The counter argument Chomsky and others make would point out socialism was disbanded in the USSR when Lenin dissolved the worker soviets (councils) and took their power for himself and a small cohort of elites in control of an all powerful state.

Wow, another loser. Noam Chomsky, a linguist who made many comments he knew little about. I will agree that, as is the only road in any socialist state, became a dictatorship with little resemblance of the socialist utopia it was supposed to be. That is the only way a socialist state can survive for any length of time, by autocratic/dictatorial leadership with only the commissars having any prosperity. But then, I have said that numerous time on this thread, and only now you are recognizing it because a linguist said its so? ROTFLMAO

 

[dnsmith35]

Wall Street used the Red Cross in Russia in 1917 to supply Lenin with food and other essentials. John Foster Dulles alleged that New York bankers "viewed the American Red Cross as a virtual arm of government..."

Wow! So what other irrelevant and useless information do you want to share. OF COURSE OUR GOVERNMENT CHOOSE TO INTERFERE IN THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION. What else is old?

Regardless, the Russian people went hungry, even with the FOOD AID TO RUSSIA.

BTW, what part of ALLEGE is fact?

Do you think Lenin's revolution would have been successful without Wall Street's help?
Note the question says nothing about OUR GOVERNMENT.

Oh? So when you alluded to the Red Cross helping feed some people in Russia happened without our government involved?

What was it the Sec of State at the time said? Wall street thought what about the Red Cross?

As to whether the revolution would win or not, I think that was a foregone conclusion, since the masses were starving under Czarist Russia.