McDonalds Introduces Self Serving Kiosks in Response to Min Wage Increase

[Uncensored2008]

I realize most are still defending slave owners like McDonalds.

Child, you are a ******* retard.

I cannot have a conversation with a retard who has no grasp on reality.

But i feel one day, most will come around. They eventually came around about African American slavery. In my opinion, Karmic Justice will be McDonalds goin tits-up.

It's made untold $Billions off the backs of poor slave workers. And now, it implements kiosks out of more evil greed. I will truly celebrate the day McDonalds folds. It's the epitome of the 'Evil Corporation.'

Pull your head out of your ass, stop ******* lying, and offer a coherent argument.

 

[Dschrute3]

I realize most are still defending slave owners like McDonalds.

Child, you are a ******* retard.

I cannot have a conversation with a retard who has no grasp on reality.

But i feel one day, most will come around. They eventually came around about African American slavery. In my opinion, Karmic Justice will be McDonalds goin tits-up.

It's made untold $Billions off the backs of poor slave workers. And now, it implements kiosks out of more evil greed. I will truly celebrate the day McDonalds folds. It's the epitome of the 'Evil Corporation.'

Pull your head out of your ass, stop ******* lying, and offer a coherent argument.

You're supporting evil, kid. McDonalds is the epitome of the 'Evil Corporation.'

 

[initforme]

Mcpukes doesn't deserve a thread this long for dishing out that slop. That being said, don't apply for those godforsaken jobs. Why anyone works there, even kids, is beyond me. Its artificial food and one cannot take pride in working there.

 

[hadit]

Do you really think that those earning between $15/hr and $20/hr are going to sit by quietly as their wages goes from comfortably above MW to just a few dollars above it? Not so. They're going to demand higher pay as well. .

And there you have it. You just made my argument.

See, I contend that the minimum wage in no way represents some minimal level of labor value, but instead, is a minimum floor in which labor prices are negotiated.

For instance, if the employee currently making fifteen is only worth fifteen, won't the employer just pay him fifteen, no matter how much he bitches and moans? And if his value of production is worth more than fifteen, why didn't he ask for a raise a long time ago?

See, neither he nor his employer measure and negotiate his wage from the value of his production. They value it from the floor of the minimum wage.

Now, what we do notice when we see a minimum wage increase in a given area is wage compression. In your example, those making fifteen might get a raise to sixteen. But those making twenty are probably going see their wages fall. And mid-level managers better be dusting off their resumes.

Right. The job market shrinks because an outside force has arbitrarily increased the cost of hiring a human and consequently there are fewer jobs. And who, you might ask, is hurt the most by this? Why, the teenager trying to break into the work force, the unskilled laborer, the elderly looking to supplement their retirement income, basically the very ones increasing the MW was supposed to help.

 

[Dschrute3]

Mcpukes doesn't deserve a thread this long for dishing out that slop. That being said, don't apply for those godforsaken jobs. Why anyone works there, even kids, is beyond me. Its artificial food and one cannot take pride in working there.

Spot On. A truly miserable job. Personally, i will celebrate the day McDonalds goes tits-up. It's made so many $Billions off the backs of its slave workers. I believe in Karma. I believe it will come back around on McDonalds. Good riddance.

 

[danielpalos]

Only lousy capitalists cannot double wages and realize gains through productivity.

Show the numbers.

Henry Ford already did it. Only lousy capitalists, can't.

Unlike the poor who really are, "downtrodden".

 

[danielpalos]

Only lousy capitalists cannot double wages and realize gains through productivity.

Show the numbers.

Easy. A McDonalds franchisee runs a labor cost of no more than twenty percent. Probably closer to fifteen. Yet that same McDonalds will send 30 to 35% to corporate in the form of royalties and franchise fees. Flip the percentages and poof, we have doubled the wage of the employees and cut the royalty and franchise fees by half.

But oh no, horrors. Cutting the franchise fees by half would cut McDonalds revenue from them by half. Comes to less than five billion dollars a year. Interestingly enough, they have spent 20 billion dollars in stock buybacks the last two years.

And again, that doesn't address the vast majority of companies that do not have large profit margins, nor does it address the economic reality that automation WILL become cheaper than human labor. Consider as well that some 62% of the American work force earns $20/hr or less. Do you really think that those earning between $15/hr and $20/hr are going to sit by quietly as their wages goes from comfortably above MW to just a few dollars above it? Not so. They're going to demand higher pay as well. Over half the work force suddenly getting or demanding higher pay is not a good thing. Take 20 years to do it, and you may not see immediate negative effects. Do it in less than 5 years and you will.

What negative effects?

 

[danielpalos]

And there you have it. You just made my argument.

See, I contend that the minimum wage in no way represents some minimal level of labor value, but instead, is a minimum floor in which labor prices are negotiated.

For instance, if the employee currently making fifteen is only worth fifteen, won't the employer just pay him fifteen, no matter how much he bitches and moans? And if his value of production is worth more than fifteen, why didn't he ask for a raise a long time ago?

See, neither he nor his employer measure and negotiate his wage from the value of his production. They value it from the floor of the minimum wage.

Now, what we do notice when we see a minimum wage increase in a given area is wage compression. In your example, those making fifteen might get a raise to sixteen. But those making twenty are probably going see their wages fall. And mid-level managers better be dusting off their resumes.

So then, wages will seek equilibrium based on purchasing power driving inflation so that the value created by the MW worker is equal to the purchasing power of the compensation provided.

Other than the massive disruption to the market as the upheaval occurs, the entire affair is then fruitless, with the determent of destroying savings, annuities, and those on a fixed income....

I agree to disagree. We should see some gains in productivity and an increase in demand once higher paid labor starts spending that money.

I would argue, that a wage increase for labor is better than a capital gains preference, for full employment purposes.

 

[percysunshine]

I realize most are still defending slave owners like McDonalds.

Child, you are a ******* retard.

I cannot have a conversation with a retard who has no grasp on reality.

But i feel one day, most will come around. They eventually came around about African American slavery. In my opinion, Karmic Justice will be McDonalds goin tits-up.

It's made untold $Billions off the backs of poor slave workers. And now, it implements kiosks out of more evil greed. I will truly celebrate the day McDonalds folds. It's the epitome of the 'Evil Corporation.'

Pull your head out of your ass, stop ******* lying, and offer a coherent argument.

.
Try typing more slowly. These are unicorns, after all.

 

[dannyboys]

No, socialism requires a gun to force a work ethic.

Damn, not only do you conservatives not understand what a free market economy is. You don't even understand what socialism is.

Yes, the operative word is "free". A free market is free from rent seeking activities.

A socialist system is one in which the government owns the means of production. We have some very successful examples here in the United States, like the North Dakota Mill and Elevator or the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation.

"Owning the factors of production" and "owning a couple dozen businesses" are two very different things. There are some 18M+ non-government owned enterprises in the U.S. and you equate the notion of "socialist system" with the government owning some 20 or so while there are that many others that no government owns?

I understand that a "free market economy" can not exist within a Socialist state.
The operative word is: "FREE".
In a Socialist country no one is 'Free' to start and operate a 'for-profit' business.
They must deal with corrupt officials from top to bottom.
Basically the Socialist governments are run like the Mafia.
ALWAYS someone at the top of the food chain deciding the fate of those below.

You can have a free market economy with socialism. You cannot have it with a command economy. If the socialist state implements a command economy, then no, but one can have a socialist state -- socialism -- without having a command economy.

Free market just means that the market forces determine the prices at which goods and services are exchanged and the quantities of them that are exchanged and made available.

When the Socialist Government dictates what every bread maker can charge for a loaf of bread THATS SOCIALISM!

Your anecdotal observations are just that.

• That's one form of socialism. Despite what you may think, there is not just one form of socialism. The reason for that is that the economic, social and political aspects of socialism are separable, though they need not be separated in any given implementation of socialism.

Go to Hanoi and visit the street vendors. EVERY vendor charges exactly the same for a bowl of Pho. A vendor who attempts to operate in a free market very soon regrets it.

That is indicative of nothing. It may be the consequence of state controlled/stipulated pho prices, but that the all the street vendors charge the same price does not in any way show that the state is controlling the prices. Showing a piece of legislation or a regulation that does stipulate such pricing would show your claim to be so.

For example:

• If you look here, every seller in the U.S. charges the exact same price for the items you'll see at the link. That being the case has nothing to do with state controls on prices.
• When one is in downtown D.C., one will find hotdog vendors all over the place. They all charge the same prices, and the state has nothing to do with it.
  
  
  

• Looking at the photo above, you'll see a taxicab. The prices the taxis charge are controlled by the taxicab commission. There are other goods/services in the U.S. that are stipulated by various governments: water, electricity, and home heating oil and gas.
• Go to Macy's, Bloomingdales, and Saks, and you'll find the price of a Ralph Lauren button down shirt is the same at all of them. The same is so for nearly perfume and cosmetic one might aim to buy. The government is not making that be so.

One need not consider the matter solely in terms of differentiated goods. Purchase any commodity on the commodities exchange and you'll find that at any given point in time, every sellers sells at the same price unless and until (1) a buyer offers a higher price or (2) a seller agrees to accept a lower price. That happens because commodity sellers are price takers.

As for Vietnam, I'm aware of their Law on Price, but I don't know that pho is included in its scope. A variety of food items appear to be outside its scope judging by the variability noted for certain items shown here. Now it may still be that the price of pho is controlled, but you've not shown that to be so, and I don't know it to be so. In light of that, I'd say that pho sellers offer a commoditized good -- pho -- and are thus price takers. Now, if you care to put forth something that shows Vietnam has indeed by governmental fiat set pho prices, I'll accept that as so.

Communities like that police themselves. If someone sold Pho for less the rest would destroy his stand. If he's stubborn they'd break a few of his bones. That is why all Pho cost the same.

TY. I didn't know that. I do know that competing vendors breaking one's legs isn't a socialist government regulating the prices, which is the point the other guy was trying to make.

The food vendors in Hanoi are following the Socialist doctrine.
The Socialist government doesn't have to do any enforcing. The street vendors do their own enforcing. They like it that way it is. Their parents and grandparents and they grew up in that system.
Like in Cuba everyone gets the same medical care. But when you have to go to emergency a member of your family has to take you there in a ******* wheelbarrow.

 

[dannyboys]

sure; you don't believe in Capitalism?

only True socialists, require a work ethic.

No, socialism requires a gun to force a work ethic.

Damn, not only do you conservatives not understand what a free market economy is. You don't even understand what socialism is.

Yes, the operative word is "free". A free market is free from rent seeking activities.

A socialist system is one in which the government owns the means of production. We have some very successful examples here in the United States, like the North Dakota Mill and Elevator or the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation.

"Owning the factors of production" and "owning a couple dozen businesses" are two very different things. There are some 18M+ non-government owned enterprises in the U.S. and you equate the notion of "socialist system" with the government owning some 20 or so while there are that many others that no government owns?

I understand that a "free market economy" can not exist within a Socialist state.
The operative word is: "FREE".
In a Socialist country no one is 'Free' to start and operate a 'for-profit' business.
They must deal with corrupt officials from top to bottom.
Basically the Socialist governments are run like the Mafia.
ALWAYS someone at the top of the food chain deciding the fate of those below.

You can have a free market economy with socialism. You cannot have it with a command economy. If the socialist state implements a command economy, then no, but one can have a socialist state -- socialism -- without having a command economy.

Free market just means that the market forces determine the prices at which goods and services are exchanged and the quantities of them that are exchanged and made available.

When the Socialist Government dictates what every bread maker can charge for a loaf of bread THATS SOCIALISM!

Your anecdotal observations are just that.

• That's one form of socialism. Despite what you may think, there is not just one form of socialism. The reason for that is that the economic, social and political aspects of socialism are separable, though they need not be separated in any given implementation of socialism.

Go to Hanoi and visit the street vendors. EVERY vendor charges exactly the same for a bowl of Pho. A vendor who attempts to operate in a free market very soon regrets it.

That is indicative of nothing. It may be the consequence of state controlled/stipulated pho prices, but that the all the street vendors charge the same price does not in any way show that the state is controlling the prices. Showing a piece of legislation or a regulation that does stipulate such pricing would show your claim to be so.

For example:

• If you look here, every seller in the U.S. charges the exact same price for the items you'll see at the link. That being the case has nothing to do with state controls on prices.
• When one is in downtown D.C., one will find hotdog vendors all over the place. They all charge the same prices, and the state has nothing to do with it.
  
  
  

• Looking at the photo above, you'll see a taxicab. The prices the taxis charge are controlled by the taxicab commission. There are other goods/services in the U.S. that are stipulated by various governments: water, electricity, and home heating oil and gas.
• Go to Macy's, Bloomingdales, and Saks, and you'll find the price of a Ralph Lauren button down shirt is the same at all of them. The same is so for nearly perfume and cosmetic one might aim to buy. The government is not making that be so.

One need not consider the matter solely in terms of differentiated goods. Purchase any commodity on the commodities exchange and you'll find that at any given point in time, every sellers sells at the same price unless and until (1) a buyer offers a higher price or (2) a seller agrees to accept a lower price. That happens because commodity sellers are price takers.

As for Vietnam, I'm aware of their Law on Price, but I don't know that pho is included in its scope. A variety of food items appear to be outside its scope judging by the variability noted for certain items shown here. Now it may still be that the price of pho is controlled, but you've not shown that to be so, and I don't know it to be so. In light of that, I'd say that pho sellers offer a commoditized good -- pho -- and are thus price takers. Now, if you care to put forth something that shows Vietnam has indeed by governmental fiat set pho prices, I'll accept that as so.

....
There is still an unwritten rule that no one should be making more money than anyone else.
The concept is so ingrained now that no one would ever even question it.
So yes there are no longer any 'Government Officials' walking through the markets looking for 'Capitalists' because there is no need to. Everyone is on the same boat. And everyone likes it that way.
Any food vendor who would offer to sell their Pho for less than their neighbor would be considered 'unpatriotic' and be shunned by the community.
Self regulated economy based on Communist doctrine.
No one gets ahead of the others and no one falls behind unless they don't know how to make a great Pho. LOL

Um.... Let the merchants collude and use peer pressure to keep the prices consistent. That's all well and good, but:

• "Shunned by one's peers" does not socialism make.
• Unwritten rules do not make for socialism.

When the Socialist Government dictates what every bread maker can charge for a loaf of bread THATS SOCIALISM!
Go to Hanoi and visit the street vendors. EVERY vendor charges exactly the same for a bowl of Pho. A vendor who attempts to operate in a free market very soon regrets it.

Your claim is very clear in the quote just above, and what you've said now and what you said before -- "THATS [sic] SOCIALISM" -- are not the the same things.

It's worth noting that in economically socialist systems, what makes it socialist is that the government tends to nationalize essential monopolistic enterprises -- huge industries like banking, natural resource production, and other infrastructural concerns -- while leaving non-essential industries and businesses (like, but not limited to, sidewalk pho sellers, large and small scale discretionary retailing, etc.) to remain privately held.

Lastly, your remarks have focused on the prices end consumers pay. Socialism isn't about fixing the prices consumers see; it's about managing production. For example, the state would own the aquifer and sell water to various bottlers. What the bottlers charge the consumer is up to them. The thing is that the state will freely disclose its selling price to bottlers, so bottlers can only get away with charging so much. That is the result of there being more perfect information (less information asymmetry) about the prices of the item in question, not the result of the state saying, "Thou shalt only charge 40 shekels for a bottle of water."

Nice bunch of 'theoretical' academic bullshit.
Sounds great on paper. Socialism/Communism/Marxism ALWAYS sounds great in the classroom.
The little problem is all these 'isms' never actually work in reality.
It's in mankind's DNA to want to compete with his neighbors. Capitalism is the result of competition.
In 'real life' in every Socialist country past and present the human beings who run the government who are put in charge of the 'aquifer' AKA relatives of the President or whatever the leader is referred to as 'sell' the water bottling operation to their brother-in-law for the usual kick-back percent. The brother-in law sells the bottled water to his uncles and nephews for the usual kick-back. The uncles sell the right to transport the bottled water to their cousins who deliver the water to the street vendors for a profit.
THAT'S REAL LIFE!!!!
I have witnessed it first hand many times in Socialist countries.
But you go ahead and stick your nose in a book about how great Socialism is.
For your bedtime reading:
How Venezuela’s corrupt socialists are looting the country to death | New York Post

 

[dannyboys]

And there you have it. You just made my argument.

See, I contend that the minimum wage in no way represents some minimal level of labor value, but instead, is a minimum floor in which labor prices are negotiated.

For instance, if the employee currently making fifteen is only worth fifteen, won't the employer just pay him fifteen, no matter how much he bitches and moans? And if his value of production is worth more than fifteen, why didn't he ask for a raise a long time ago?

See, neither he nor his employer measure and negotiate his wage from the value of his production. They value it from the floor of the minimum wage.

Now, what we do notice when we see a minimum wage increase in a given area is wage compression. In your example, those making fifteen might get a raise to sixteen. But those making twenty are probably going see their wages fall. And mid-level managers better be dusting off their resumes.

So then, wages will seek equilibrium based on purchasing power driving inflation so that the value created by the MW worker is equal to the purchasing power of the compensation provided.

Other than the massive disruption to the market as the upheaval occurs, the entire affair is then fruitless, with the determent of destroying savings, annuities, and those on a fixed income....

I agree to disagree. We should see some gains in productivity and an increase in demand once higher paid labor starts spending that money.

I would argue, that a wage increase for labor is better than a capital gains preference, for full employment purposes.

You are as usual talking out your ass.
If you believe someone who was making MW and suddenly has twice that amount to spend is going to waddle over to McDonalds and be willing to pay an extra dollar for a 'Happy meal' you're delusional!
They will still demand to pay what they did last month.

 

[kaz]

I realize most are still defending slave owners like McDonalds.

Child, you are a ******* retard.

I cannot have a conversation with a retard who has no grasp on reality.

But i feel one day, most will come around. They eventually came around about African American slavery. In my opinion, Karmic Justice will be McDonalds goin tits-up.

It's made untold $Billions off the backs of poor slave workers. And now, it implements kiosks out of more evil greed. I will truly celebrate the day McDonalds folds. It's the epitome of the 'Evil Corporation.'

Pull your head out of your ass, stop ******* lying, and offer a coherent argument.

You're supporting evil, kid. McDonalds is the epitome of the 'Evil Corporation.'

McDonalds hires lots of people

You leftists **** them for it

They want to hire fewer people

Hmm ... that confuses you how exactly?

 

[usmbguest5318]

No, socialism requires a gun to force a work ethic.

Damn, not only do you conservatives not understand what a free market economy is. You don't even understand what socialism is.

Yes, the operative word is "free". A free market is free from rent seeking activities.

A socialist system is one in which the government owns the means of production. We have some very successful examples here in the United States, like the North Dakota Mill and Elevator or the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation.

"Owning the factors of production" and "owning a couple dozen businesses" are two very different things. There are some 18M+ non-government owned enterprises in the U.S. and you equate the notion of "socialist system" with the government owning some 20 or so while there are that many others that no government owns?

I understand that a "free market economy" can not exist within a Socialist state.
The operative word is: "FREE".
In a Socialist country no one is 'Free' to start and operate a 'for-profit' business.
They must deal with corrupt officials from top to bottom.
Basically the Socialist governments are run like the Mafia.
ALWAYS someone at the top of the food chain deciding the fate of those below.

You can have a free market economy with socialism. You cannot have it with a command economy. If the socialist state implements a command economy, then no, but one can have a socialist state -- socialism -- without having a command economy.

Free market just means that the market forces determine the prices at which goods and services are exchanged and the quantities of them that are exchanged and made available.

When the Socialist Government dictates what every bread maker can charge for a loaf of bread THATS SOCIALISM!

Your anecdotal observations are just that.

• That's one form of socialism. Despite what you may think, there is not just one form of socialism. The reason for that is that the economic, social and political aspects of socialism are separable, though they need not be separated in any given implementation of socialism.

Go to Hanoi and visit the street vendors. EVERY vendor charges exactly the same for a bowl of Pho. A vendor who attempts to operate in a free market very soon regrets it.

That is indicative of nothing. It may be the consequence of state controlled/stipulated pho prices, but that the all the street vendors charge the same price does not in any way show that the state is controlling the prices. Showing a piece of legislation or a regulation that does stipulate such pricing would show your claim to be so.

For example:

• If you look here, every seller in the U.S. charges the exact same price for the items you'll see at the link. That being the case has nothing to do with state controls on prices.
• When one is in downtown D.C., one will find hotdog vendors all over the place. They all charge the same prices, and the state has nothing to do with it.
  
  
  

• Looking at the photo above, you'll see a taxicab. The prices the taxis charge are controlled by the taxicab commission. There are other goods/services in the U.S. that are stipulated by various governments: water, electricity, and home heating oil and gas.
• Go to Macy's, Bloomingdales, and Saks, and you'll find the price of a Ralph Lauren button down shirt is the same at all of them. The same is so for nearly perfume and cosmetic one might aim to buy. The government is not making that be so.

One need not consider the matter solely in terms of differentiated goods. Purchase any commodity on the commodities exchange and you'll find that at any given point in time, every sellers sells at the same price unless and until (1) a buyer offers a higher price or (2) a seller agrees to accept a lower price. That happens because commodity sellers are price takers.

As for Vietnam, I'm aware of their Law on Price, but I don't know that pho is included in its scope. A variety of food items appear to be outside its scope judging by the variability noted for certain items shown here. Now it may still be that the price of pho is controlled, but you've not shown that to be so, and I don't know it to be so. In light of that, I'd say that pho sellers offer a commoditized good -- pho -- and are thus price takers. Now, if you care to put forth something that shows Vietnam has indeed by governmental fiat set pho prices, I'll accept that as so.

....
There is still an unwritten rule that no one should be making more money than anyone else.
The concept is so ingrained now that no one would ever even question it.
So yes there are no longer any 'Government Officials' walking through the markets looking for 'Capitalists' because there is no need to. Everyone is on the same boat. And everyone likes it that way.
Any food vendor who would offer to sell their Pho for less than their neighbor would be considered 'unpatriotic' and be shunned by the community.
Self regulated economy based on Communist doctrine.
No one gets ahead of the others and no one falls behind unless they don't know how to make a great Pho. LOL

Um.... Let the merchants collude and use peer pressure to keep the prices consistent. That's all well and good, but:

• "Shunned by one's peers" does not socialism make.
• Unwritten rules do not make for socialism.

When the Socialist Government dictates what every bread maker can charge for a loaf of bread THATS SOCIALISM!
Go to Hanoi and visit the street vendors. EVERY vendor charges exactly the same for a bowl of Pho. A vendor who attempts to operate in a free market very soon regrets it.

Your claim is very clear in the quote just above, and what you've said now and what you said before -- "THATS [sic] SOCIALISM" -- are not the the same things.

It's worth noting that in economically socialist systems, what makes it socialist is that the government tends to nationalize essential monopolistic enterprises -- huge industries like banking, natural resource production, and other infrastructural concerns -- while leaving non-essential industries and businesses (like, but not limited to, sidewalk pho sellers, large and small scale discretionary retailing, etc.) to remain privately held.

Lastly, your remarks have focused on the prices end consumers pay. Socialism isn't about fixing the prices consumers see; it's about managing production. For example, the state would own the aquifer and sell water to various bottlers. What the bottlers charge the consumer is up to them. The thing is that the state will freely disclose its selling price to bottlers, so bottlers can only get away with charging so much. That is the result of there being more perfect information (less information asymmetry) about the prices of the item in question, not the result of the state saying, "Thou shalt only charge 40 shekels for a bottle of water."

Nice bunch of 'theoretical' academic bullshit.
Sounds great on paper. Socialism/Communism/Marxism ALWAYS sounds great in the classroom.
The little problem is all these 'isms' never actually work in reality.
It's in mankind's DNA to want to compete with his neighbors. Capitalism is the result of competition.
In 'real life' in every Socialist country past and present the human beings who run the government who are put in charge of the 'aquifer' AKA relatives of the President or whatever the leader is referred to as 'sell' the water bottling operation to their brother-in-law for the usual kick-back percent. The brother-in law sells the bottled water to his uncles and nephews for the usual kick-back. The uncles sell the right to transport the bottled water to their cousins who deliver the water to the street vendors for a profit.
THAT'S REAL LIFE!!!!
I have witnessed it first hand many times in Socialist countries.
But you go ahead and stick your nose in a book about how great Socialism is.
For your bedtime reading:
How Venezuela’s corrupt socialists are looting the country to death | New York Post

You know. I don't care what you think of the "isms." I don't because I have yet to see your own well presented treatise on economic and political philosophy. When it appears on Amazon or in an scholarly journal, let me know. I will read it.

In the meantime, however, I observe that rather than owning your elementary mistaken understanding of socialism and its implementation in Vietnam and then adopting a new tack, one that is germane to the thread topic, you are now trying deflect away from the fact that you ranted on about what is socialism by pronouncing your disregard for what you perceive to be one or several distinctions between the theory and practice of socialism. It's clear you are out of your depth and not only haven't a clue about the following:

1. the theory of socialism in general --> shown by your remarks that cast is as a monolithic "ism" of which there is only one variety when there are several and not every one of them is so similar to the other other the differences be irrelevant;
2. whether the example you presented to illustrate an characteristic of socialism is indeed factually so --> shown by your citation of how prices are managed among a class of Vietnamese pho sellers;

...but also you lack the intellect, self-respect and/or aplomb -- I don't know which of those it be -- to politely exit the specific line of discussion (socialism in Vietnam + pho prices as a signpost of socialist price controls) you commenced.

I'm a grown man who will happily engage in substantive discourse, but only with people who, like me, can own their mistakes and move on. You are clearly unwilling to do that; thus I haven't any more time for you.

 

[kaz]

Damn, not only do you conservatives not understand what a free market economy is. You don't even understand what socialism is.

Yes, the operative word is "free". A free market is free from rent seeking activities.

A socialist system is one in which the government owns the means of production. We have some very successful examples here in the United States, like the North Dakota Mill and Elevator or the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation.

"Owning the factors of production" and "owning a couple dozen businesses" are two very different things. There are some 18M+ non-government owned enterprises in the U.S. and you equate the notion of "socialist system" with the government owning some 20 or so while there are that many others that no government owns?

I understand that a "free market economy" can not exist within a Socialist state.
The operative word is: "FREE".
In a Socialist country no one is 'Free' to start and operate a 'for-profit' business.
They must deal with corrupt officials from top to bottom.
Basically the Socialist governments are run like the Mafia.
ALWAYS someone at the top of the food chain deciding the fate of those below.

You can have a free market economy with socialism. You cannot have it with a command economy. If the socialist state implements a command economy, then no, but one can have a socialist state -- socialism -- without having a command economy.

Free market just means that the market forces determine the prices at which goods and services are exchanged and the quantities of them that are exchanged and made available.

When the Socialist Government dictates what every bread maker can charge for a loaf of bread THATS SOCIALISM!

Your anecdotal observations are just that.

• That's one form of socialism. Despite what you may think, there is not just one form of socialism. The reason for that is that the economic, social and political aspects of socialism are separable, though they need not be separated in any given implementation of socialism.

Go to Hanoi and visit the street vendors. EVERY vendor charges exactly the same for a bowl of Pho. A vendor who attempts to operate in a free market very soon regrets it.

That is indicative of nothing. It may be the consequence of state controlled/stipulated pho prices, but that the all the street vendors charge the same price does not in any way show that the state is controlling the prices. Showing a piece of legislation or a regulation that does stipulate such pricing would show your claim to be so.

For example:

• If you look here, every seller in the U.S. charges the exact same price for the items you'll see at the link. That being the case has nothing to do with state controls on prices.
• When one is in downtown D.C., one will find hotdog vendors all over the place. They all charge the same prices, and the state has nothing to do with it.
  
  
  

• Looking at the photo above, you'll see a taxicab. The prices the taxis charge are controlled by the taxicab commission. There are other goods/services in the U.S. that are stipulated by various governments: water, electricity, and home heating oil and gas.
• Go to Macy's, Bloomingdales, and Saks, and you'll find the price of a Ralph Lauren button down shirt is the same at all of them. The same is so for nearly perfume and cosmetic one might aim to buy. The government is not making that be so.

One need not consider the matter solely in terms of differentiated goods. Purchase any commodity on the commodities exchange and you'll find that at any given point in time, every sellers sells at the same price unless and until (1) a buyer offers a higher price or (2) a seller agrees to accept a lower price. That happens because commodity sellers are price takers.

As for Vietnam, I'm aware of their Law on Price, but I don't know that pho is included in its scope. A variety of food items appear to be outside its scope judging by the variability noted for certain items shown here. Now it may still be that the price of pho is controlled, but you've not shown that to be so, and I don't know it to be so. In light of that, I'd say that pho sellers offer a commoditized good -- pho -- and are thus price takers. Now, if you care to put forth something that shows Vietnam has indeed by governmental fiat set pho prices, I'll accept that as so.

....
There is still an unwritten rule that no one should be making more money than anyone else.
The concept is so ingrained now that no one would ever even question it.
So yes there are no longer any 'Government Officials' walking through the markets looking for 'Capitalists' because there is no need to. Everyone is on the same boat. And everyone likes it that way.
Any food vendor who would offer to sell their Pho for less than their neighbor would be considered 'unpatriotic' and be shunned by the community.
Self regulated economy based on Communist doctrine.
No one gets ahead of the others and no one falls behind unless they don't know how to make a great Pho. LOL

Um.... Let the merchants collude and use peer pressure to keep the prices consistent. That's all well and good, but:

• "Shunned by one's peers" does not socialism make.
• Unwritten rules do not make for socialism.

When the Socialist Government dictates what every bread maker can charge for a loaf of bread THATS SOCIALISM!
Go to Hanoi and visit the street vendors. EVERY vendor charges exactly the same for a bowl of Pho. A vendor who attempts to operate in a free market very soon regrets it.

Your claim is very clear in the quote just above, and what you've said now and what you said before -- "THATS [sic] SOCIALISM" -- are not the the same things.

It's worth noting that in economically socialist systems, what makes it socialist is that the government tends to nationalize essential monopolistic enterprises -- huge industries like banking, natural resource production, and other infrastructural concerns -- while leaving non-essential industries and businesses (like, but not limited to, sidewalk pho sellers, large and small scale discretionary retailing, etc.) to remain privately held.

Lastly, your remarks have focused on the prices end consumers pay. Socialism isn't about fixing the prices consumers see; it's about managing production. For example, the state would own the aquifer and sell water to various bottlers. What the bottlers charge the consumer is up to them. The thing is that the state will freely disclose its selling price to bottlers, so bottlers can only get away with charging so much. That is the result of there being more perfect information (less information asymmetry) about the prices of the item in question, not the result of the state saying, "Thou shalt only charge 40 shekels for a bottle of water."

Nice bunch of 'theoretical' academic bullshit.
Sounds great on paper. Socialism/Communism/Marxism ALWAYS sounds great in the classroom.
The little problem is all these 'isms' never actually work in reality.
It's in mankind's DNA to want to compete with his neighbors. Capitalism is the result of competition.
In 'real life' in every Socialist country past and present the human beings who run the government who are put in charge of the 'aquifer' AKA relatives of the President or whatever the leader is referred to as 'sell' the water bottling operation to their brother-in-law for the usual kick-back percent. The brother-in law sells the bottled water to his uncles and nephews for the usual kick-back. The uncles sell the right to transport the bottled water to their cousins who deliver the water to the street vendors for a profit.
THAT'S REAL LIFE!!!!
I have witnessed it first hand many times in Socialist countries.
But you go ahead and stick your nose in a book about how great Socialism is.
For your bedtime reading:
How Venezuela’s corrupt socialists are looting the country to death | New York Post

You know. I don't care what you think of the "isms." I don't because I have yet to see your own well presented treatise on economic and political philosophy. When it appears on Amazon or in an scholarly journal, let me know. I will read it.

In the meantime, however, I observe that rather than owning your elementary mistaken understanding of socialism and its implementation in Vietnam and then adopting a new tack, one that is germane to the thread topic, you are now trying deflect away from the fact that you ranted on about what is socialism by pronouncing your disregard for what you perceive to be one or several distinctions between the theory and practice of socialism. It's clear you are out of your depth and not only haven't a clue about the following:

1. the theory of socialism in general --> shown by your remarks that cast is as a monolithic "ism" of which there is only one variety when there are several and not every one of them is so similar to the other other the differences be irrelevant;
2. whether the example you presented to illustrate an characteristic of socialism is indeed factually so --> shown by your citation of how prices are managed among a class of Vietnamese pho sellers;

...but also you lack the intellect, self-respect and/or aplomb -- I don't know which of those it be -- to politely exit the specific line of discussion (socialism in Vietnam + pho prices as a signpost of socialist price controls) you commenced.

I'm a grown man who will happily engage in substantive discourse, but only with people who, like me, can own their mistakes and move on. You are clearly unwilling to do that; thus I haven't any more time for you.

Socialism is central economic planning. Only government can centrally plan an economy because only government can use force to compel it's citizens to do things against their own interest.

Full socialism is when government owns the means of production. But fascism (industry technically in private hands but all decisions controlled by government) is in all real terms the same. Democrats and Republicans are both largely fascist as they support government picking market winners and losers. Democrats more so

 

[Slyhunter]

Keep in mind, McDonalds was gonna implement these kiosks no matter what the Minimum Wage was. It's a Corporation that doesn't care about Americans or America. It only cares about the money. But who knows? Maybe this move has put it on Trump's shitlist. I hope so.

ALL FF outlet franchise owners have been aware of the robotics sitting in Chinese warehouses for a decade just waiting to be but into their FF outlets.
It's NEVER been about the cost of the equipment.
A grade ten student with a calculator can figure out the massive cost benefits to installing robotic fry makers compared to having to deal with semiliterate dummies/dirty/late/thieving/dopers/drunks/'activists in the workplace' losers.
The ONLY reason the robots haven't virtually replaced humans has been local 'politics'.
But recent marketing studies have proven that the average person who eats at FF outlets doesn't give a **** who or what is making their 'Whopper' as long as it's quick and cheap and what they ordered.
The $15 an hour movement put the final nail in the 'we must have humans flipping the burgers' coffin.

Just another greedy Corporation that doesn't care about America. Minimum Wage had nothing to do with this decision. McDonalds had this plan in the works years ago. It's just using the Minimum Wage issue to dupe folks like you. McDonalds has made untold $Billions of slave labor. It's a classic 'Evil Corporation.'

Then stop buying their ******* Big Macs three times a week! Asshole.
Here's an idea. Why don't you figure out a way to close down every "evil" FF corporation in the country. You know. So that the 'poor' don't have anywhere to get something to eat that doesn't cost the same as their rent.
YOU tell the 'poor' to start shopping at 'Wholefoods'.
******* IDIOT!

**** MCDONALDS! It made its several $Billions off slave labor. I hope Trump kicks its ass.

I worked for McDonalds for $3.35 an hour and I didn't see it as slave labor. I saw it as opportunity. Pin Ball money. Spent my first paycheck on a Pin Ball machine.

 

[danielpalos]

And there you have it. You just made my argument.

See, I contend that the minimum wage in no way represents some minimal level of labor value, but instead, is a minimum floor in which labor prices are negotiated.

For instance, if the employee currently making fifteen is only worth fifteen, won't the employer just pay him fifteen, no matter how much he bitches and moans? And if his value of production is worth more than fifteen, why didn't he ask for a raise a long time ago?

See, neither he nor his employer measure and negotiate his wage from the value of his production. They value it from the floor of the minimum wage.

Now, what we do notice when we see a minimum wage increase in a given area is wage compression. In your example, those making fifteen might get a raise to sixteen. But those making twenty are probably going see their wages fall. And mid-level managers better be dusting off their resumes.

So then, wages will seek equilibrium based on purchasing power driving inflation so that the value created by the MW worker is equal to the purchasing power of the compensation provided.

Other than the massive disruption to the market as the upheaval occurs, the entire affair is then fruitless, with the determent of destroying savings, annuities, and those on a fixed income....

I agree to disagree. We should see some gains in productivity and an increase in demand once higher paid labor starts spending that money.

I would argue, that a wage increase for labor is better than a capital gains preference, for full employment purposes.

You are as usual talking out your ass.
If you believe someone who was making MW and suddenly has twice that amount to spend is going to waddle over to McDonalds and be willing to pay an extra dollar for a 'Happy meal' you're delusional!
They will still demand to pay what they did last month.

just right wing fantasy?

Henry Ford did not just talk about it, he did it.

 

[danielpalos]

"Owning the factors of production" and "owning a couple dozen businesses" are two very different things. There are some 18M+ non-government owned enterprises in the U.S. and you equate the notion of "socialist system" with the government owning some 20 or so while there are that many others that no government owns?

You can have a free market economy with socialism. You cannot have it with a command economy. If the socialist state implements a command economy, then no, but one can have a socialist state -- socialism -- without having a command economy.

Free market just means that the market forces determine the prices at which goods and services are exchanged and the quantities of them that are exchanged and made available.

When the Socialist Government dictates what every bread maker can charge for a loaf of bread THATS SOCIALISM!

Your anecdotal observations are just that.

• That's one form of socialism. Despite what you may think, there is not just one form of socialism. The reason for that is that the economic, social and political aspects of socialism are separable, though they need not be separated in any given implementation of socialism.

Go to Hanoi and visit the street vendors. EVERY vendor charges exactly the same for a bowl of Pho. A vendor who attempts to operate in a free market very soon regrets it.

That is indicative of nothing. It may be the consequence of state controlled/stipulated pho prices, but that the all the street vendors charge the same price does not in any way show that the state is controlling the prices. Showing a piece of legislation or a regulation that does stipulate such pricing would show your claim to be so.

For example:

• If you look here, every seller in the U.S. charges the exact same price for the items you'll see at the link. That being the case has nothing to do with state controls on prices.
• When one is in downtown D.C., one will find hotdog vendors all over the place. They all charge the same prices, and the state has nothing to do with it.
  
  
  

• Looking at the photo above, you'll see a taxicab. The prices the taxis charge are controlled by the taxicab commission. There are other goods/services in the U.S. that are stipulated by various governments: water, electricity, and home heating oil and gas.
• Go to Macy's, Bloomingdales, and Saks, and you'll find the price of a Ralph Lauren button down shirt is the same at all of them. The same is so for nearly perfume and cosmetic one might aim to buy. The government is not making that be so.

One need not consider the matter solely in terms of differentiated goods. Purchase any commodity on the commodities exchange and you'll find that at any given point in time, every sellers sells at the same price unless and until (1) a buyer offers a higher price or (2) a seller agrees to accept a lower price. That happens because commodity sellers are price takers.

As for Vietnam, I'm aware of their Law on Price, but I don't know that pho is included in its scope. A variety of food items appear to be outside its scope judging by the variability noted for certain items shown here. Now it may still be that the price of pho is controlled, but you've not shown that to be so, and I don't know it to be so. In light of that, I'd say that pho sellers offer a commoditized good -- pho -- and are thus price takers. Now, if you care to put forth something that shows Vietnam has indeed by governmental fiat set pho prices, I'll accept that as so.

....
There is still an unwritten rule that no one should be making more money than anyone else.
The concept is so ingrained now that no one would ever even question it.
So yes there are no longer any 'Government Officials' walking through the markets looking for 'Capitalists' because there is no need to. Everyone is on the same boat. And everyone likes it that way.
Any food vendor who would offer to sell their Pho for less than their neighbor would be considered 'unpatriotic' and be shunned by the community.
Self regulated economy based on Communist doctrine.
No one gets ahead of the others and no one falls behind unless they don't know how to make a great Pho. LOL

Um.... Let the merchants collude and use peer pressure to keep the prices consistent. That's all well and good, but:

• "Shunned by one's peers" does not socialism make.
• Unwritten rules do not make for socialism.

When the Socialist Government dictates what every bread maker can charge for a loaf of bread THATS SOCIALISM!
Go to Hanoi and visit the street vendors. EVERY vendor charges exactly the same for a bowl of Pho. A vendor who attempts to operate in a free market very soon regrets it.

Your claim is very clear in the quote just above, and what you've said now and what you said before -- "THATS [sic] SOCIALISM" -- are not the the same things.

It's worth noting that in economically socialist systems, what makes it socialist is that the government tends to nationalize essential monopolistic enterprises -- huge industries like banking, natural resource production, and other infrastructural concerns -- while leaving non-essential industries and businesses (like, but not limited to, sidewalk pho sellers, large and small scale discretionary retailing, etc.) to remain privately held.

Lastly, your remarks have focused on the prices end consumers pay. Socialism isn't about fixing the prices consumers see; it's about managing production. For example, the state would own the aquifer and sell water to various bottlers. What the bottlers charge the consumer is up to them. The thing is that the state will freely disclose its selling price to bottlers, so bottlers can only get away with charging so much. That is the result of there being more perfect information (less information asymmetry) about the prices of the item in question, not the result of the state saying, "Thou shalt only charge 40 shekels for a bottle of water."

Nice bunch of 'theoretical' academic bullshit.
Sounds great on paper. Socialism/Communism/Marxism ALWAYS sounds great in the classroom.
The little problem is all these 'isms' never actually work in reality.
It's in mankind's DNA to want to compete with his neighbors. Capitalism is the result of competition.
In 'real life' in every Socialist country past and present the human beings who run the government who are put in charge of the 'aquifer' AKA relatives of the President or whatever the leader is referred to as 'sell' the water bottling operation to their brother-in-law for the usual kick-back percent. The brother-in law sells the bottled water to his uncles and nephews for the usual kick-back. The uncles sell the right to transport the bottled water to their cousins who deliver the water to the street vendors for a profit.
THAT'S REAL LIFE!!!!
I have witnessed it first hand many times in Socialist countries.
But you go ahead and stick your nose in a book about how great Socialism is.
For your bedtime reading:
How Venezuela’s corrupt socialists are looting the country to death | New York Post

You know. I don't care what you think of the "isms." I don't because I have yet to see your own well presented treatise on economic and political philosophy. When it appears on Amazon or in an scholarly journal, let me know. I will read it.

In the meantime, however, I observe that rather than owning your elementary mistaken understanding of socialism and its implementation in Vietnam and then adopting a new tack, one that is germane to the thread topic, you are now trying deflect away from the fact that you ranted on about what is socialism by pronouncing your disregard for what you perceive to be one or several distinctions between the theory and practice of socialism. It's clear you are out of your depth and not only haven't a clue about the following:

1. the theory of socialism in general --> shown by your remarks that cast is as a monolithic "ism" of which there is only one variety when there are several and not every one of them is so similar to the other other the differences be irrelevant;
2. whether the example you presented to illustrate an characteristic of socialism is indeed factually so --> shown by your citation of how prices are managed among a class of Vietnamese pho sellers;

...but also you lack the intellect, self-respect and/or aplomb -- I don't know which of those it be -- to politely exit the specific line of discussion (socialism in Vietnam + pho prices as a signpost of socialist price controls) you commenced.

I'm a grown man who will happily engage in substantive discourse, but only with people who, like me, can own their mistakes and move on. You are clearly unwilling to do that; thus I haven't any more time for you.

Socialism is central economic planning. Only government can centrally plan an economy because only government can use force to compel it's citizens to do things against their own interest.

Full socialism is when government owns the means of production. But fascism (industry technically in private hands but all decisions controlled by government) is in all real terms the same. Democrats and Republicans are both largely fascist as they support government picking market winners and losers. Democrats more so

our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror, are command economics.

 

[dannyboys]

Damn, not only do you conservatives not understand what a free market economy is. You don't even understand what socialism is.

Yes, the operative word is "free". A free market is free from rent seeking activities.

A socialist system is one in which the government owns the means of production. We have some very successful examples here in the United States, like the North Dakota Mill and Elevator or the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation.

"Owning the factors of production" and "owning a couple dozen businesses" are two very different things. There are some 18M+ non-government owned enterprises in the U.S. and you equate the notion of "socialist system" with the government owning some 20 or so while there are that many others that no government owns?

I understand that a "free market economy" can not exist within a Socialist state.
The operative word is: "FREE".
In a Socialist country no one is 'Free' to start and operate a 'for-profit' business.
They must deal with corrupt officials from top to bottom.
Basically the Socialist governments are run like the Mafia.
ALWAYS someone at the top of the food chain deciding the fate of those below.

You can have a free market economy with socialism. You cannot have it with a command economy. If the socialist state implements a command economy, then no, but one can have a socialist state -- socialism -- without having a command economy.

Free market just means that the market forces determine the prices at which goods and services are exchanged and the quantities of them that are exchanged and made available.

When the Socialist Government dictates what every bread maker can charge for a loaf of bread THATS SOCIALISM!

Your anecdotal observations are just that.

• That's one form of socialism. Despite what you may think, there is not just one form of socialism. The reason for that is that the economic, social and political aspects of socialism are separable, though they need not be separated in any given implementation of socialism.

Go to Hanoi and visit the street vendors. EVERY vendor charges exactly the same for a bowl of Pho. A vendor who attempts to operate in a free market very soon regrets it.

That is indicative of nothing. It may be the consequence of state controlled/stipulated pho prices, but that the all the street vendors charge the same price does not in any way show that the state is controlling the prices. Showing a piece of legislation or a regulation that does stipulate such pricing would show your claim to be so.

For example:

• If you look here, every seller in the U.S. charges the exact same price for the items you'll see at the link. That being the case has nothing to do with state controls on prices.
• When one is in downtown D.C., one will find hotdog vendors all over the place. They all charge the same prices, and the state has nothing to do with it.
  
  
  

• Looking at the photo above, you'll see a taxicab. The prices the taxis charge are controlled by the taxicab commission. There are other goods/services in the U.S. that are stipulated by various governments: water, electricity, and home heating oil and gas.
• Go to Macy's, Bloomingdales, and Saks, and you'll find the price of a Ralph Lauren button down shirt is the same at all of them. The same is so for nearly perfume and cosmetic one might aim to buy. The government is not making that be so.

One need not consider the matter solely in terms of differentiated goods. Purchase any commodity on the commodities exchange and you'll find that at any given point in time, every sellers sells at the same price unless and until (1) a buyer offers a higher price or (2) a seller agrees to accept a lower price. That happens because commodity sellers are price takers.

As for Vietnam, I'm aware of their Law on Price, but I don't know that pho is included in its scope. A variety of food items appear to be outside its scope judging by the variability noted for certain items shown here. Now it may still be that the price of pho is controlled, but you've not shown that to be so, and I don't know it to be so. In light of that, I'd say that pho sellers offer a commoditized good -- pho -- and are thus price takers. Now, if you care to put forth something that shows Vietnam has indeed by governmental fiat set pho prices, I'll accept that as so.

....
There is still an unwritten rule that no one should be making more money than anyone else.
The concept is so ingrained now that no one would ever even question it.
So yes there are no longer any 'Government Officials' walking through the markets looking for 'Capitalists' because there is no need to. Everyone is on the same boat. And everyone likes it that way.
Any food vendor who would offer to sell their Pho for less than their neighbor would be considered 'unpatriotic' and be shunned by the community.
Self regulated economy based on Communist doctrine.
No one gets ahead of the others and no one falls behind unless they don't know how to make a great Pho. LOL

Um.... Let the merchants collude and use peer pressure to keep the prices consistent. That's all well and good, but:

• "Shunned by one's peers" does not socialism make.
• Unwritten rules do not make for socialism.

When the Socialist Government dictates what every bread maker can charge for a loaf of bread THATS SOCIALISM!
Go to Hanoi and visit the street vendors. EVERY vendor charges exactly the same for a bowl of Pho. A vendor who attempts to operate in a free market very soon regrets it.

Your claim is very clear in the quote just above, and what you've said now and what you said before -- "THATS [sic] SOCIALISM" -- are not the the same things.

It's worth noting that in economically socialist systems, what makes it socialist is that the government tends to nationalize essential monopolistic enterprises -- huge industries like banking, natural resource production, and other infrastructural concerns -- while leaving non-essential industries and businesses (like, but not limited to, sidewalk pho sellers, large and small scale discretionary retailing, etc.) to remain privately held.

Lastly, your remarks have focused on the prices end consumers pay. Socialism isn't about fixing the prices consumers see; it's about managing production. For example, the state would own the aquifer and sell water to various bottlers. What the bottlers charge the consumer is up to them. The thing is that the state will freely disclose its selling price to bottlers, so bottlers can only get away with charging so much. That is the result of there being more perfect information (less information asymmetry) about the prices of the item in question, not the result of the state saying, "Thou shalt only charge 40 shekels for a bottle of water."

Nice bunch of 'theoretical' academic bullshit.
Sounds great on paper. Socialism/Communism/Marxism ALWAYS sounds great in the classroom.
The little problem is all these 'isms' never actually work in reality.
It's in mankind's DNA to want to compete with his neighbors. Capitalism is the result of competition.
In 'real life' in every Socialist country past and present the human beings who run the government who are put in charge of the 'aquifer' AKA relatives of the President or whatever the leader is referred to as 'sell' the water bottling operation to their brother-in-law for the usual kick-back percent. The brother-in law sells the bottled water to his uncles and nephews for the usual kick-back. The uncles sell the right to transport the bottled water to their cousins who deliver the water to the street vendors for a profit.
THAT'S REAL LIFE!!!!
I have witnessed it first hand many times in Socialist countries.
But you go ahead and stick your nose in a book about how great Socialism is.
For your bedtime reading:
How Venezuela’s corrupt socialists are looting the country to death | New York Post

You know. I don't care what you think of the "isms." I don't because I have yet to see your own well presented treatise on economic and political philosophy. When it appears on Amazon or in an scholarly journal, let me know. I will read it.

In the meantime, however, I observe that rather than owning your elementary mistaken understanding of socialism and its implementation in Vietnam and then adopting a new tack, one that is germane to the thread topic, you are now trying deflect away from the fact that you ranted on about what is socialism by pronouncing your disregard for what you perceive to be one or several distinctions between the theory and practice of socialism. It's clear you are out of your depth and not only haven't a clue about the following:

1. the theory of socialism in general --> shown by your remarks that cast is as a monolithic "ism" of which there is only one variety when there are several and not every one of them is so similar to the other other the differences be irrelevant;
2. whether the example you presented to illustrate an characteristic of socialism is indeed factually so --> shown by your citation of how prices are managed among a class of Vietnamese pho sellers;

...but also you lack the intellect, self-respect and/or aplomb -- I don't know which of those it be -- to politely exit the specific line of discussion (socialism in Vietnam + pho prices as a signpost of socialist price controls) you commenced.

I'm a grown man who will happily engage in substantive discourse, but only with people who, like me, can own their mistakes and move on. You are clearly unwilling to do that; thus I haven't any more time for you.

That's convenient because you're now on permanent Ignore.

 

[hadit]

Only lousy capitalists cannot double wages and realize gains through productivity.

Show the numbers.

Henry Ford already did it. Only lousy capitalists, can't.

Unlike the poor who really are, "downtrodden".

Indulge me. Show the numbers.