Theories on how to efficiently run an economy

[Pumpkin Row]

You know, I lost interest in this topic days ago,

Do you mean this entire thread? If so, that's alright. I think I'll continue to post some responses to points you and others have made here, but if you no longer want to respond to points made here, I can accept that.

It's because you're talking in circles. You're not capable of learning in terms of economics, you're stuck in Socialist-ville. I'm unwatching this thread.

 

[phoenyx]

You know, I lost interest in this topic days ago,

Do you mean this entire thread? If so, that's alright. I think I'll continue to post some responses to points you and others have made here, but if you no longer want to respond to points made here, I can accept that.

It's because you're talking in circles. You're not capable of learning in terms of economics, you're stuck in Socialist-ville.

We may just have to agree to disagree there.

I'm unwatching this thread.

Understood.

 

[phoenyx]

I'll include an excerpt from an article that gets my point across:

Klein's indictment revolves around Milton Friedman, the Nobel Prize-winning guru of the University of Chicago School of Economics and the brains behind the movement for unregulated corporate trade, the elimination of public services and the eradication of organized labor.

Klein begins in the 1950s, the depths of the Cold War, when Friedman refined his theory of pure capitalism as a counter to the threat of communism and a radical alternative to the mixed checks-and-balances system that was installed under the influence of economist John Maynard Keynes to combat the Great Depression. Under Friedman's precise mathematical theorem, the only functions permitted for government are police and armies. Everything else should be privatized.

With eager financial support from corporate interests, Friedman's theories made the Chicago school the powerhouse of academic economics in the U.S. The search for a live test laboratory -- a nation to erase and re-create from scratch -- did not take long.

When Augusto Pinochet's military junta prepared for the takeover of Chile in 1973, Friedman's students handed him a complete plan of economic reform in advance. Friedman himself visited the new dictator, urging him to press even harder -- by dint of troops, tanks and death squads -- at selling state-owned property, utilities and services to American corporations. The plan also included eliminating public medical care, education and transportation; arresting, torturing and executing labor leaders, social workers, academics and other troublemakers; and throwing hundreds of thousands out of work. The aim was to shock the entire population into stunned acquiescence to the new corporate economic policies. The term in use was "shock therapy."

The effect was to impoverish the majority of the population while enriching those in power. International corporations, being on the plush end of the equation, were delighted. The Chicago Boys, as Friedman's students were known, were ready for similar actions in Argentina, southern Brazil, Bolivia and beyond. By the 1980s large segments of Africa and Asia also had submitted to Friedman's shock treatment...**

Source: Caution, 'Disaster Capitalism' at Work | Naomi Klein

First, a dictatorship is exactly what I'm arguing AGAINST, I don't care how 'capitalist' a country is, if the government is too powerful, well, it's too powerful. If anything, this is a perfect argument against your suggestion of government expansion, and only shows that regardless of what system you have, expanding the government too much will cause a disaster. I also didn't say that other government functions should be given to corporate executives, in fact, I'm advocating a method to STOP them from deciding what the government should do. In the end, your article does not help you.

It's heartening that you are arguing against dictatorships, but it seems you are unaware who Milton Friedman was. The Library of Economics and Liberty has this to say about him:
*Milton Friedman was the twentieth century’s most prominent advocate of free markets... In 1976 he was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics for “his achievements in the field of consumption analysis, monetary history and theory, and for his demonstration of the complexity of stabilization policy.” Before that time he had served as an adviser to President Richard Nixon and was president of the American Economic Association in 1967. After retiring from the University of Chicago in 1977, Friedman became a senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.**

Source: Milton Friedman: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

This man's students -encouraged- Pinochet to commit atrocities. As I imagine you know, most corporations are not democracies. Only worker owned companies would fit that bill. The rest are somewhere along the line of an oligarchy and a dictatorship, which helps explain Milton's students' zeal for a horrific dictator like Pinochet.

I'm glad that you atleast realize that corporate executives can do brutal things and shouldn't be allowed to commit atrocities with government support. Here are 14 examples of some of the worst corporate evildoers, including Coca Cola, Ford Motor Company and Nestle:
The 14 Worst Corporate Evildoers | International Labor Rights Forum

Here's an introduction to the corporation Monsanto:
**Monsanto already dominates America’s food chain with its genetically modified seeds. Now it has targeted milk production. Just as frightening as the corporation’s tactics–ruthless legal battles against small farmers–is its decades-long history of toxic contamination...**

Source: Monsanto’s Cruel, and Dangerous, Monopolization on American Farming

I never said that Corporations should have government powers, nor should they be above the law,

Glad we agree on that.

but you're also never going to convince me a corporation should be run by employees, that's regressive, and as I explained, it would chase businesses out of the nation to other places that didn't suddenly forget how an economy works.

We may have to agree to disagree here.

There are certain laws that can be passed without it being business regulations, to prevent people in general from hurting others.

Not sure why you are against business regulations so much. My guess is you watch a lot of fox news . Anyway, now that Pumpkin's unwatched the thread, we may never know.

 

[phoenyx]

If everyone had enough money to make ends meet and the environment was being properly taken care of, the issue would be of far less importance. Neither is the case. The reality that some people have yachts while others are starve to death and/or are poisoned by their environment. This is gross negligence.

You don't seem to understand that regardless of your intentions, Socialism cannot work in any sense. As long as the money is earned, it's not anyone's business what people do with their money.

I think most people associate the notion of earning money as it being done in a fair way. That's fine. The problem is when it isn't. You have mentioned in the past that you are against government subsidies. I would maintain that the largest government subsidy by far is that it grants banks to literally create and own most of the money supply, which it loans to everyone else, at interest. This enriches the banks and those who are close to them, and impoverishes everyone else, who must constantly struggle to get these dollars to pay their taxes and just about everything else, while frequently paying these same banks interest on loans they receive.

 

[phoenyx]

So the real number was larger then your 'ballparked' number by around 280%, which makes me wonder how you "ballpark" numbers to begin with -.- Anyway, we now have a number that looks to be legit, thanks.

The list I first used was incomplete.

Alright.

People who are dying of malnourishment or hunger need to eat to live.

At least if they're dead, they aren't a leech on society.

Every poor person was someone's son or daughter. Sometimes, they were also someone's brother, sister, father, mother, aunt, uncle, friend. As you've mentioned before, you've never had a friend who was in such straits. I have. If you ever do, perhaps you wouldn't be quite so cold when it comes to those on the brink of death.

Meanwhile, you seem to keep on believing that the military budget is primarily for "defense". I think former U.S. Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler explained war's primary purpose fairly well in a key summary of it:
**War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.**

Source: War Is a Racket - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The U.S. spent more 400% more on its military in 2015 then its closest competitor, China. it also spent over 700% more then the next highest spender, Saudi Arabia, and over 900% more then its former cold war opponent, Russia (Source: List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). So unless the U.S. is wasting an incredible amount of money on its military (which, frankly, I wouldn't discount as a possibility), it is way ahead of its competitors when it comes to "defense" as well as what it generally does, which is aggressive -offensive- wars against other countries. I think the biggest waste to taxpayers are all the wars it gets into that were completely unnecessary and detrimental to all but a few, those described in Butler's summary.

It needs to continue being far ahead of its competitors, even if it is misusing the military.

Why?

Besides, you're the one who's advocating the government have more power, what's wrong with having a military to back up your god-like government?

I'm not against militaries per se. I just think the U.S.'s is far too large. As to governments having more power, I certainly think that governments should do a better job of regulating corporations, especially the banks and wall street, to make sure that they're not robbing the rest of us blind. I think any country should have things like good health care for all, good infrastructure and education. I also think that states and municipalities should frequently have more of a voice as to where some funds go.

 

[phoenyx]

So you think that a large federal government creates corrupt politicians? Personally, I think how those politicians are funded strongly influences said politicians. Most of the time, said funders would be the rich.

If the Federal government didn't have the power to influence the competitors of the large businesses, do you think that we'd get said big businesses funding politicians getting into office to stifle their competition?

Well, -that's- certainly a mouthful of a question . I think we should first start with the basics, namely, the definition of government. Wikipedia's introduction to the term starts with this:
"A government is the system by which a state or community is controlled.[1]"

Source: Government - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The first question that anyone should ask is, does a state or community -need- to be controlled? Based on what you yourself have said, even you would agree that yes, it does. However, it seems that you seem to think that the only things the government should be controlling is the use of force. Am I correct?

Here's the thing- the use of force against others should only be used as a -last- resort. The consequences of force are ugly, and frequently fatal. This is why the government has so many -other- agencies, other then military and law enforcement ones; to try to resolve things before they get to that level. Yes, the government is certainly powerful, but that's a -good- thing, because the government, atleast, is atleast accountable to voters every 4 years. Corporations aren't. The scary thing is that corporations and the lobbyists they fund are becoming more and more powerful, to the point that most politicians are essentially doing whatever they want in order to receive campaign contributions. Let me put this another way- if the government didn't have the power to regulate corporations, a power which they are using less and less all the time, the corporations would rush to fill in the vacuum. Already, many large corporations have more assets then small countries. And unlike the U.S. government, no one is under the illusion that corporations are accountable to those they affect; only those who have shares of the company can vote, and even then, it's only the voting shares.

It was a rhetorical question, I already knew the answer. If I wanted an answer I could take seriously, I wouldn't have asked a Socialist.

Some have argued that Bernie is actually a social democrat, not a socialist:
Bernie Sanders Is No Socialist - The Globalist

Since I pretty much support Bernie's ideology all the way, that'd make me the same. It all depends on how one defines the term.

You wouldn't happen to be 5-7 years old, would you?

Multiply that number by 5-7 times (depending on what number you start with), and you'd be around my age . I thought Stephan Richter made some good points. I guess you didn't think so.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Before I begin, I'd like to say that while I've posted in many online forums over the years, I've never started a thread of this nature anywhere. It was something that definitely interested me, but not to the extent that I thought I should start a thread about it. That has now changed. I began to seriously get engaged in a thread discussing this subject, even though the thread itself had nothing to do with the economy. I think it's high time I transfer it over to one that does.

So now, for my politics: I am generally left wing, though I also believe in the market, so long as it is properly regulated. I think one of the biggest problem that economies today face is the double whammy of the rapacious nature of many corporations, and the way money is created. For those who are unfamiliar with how money is created, I invite you to take a look at the following 45 minute animated documentary on the subject:


I think it's fair to say that I'm a Berniecrat, despite the fact that I'm Canadian and so would never have been able to vote for him. I think he generally had the right idea on how to turn things around. What I'd like to discuss here, in a constructive way, is what people here think of Bernie's policy platform, and why. As I mentioned, I had previously been discussing the subject of how to efficiently run an economy in a thread that really had nothing to do with this, so I'll now be replying to those who I was discussing things with over there into this thread instead.

I found the video interesting to watch, but it is not completely accurate. Please take a look at the following playlist.

BANKING 101 - YouTube

You couldn't just tell me what you found to be innacurate from the video -.-? I saw the first video in your playlist, it seemed fine...

Bankers do create money with each loan ( they simply increase tha account of the debitor), but they need to keep reserves for day to day transactions ( at least in the US ).

Usually the equation loans + reserves = deposits + equity must hold true. Bankers still have to search for the reserves after they extend the loan and the cheapest way is to increase their deposits. I think the video is a bit fuzzy about this.

 

[phoenyx]

Before I begin, I'd like to say that while I've posted in many online forums over the years, I've never started a thread of this nature anywhere. It was something that definitely interested me, but not to the extent that I thought I should start a thread about it. That has now changed. I began to seriously get engaged in a thread discussing this subject, even though the thread itself had nothing to do with the economy. I think it's high time I transfer it over to one that does.

So now, for my politics: I am generally left wing, though I also believe in the market, so long as it is properly regulated. I think one of the biggest problem that economies today face is the double whammy of the rapacious nature of many corporations, and the way money is created. For those who are unfamiliar with how money is created, I invite you to take a look at the following 45 minute animated documentary on the subject:


I think it's fair to say that I'm a Berniecrat, despite the fact that I'm Canadian and so would never have been able to vote for him. I think he generally had the right idea on how to turn things around. What I'd like to discuss here, in a constructive way, is what people here think of Bernie's policy platform, and why. As I mentioned, I had previously been discussing the subject of how to efficiently run an economy in a thread that really had nothing to do with this, so I'll now be replying to those who I was discussing things with over there into this thread instead.

I found the video interesting to watch, but it is not completely accurate. Please take a look at the following playlist.

BANKING 101 - YouTube

You couldn't just tell me what you found to be innacurate from the video -.-? I saw the first video in your playlist, it seemed fine...

Bankers do create money with each loan ( they simply increase tha account of the debitor), but they need to keep reserves for day to day transactions ( at least in the US ).

Usually the equation loans + reserves = deposits + equity must hold true. Bankers still have to search for the reserves after they extend the loan and the cheapest way is to increase their deposits. I think the video is a bit fuzzy about this.

The banks certainly window dress it to make it look like everything is in order, but I think it's a bit like the Emperor with no clothes insisting that he is dressed. The bottom line is that dollars are backed up by nothing but more dollars. It used to be different- cash was actually backed up by silver. This is why gold, silver, and bitcoin continue to climb against the dollar- the banks and to a lesser extent, the government, keep creating more and more money backed up by nothing, so it's only natural that the dollar will continue to devalue. It's great stuff for banks who get to charge interest on what I'll call 'signature' money (money created by someone promising to repay said money, plus interest, given to the banks for free by the people wanting the loans), but it sucks for everyone else.

 

[CultureCitizen]

The bottom line here: there is significant evidence that capitalism is not stable by itself.

so why not tell us what the evidence is?????????????????????????????????????????

Irving Fisher's debt deflation hypothesis and Minsky's Financial inestability hypothesis.

I did not ask for a libturds hypothesis about debt I asked for evidence that capitalism is unstable as you claimed ?

Well Ed, as allways your criteria is too narrow to have any constructive discussion. Calling two well known economists libturds is a sign of both ignorance and intollerance.
Anyway, you want some emprirical samples:
Japan's private debt soared and then japan became stagnated. Spain's private debt peaked and then it went into recession the US private debt peaked in 2008 and the same happended . See the pattern Ed?

The two newcommers into the private debt arena are Australia and China. Want to bet how many years will pass before they go into recession / stagnation ?

 

[CultureCitizen]

Before I begin, I'd like to say that while I've posted in many online forums over the years, I've never started a thread of this nature anywhere. It was something that definitely interested me, but not to the extent that I thought I should start a thread about it. That has now changed. I began to seriously get engaged in a thread discussing this subject, even though the thread itself had nothing to do with the economy. I think it's high time I transfer it over to one that does.

So now, for my politics: I am generally left wing, though I also believe in the market, so long as it is properly regulated. I think one of the biggest problem that economies today face is the double whammy of the rapacious nature of many corporations, and the way money is created. For those who are unfamiliar with how money is created, I invite you to take a look at the following 45 minute animated documentary on the subject:


I think it's fair to say that I'm a Berniecrat, despite the fact that I'm Canadian and so would never have been able to vote for him. I think he generally had the right idea on how to turn things around. What I'd like to discuss here, in a constructive way, is what people here think of Bernie's policy platform, and why. As I mentioned, I had previously been discussing the subject of how to efficiently run an economy in a thread that really had nothing to do with this, so I'll now be replying to those who I was discussing things with over there into this thread instead.

I found the video interesting to watch, but it is not completely accurate. Please take a look at the following playlist.

BANKING 101 - YouTube

You couldn't just tell me what you found to be innacurate from the video -.-? I saw the first video in your playlist, it seemed fine...

Bankers do create money with each loan ( they simply increase tha account of the debitor), but they need to keep reserves for day to day transactions ( at least in the US ).

Usually the equation loans + reserves = deposits + equity must hold true. Bankers still have to search for the reserves after they extend the loan and the cheapest way is to increase their deposits. I think the video is a bit fuzzy about this.

The banks certainly window dress it to make it look like everything is in order, but I think it's a bit like the Emperor with no clothes insisting that he is dressed. The bottom line is that dollars are backed up by nothing but more dollars. It used to be different- cash was actually backed up by silver. This is why gold, silver, and bitcoin continue to climb against the dollar- the banks and to a lesser extent, the government, keep creating more and more money backed up by nothing, so it's only natural that the dollar will continue to devalue. It's great stuff for banks who get to charge interest on what I'll call 'signature' money (money created by someone promising to repay said money, plus interest, given to the banks for free by the people wanting the loans), but it sucks for everyone else.

I agree, but when having a serious discussion with any right winger it is better to have all the t's crossed.

 

[phoenyx]

""From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs",

I am completely against this frase: It assumes a perpetual situation of scantiness AND as you mention it doesn't consider rewards. Maybe I want to work hard for five years and then go on sabbatical. The phrase doesn't accomodate for that.

Yes, it is certainly an imperfect phrase. But I love the heart of it- that we try to help each other out. Some can help more then others, and that's fine. I also completely agree with the points you're making- rewards are important, and if there is more than enough resources stored for everyone to meet their basic needs, sabbaticals seem like a fine idea to me.

Another problem : people's capacity change with experience. As people practice they become more profficient at doing something, and sometimes they might discover they were very good at some area they hadn't tried before.

Certainly...

Access to low rate credit seems a lot less intrussive.

Cryptocurrencies like bitcoins can satisfy the need for credit without enriching the banks at the expense of everyone else.

Regarding the market : it is a tool ( a very important one) , not a goal. But for many it seems to be as much as a goal as a source of liberty.

Not really sure what that means, but I will say that I think some people seem to go with the notion that possessing wealth means that it was ethically acquired. This is frequently not the case in today's world.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Irving Fisher's debt deflation hypothesis and Minsky's Financial inestability hypothesis.

also, it stuns me how dumb you are. A theory about debt is not a theory about capitalism. You can have debt in any type of economy

Of course, but then it wouldn't be capitalism as we know it, because banks are in charge of creating most of the money in the economy.
You will not agree with this, but at least England's central bank has admitted they don't have any control on the money supply. Now quoting the investopedia:

"In today’s modern economy most money takes the form of deposits, but rather than being created by a group of savers entrusting the bank with holding their money, deposits are actually created when banks extend credit (i.e. create new loans). As Joseph Schumpeter once wrote, “It is much more realistic to say that the banks ‘create credit,’ that is, that they create deposits in their act of lending, than to say that they lend the deposits that have been entrusted to them"

"The reality is that banks first extend loans and then look for the required reserves later. "

"Alan Holmes, a former senior vice president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, wrote in 1969, “in the real world banks extend credit, creating deposits in the process, and look for the reserves later.”

And reserves are only needed to clear day to day transfers.

Why Banks Don't Need Your Money to Make Loans | Investopedia

 

[phoenyx]

Economies are regulated worldwide. For one thing, many things are taxed, in order to pay many things. In a representative democracy, the things taxes pay for are supposed to be things that most people would agree are things that taxes should be used for. This isn't actually what happens in the U.S. and most other places though- instead, it's mainly the rich who are catered to, the working class is generally ignored.

The operative word here is "efficiently". Aggression in the marketplace (i.e. taxation, regulation, and cronyism) is inherently inefficient.

That tax funds don't end up being used for those things that, in your opinion, most people would agree should be used for, demonstrates the foolhardiness and gullibility of those "most people". If most people refused to participate and comply in these protection rackets, the whole mess would collapse and the world could get back to truly free and highly efficient markets.

I kind of agree. I think the thing that will set things off, though, are strikes. The military industrial complex can't operate if the proles go on strike en masse. I imagine things would get worse before they got better in such a scenario- some people may well die of malnutrition if not outright starvation, as most people simply don't know how to farm, let alone have a plot of land in which to do it. That being said, the alternative is to let mother nature eventually do the same thing through global warming, massive polution, etc., and personally, I think it would be far less humane then humanity stopping itself first.

 

[phoenyx]

Sure, there are always jobs available, but they aren't for everyone. Meanwhile, many higher education graduates are finding themselves unable to get anything but menial jobs:
Drop in U.S. temp workers signals tough job market for new grads

Richard Branson, Virgin entrepreneur and new owner of Northern Rock believes businesses should transform themselves along ethical lines:
Richard Branson: 'Capitalism has lost its way'

That's why college exists, TO MAKE THOSE JOBS FOR YOU.

You are assuming that there are enough high end jobs for everyone. This simply isn't the case. If employers -needed- so many high end employees, they would train them themselves even if they didn't have the precise qualifications they were looking for. Instead, they can simply hire people from other countries if they can't find what they want within their own country- or build factories and offices outside of the U.S. Which brings us to another point- it isn't just about the skillsets, it's about the costs. Which gets us to yet another point- it's been said politics is the art of saying "good doggy" until you can find a stick. I would extend this analogy to the darker side of capitalism, and the 'golden rule' I've referred to previously, namely that "he who has the gold makes the rules". Much like the mythical Midas discovered, trying to turn everything into gold (or money) is a recipe for disaster. The following documentary called "The Story of Stuff" explains how crony capitalism has been destroying this world:

There are high-end jobs; employers bring in Business Visas and have their highly skilled non-Indians train the Indian Business Visas.
It's a complete farce.

I agree to some extent. I'm not against the idea of a world marketplace for jobs, but I also think that this only works well if all countries had an equal standard of living.

 

[phoenyx]

Federal Aid is a waste of taxpayer money. Even the few people who actually end up on the street would still be fine, because food pantries exist,

Food pantries are already streched to their limits with the food stamp cuts that have recently been instituted in the U.S.:
Food pantries stretched to breaking point by food stamp cuts

I already explained that the Food Stamps were being used by businesses to pay lower amounts, of course more people would head to food pantries due to that problem. Food Stamps shouldn't have been introduced in the first place.

You have shown no evidence that removing food stamps would get businesses to pay higher wages. Nor have you shown that everyone who relies on food stamps would be able to find employment. Every country I have heard of whose minimum wage is abysmal and which has no social safety net contends with this:

And this:

Is that what you think will make America "Great Again"?

You've shown no evidence it would happen.

It's already happened before...
Great Depression - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You already showed you understood businesses were using Food Stamps to pay lower wages.

I think it's more that the only jobs many people can find pay so little that they require food stamps just to make ends meet...

 

[phoenyx]

Conversely, many employers and corporations care primarily about acquiring money, not about their employees.

Employees aren't pets, they don't need to care. Being an employee or an employer is simply conducting business.

You're right, employees aren't employers' pets. Employers frequently treat them far less kindly. The results are truly heart wrenching...
The Fallout of Workers’ Comp ‘Reforms’: 5 Tales of Harm

 

[phoenyx]

That actually depends upon what your point of view is based on...

If we define communism the way you are defining it, certainly. If we define it the way millions of people defined it during the cold war, however, you would be mistaken.

The way I'm defining it being the actual given definition. They only called it Communism because it was the government the Communist party created.

I see that you continue to cling to this notion that there is only one definition of Communism. That's simply not the case. To give an example, dictionary.com has 4:
**1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2. (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
3. (initial capital letter) the principles and practices of the Communist Party.
4. communalism.**

Source: the definition of communism

Maybe we need Karl Marx to define it. As defined by him, as I explained before, it has NO classes, people within the government are within a class, this would prevent everyone from being equal, because those people in the government would have power. As defined by the man who inspired this ideology, it has no government.

Maybe -you- need Karl Marx to define it, but I am happy with their being more then one definition of the word ;-)...

The word "Communism" comes from the term "Common ownership", which is defined as collective ownership under no one person's name. Differing from "Public" in the sense that the government doesn't own it or regulate it. If the government owned it, it would not be "Common Ownership". Again, showing that Soviet Russia was not Communist.

I believe you are too focused on minutiae here. The bottom line is that millions if not billions of people viewed the U.S.S.R. as a communist country. Whether those who invented the word would have balked at the thought that the U.S.S.R. was, in fact, a communist country, is irrelevant. The meaning of words change all the time. To quote a line from Frank Herbert: "Words can carry any burden we wish. All that's required is agreement and a tradition upon which to build." I think the important thing here is that we both agree that the U.S.S.R. was a failure, however we wish to define its form of government.

 

[phoenyx]

It's already been shown to work (I trust you took a look at the link I provided above), and I think it would gain a lot more traction if it weren't for the fact that most money is produced by the banks, and what little remains is produced by the government.

Except it wasn't shown to work,

Guess we'll have to disagree there...

and I already explained why it doesn't work earlier in the thread.

So you say -.-...

No, we don't agree, if that were the case Unions wouldn't work the way they do.

Not sure why you don't agree, but I certainly agree that Unions certainly wouldn't work they do now. We would cease to have schizophrenic companies, with opposing sides trying to get better deals from each other, and instead have a single organization that looks after all its workers, whatever their position in the company, as if they were family. It would also democratize companies, something which I think is sorely lacking.

 

[phoenyx]

If you work hard, you succeed.

To quote a line from What it's like, "it usually depends on where you start". Some articles you may wish to take a look at:
Why you can't "bootstrap" yourself out of poverty

Why Don't Homeless People Just Get Jobs?

Where you start doesn't matter.

I doubt you took a look at the articles above...

Anyone can succeed.

You can say this all you like, but without evidence backing it up, it's just an unsubstantiated opinion.

 

[phoenyx]

If you work hard, you succeed.

To quote a line from What it's like, "it usually depends on where you start". Some articles you may wish to take a look at:
Why you can't "bootstrap" yourself out of poverty

Why Don't Homeless People Just Get Jobs?

Micheal Jordan

Sam Walton

Enough said

How does your naming 2 people who managed to become fairly successful from modest means invalidate the statement that where you end up "usually depends on where you start"? Also, did you read the articles I linked to above?