Communism, Socialism or Capitalism?

[Cecilie1200]

Whoa, there brother! I never said that the market should be centrally planned, quite the contrary, my China examples expressed my opinion of what a little free enterprise can do.

My advocation of centralized planning is for infrastructure coordination and education, which will, I admit, have a profound effect on the market. Effect, not control.

Don't make the jump that because I believe that government should have a major role in coordinating the location of the electric grid and in promoting, to the point of investing heavily in them, solar and wind energies over petroleum based energies, that I think Obama should be telling me, or any endeavor small enough to fail without hurting its neighbors, what should be micro-managed in the market place.

Have you ever had a mess so big that the only way to clean it up was to make a bigger mess in the short term? I have.

-Joe

In other words, Kevin, he can't tell the difference between a discussion of economic systems and a discussion of political systems, and is just babbling as though they're the same thing. About what I said before.

Joe, call us when you're on the same topic as the rest of us, okay? You're wasting our time here.

Cecilie, go back and read the original post - here I'll make it easy for you...

OK Fellow American's which do you prefer for our country, Communism, Socialism or Capitalism? and what is the reason for your preference?

What is 'Communism'? Political system, Economic system or a way to describe both?

What is 'Socialism'? Political system, Economic system or a way to describe both?

Ergo and therefore, in the context of this thread, we are discussing the interaction of government in the marketplace. In other words, the discussion is both political and economic.

Please try to keep up...

-Joe

Before you advise ME to "try to keep up", try getting a dictionary so YOU can keep up. That way, you wouldn't be wasting my time and screen space asking me asinine questions about whether or not communism, socialism, and capitalism are economic or political systems.

Ergo, in the context of this thread, we aren't talking political systems, which you've already been told repeatedly, numbskull. In other words, do us all a favor and find out what you're talking about before opening your cavernous piehole and spewing.

 

[Agnapostate]

Sorry, "sweetie", but to say that something isn't central planning because it isn't COMPLETE central planning is very much to imply that you think movement in that direction should be ignored as such.

You continue to fail to notice the necessary role of the state as a necessary stabilizing agent in a capitalist economy...those two authoritarian systems have been hand in hand from day one. And that fits well with your general ignorance, of course.

 

[editec]

So we should just ignore it until it gets to the point of EVERYTHING, rather than trying to head it off at the pass while it's at the stage of "just taking over THIS part". Good plan.

That isn't what I wrote, Cecile, and what I wrote doesn't remotely IMPLY that either.

If you want to argue with a straw man communist or socialist, I'm not that guy, sweetie.

Sorry, "sweetie", but to say that something isn't central planning because it isn't COMPLETE central planning is very much to imply that you think movement in that direction should be ignored as such.

I think I'm more qualified than you are to understand what my post implies.

And I obviously on record here repeatedly telling people that I object to the FED, so you're suggestion that I am supportive of that is clearly obsurd.

My post doesn't need your goofy reading of its meaning.

It's meaning is self evident.

Central planning has a specific meaning in realtion to the subject of national government.

Central banking is NOT the same thing as central planning.

Now run along and read a book, ya' ignorant troll.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That isn't what I wrote, Cecile, and what I wrote doesn't remotely IMPLY that either.

If you want to argue with a straw man communist or socialist, I'm not that guy, sweetie.

Sorry, "sweetie", but to say that something isn't central planning because it isn't COMPLETE central planning is very much to imply that you think movement in that direction should be ignored as such.

I think I'm more qualified than you are to understand what my post implies.

Nope. Just more qualified to understand what you INTENDED to imply. Not my fault you suck at communication.

And I obviously on record here repeatedly telling people that I object to the FED, so you're suggestion that I am supportive of that is clearly obsurd.

I didn't say you supported the Fed. I said you implied that central planning isn't happening until EVERYTHING is centrally planned. Which wasn't actually even implied. THAT was what you came right out and said. What was implied was that, therefore, we shouldn't worry about central planning while it's still just encroaching.

My post doesn't need your goofy reading of its meaning.

It's meaning is self evident.[/QUOTE]

You must not understand the concept of "communication". Your post doesn't need people reading it only if you're posting to yourself. And clearly, it means something to other people that you claim you didn't intend to say, so whatever it was you intended is NOT self-evident to anyone but you.

Central planning has a specific meaning in realtion to the subject of national government.

And because you're a dimwit leftist, you assume everything is all-or-nothing, and that no one should notice creeping onset.

Central banking is NOT the same thing as central planning.

Now run along and read a book, ya' ignorant troll.

Nice try, fool. Well, actually, it's not. You stepped on your johnson, and all the screaming and namecalling at me in the world won't change that.

 

[Agnapostate]

Cesspoolie, you're ignorant of economics, which matches your general ignorance of life. Now beat it, go wail about the new stretch marks that the latest bundle of joy brought with it, and wonder why no one in the GOP has ever heard of pulling out.

 

[donttread]

OK Fellow American's which do you prefer for our country, Communism, Socialism or Capitalism? and what is the reason for your preference?

I believe we have and are heading for none of these. It's more like coporatism.
If they are too big to fail, they are too big. Capitalism is dead because corporations are so large and buy political influence so easily that they manipulate markets instead of compete on price, which was the cornerstone of capitalism.
Communism does produce well enough economically and while we look socialist it's really the coporations in control, hence corporatism
Corporations have no Constitutional rights and we need to down size them to make it more difficult for them to cheat the system

 

[Indiana Oracle]

Cesspoolie, you're ignorant of economics, which matches your general ignorance of life. Now beat it, go wail about the new stretch marks that the latest bundle of joy brought with it, and wonder why no one in the GOP has ever heard of pulling out.

Nice. Very helpful.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

All the central planners believe that what they're doing is good for the future of the nation, and they're always wrong. A market is far too complex to be centrally planned and that is why they fail every time. A free market is what's ideal for the future of the nation, and you can't have a free market with central planning.

I think you're overstating what is going on somewhat.

Central planning is planning the economy totally, as in the Soviet centralized planning.

While I can certainly understand people's objections to this bailout, to describe THAT as "central planning" is an overstatement of enormous proportions.

Now as to the central planning of the FED? That is to say their ability to change rates for money?

That's NOT central planning.

It may be a bad idea, it may be arrogant and foolish, but central planning it's not.

They control the interest rates, they control the value of the currency, and they can essentially do what they want with no oversight from our elected officials. Now they may not completely control everything as the Soviets did, so you're right that our economy is not completely centrally planned. However, aspects of it are centrally planned, and that is enough to perpetuate the business cycle.

 

[AVG-JOE]

In other words, Kevin, he can't tell the difference between a discussion of economic systems and a discussion of political systems, and is just babbling as though they're the same thing. About what I said before.

Joe, call us when you're on the same topic as the rest of us, okay? You're wasting our time here.

Cecilie, go back and read the original post - here I'll make it easy for you...

OK Fellow American's which do you prefer for our country, Communism, Socialism or Capitalism? and what is the reason for your preference?

What is 'Communism'? Political system, Economic system or a way to describe both?

What is 'Socialism'? Political system, Economic system or a way to describe both?

Ergo and therefore, in the context of this thread, we are discussing the interaction of government in the marketplace. In other words, the discussion is both political and economic.

Please try to keep up...

-Joe

Before you advise ME to "try to keep up", try getting a dictionary so YOU can keep up. That way, you wouldn't be wasting my time and screen space asking me asinine questions about whether or not communism, socialism, and capitalism are economic or political systems.

Ergo, in the context of this thread, we aren't talking political systems, which you've already been told repeatedly, numbskull. In other words, do us all a favor and find out what you're talking about before opening your cavernous piehole and spewing.

Hey sister, if you don't want to talk to me - don't answer my posts!

-Joe

 

[Cecilie1200]

Cesspoolie, you're ignorant of economics, which matches your general ignorance of life. Now beat it, go wail about the new stretch marks that the latest bundle of joy brought with it, and wonder why no one in the GOP has ever heard of pulling out.

Nice. Very helpful.

There's a reason why I have this misogynistic piece of go se on ignore, you know.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Cecilie, go back and read the original post - here I'll make it easy for you...



What is 'Communism'? Political system, Economic system or a way to describe both?

What is 'Socialism'? Political system, Economic system or a way to describe both?

Ergo and therefore, in the context of this thread, we are discussing the interaction of government in the marketplace. In other words, the discussion is both political and economic.

Please try to keep up...

-Joe

Before you advise ME to "try to keep up", try getting a dictionary so YOU can keep up. That way, you wouldn't be wasting my time and screen space asking me asinine questions about whether or not communism, socialism, and capitalism are economic or political systems.

Ergo, in the context of this thread, we aren't talking political systems, which you've already been told repeatedly, numbskull. In other words, do us all a favor and find out what you're talking about before opening your cavernous piehole and spewing.

Hey sister, if you don't want to talk to me - don't answer my posts!

-Joe

I didn't say I didn't want to talk to you. I enjoy pointing out what an imbecile you are. What I said was that I don't want YOU to talk . . . at least until you have some frigging clue what the topic is.

 

[Agnapostate]

Nice. Very helpful.

I think you have to examine a history here before commenting.

There's a reason why I have this misogynistic piece of go se on ignore, you know.

Really? You do make such commendable contributions to discussions, after all.

And there's the cost of putting people on ignore.

I don't need a mechanism to decide whether to ignore people. I can decide by myself whether their posts are worthy of being ignored.

 

[Zoomie1980]

OK Fellow American's which do you prefer for our country, Communism, Socialism or Capitalism? and what is the reason for your preference?

The system that best aligns with basic human nature.

 

[Agnapostate]

The system that best aligns with basic human nature.

I take it not all of us have read Kropotkin's Mutual Aid.

 

[garyd]

Which would be capitalism. Which is the natural order of things after all.

 

[Agnapostate]

Which would be capitalism. Which is the natural order of things after all.

That necessarily relies on an absurdly utopian conception of political economy and related topics, I'm afraid. Once we've addressed capitalism's natural tendencies towards inefficiency, and its numerous agency costs, related information asymmetries, externalities, etc., then we can progress.

 

[garyd]

Sorry no it doesn't. It relies an factual evidence and 50 odd years of observing this reality and how it functions, not the twisted logic of neomarxist cretins who assume humanity to be something other than what it is.

 

[Agnapostate]

Sorry no it doesn't. It relies an factual evidence and 50 odd years of observing this reality and how it functions, not the twisted logic of neomarxist cretins who assume humanity to be something other than what it is.

Of course it does. The anti-socialist will necessarily ignore complex issues of political economy that are inconvenient to him, of course. One of them being the major schism between anarchists and Marxists, for instance.

 

[garyd]

Just as do the neo marxists who copmpletely ignore the impact of human nature on economics simply because it is all but impossible to quantify it.

The left has tried to ignoe the law of supply and demand for the last hundred years and have essentailly foundered upon it repeatedly. One may as well attempt to repeal the law of gravity.

 

[Agnapostate]

Just as do the neo marxists who copmpletely ignore the impact of human nature on economics simply because it is all but impossible to quantify it.

I am not a Marxist and do not accept Marx's historical materialism. With that said, why don't you abandon references to Marxism?

The left has tried to ignoe the law of supply and demand for the last hundred years and have essentailly foundered upon it repeatedly. One may as well attempt to repeal the law of gravity.

If anything, socialists are able to gain a more thorough comprehension of supply and demand than anti-socialists because of their reference to monopsony power.