Theories on how to efficiently run an economy

[Pumpkin Row]

There was a stock bubble for starters. Where was the self regulation there ?
Capitalism is inherently stable and self-regulating? Sure, it just needs a crash to get on track again.
That's like saying a blind man is on course. Sure he will correct course once he bumps into a wall ... or falls from a cliff.
Terrorists? Gimme a break , the stock had already crashed by 9/11/2001.

Even if that were the case, Socialism IS a crash.
Really? Do you know what socialist countries are out there? Lets take a look and see if we can help educate you.

"Below, you will see some of the most socialistic nations in the world today:

• 
  
  
  • China.
  • Denmark.
  • Finland.
  • Netherlands.
  • Canada.
  • Sweden.
  • Norway.
  • Ireland."

blog.peerform.com/top-ten-most-socialist-countries-in-the-world/
Uh, they are hardly crashes, dipshit...

Rshermr, I imagine you are making some good points- I certainly don't consider my own country Canada to be a 'crash', and I know that Pumpkin has stated that she detests socialists and brands a lot of people here (including myself) as such. But I don't think that using base insults against our opponents is going to help anything. I'm -really- averse to insulting young people, I certainly wouldn't want to be considered a bad influence on their language -.-

Even if he made any good points, it doesn't matter. I blocked him for degenerating a debate into a dumping contest. Not interested in posters that substitute debates for insults.

Are you saying you haven't insulted anyone here ;-)? That being said, I think I understand. We all have limits as to how much insults we're willing to take. I've rarely blocked someone, but I have certainly stopped (or nearly stopped) responding to certain individuals in the past and I can easily imagine myself doing so in the future.

I consider calling someone a Socialist an insult, so I have. On the other hand, I don't substitute the entire discussion for it, nor do I add an insult to every post or sentence, like he does.

 

[ChrisL]

There was a stock bubble for starters. Where was the self regulation there ?
Capitalism is inherently stable and self-regulating? Sure, it just needs a crash to get on track again.
That's like saying a blind man is on course. Sure he will correct course once he bumps into a wall ... or falls from a cliff.
Terrorists? Gimme a break , the stock had already crashed by 9/11/2001.

Even if that were the case, Socialism IS a crash.
Really? Do you know what socialist countries are out there? Lets take a look and see if we can help educate you.

"Below, you will see some of the most socialistic nations in the world today:

• 
  
  
  • China.
  • Denmark.
  • Finland.
  • Netherlands.
  • Canada.
  • Sweden.
  • Norway.
  • Ireland."

blog.peerform.com/top-ten-most-socialist-countries-in-the-world/
Uh, they are hardly crashes, dipshit...

Rshermr, I imagine you are making some good points- I certainly don't consider my own country Canada to be a 'crash', and I know that Pumpkin has stated that she detests socialists and brands a lot of people here (including myself) as such. But I don't think that using base insults against our opponents is going to help anything. I'm -really- averse to insulting young people, I certainly wouldn't want to be considered a bad influence on their language -.-

Even if he made any good points, it doesn't matter. I blocked him for degenerating a debate into a dumping contest. Not interested in posters that substitute debates for insults.

Are you saying you haven't insulted anyone here ;-)? That being said, I think I understand. We all have limits as to how much insults we're willing to take. I've rarely blocked someone, but I have certainly stopped (or nearly stopped) responding to certain individuals in the past and I can easily imagine myself doing so in the future.

Meh, she's just a kid. She is more mild that some of other allegedly adult posters. Lol.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

We can agree Russia never implemented the ultimate goals of communism. But the U.S.S.R. definitely considered -itself- to be a communist country, as denoted by the fact that the only allowed party was the communist party. Communism as practiced by the U.S.S.R. is recognized by many as a failure, even by Russia itself now.

I consider myself a princess, that doesn't make me one. I could also try to be a princess, but until that goal is achieved, I wouldn't be one.

The definition of a princess that you'll tend to find in a dictionary or wikipedia is that she is either the daughter of a monarch, or the wife or widow of a prince. However, is that always a good thing? If we look at how monarchs came to be monarchs, it's frequently not a pretty story, nor have all princess and princesses been role models. Along this vein, their is an insulting definition of a princess as well:
**A girl that has been pampered, sheltered and spoiled her whole life to the extent that she has no friggin idea about the real world: "
With her hands on her hips, pouting mouth and a big boisterous umph, Dana shows her princess side whenever she doesn't get exactly what she wants when she wants it."**

Source: Urban Dictionary: Princess

Conversely, many parents call their daughters princesses, or their sons little princes, in a very honorary sense, as to them, there is frequently no one more precious in the world then their children. Based on this, everyone could be considered a prince or a princess. This reminds me of a song from Sarah Mclaughlan that was released around the time my first niece was born, a few years before this new millennium, that talks of innocence, and questions whether we ever truly lose it...


Words are frequently very flexible creatures, and terms like princess and communism are no exception. To quote one of my favourite authors:
"Words can carry any burden we wish. All that's required is agreement and a tradition upon which to build."

You missed the entire point of my comparison. I was saying regardless of what someone considers themselves or anything else, that doesn't make it reality.

 

[phoenyx]

Even if that were the case, Socialism IS a crash.
Really? Do you know what socialist countries are out there? Lets take a look and see if we can help educate you.

"Below, you will see some of the most socialistic nations in the world today:

• 
  
  
  • China.
  • Denmark.
  • Finland.
  • Netherlands.
  • Canada.
  • Sweden.
  • Norway.
  • Ireland."

blog.peerform.com/top-ten-most-socialist-countries-in-the-world/
Uh, they are hardly crashes, dipshit...

Rshermr, I imagine you are making some good points- I certainly don't consider my own country Canada to be a 'crash', and I know that Pumpkin has stated that she detests socialists and brands a lot of people here (including myself) as such. But I don't think that using base insults against our opponents is going to help anything. I'm -really- averse to insulting young people, I certainly wouldn't want to be considered a bad influence on their language -.-

Even if he made any good points, it doesn't matter. I blocked him for degenerating a debate into a dumping contest. Not interested in posters that substitute debates for insults.

Are you saying you haven't insulted anyone here ;-)? That being said, I think I understand. We all have limits as to how much insults we're willing to take. I've rarely blocked someone, but I have certainly stopped (or nearly stopped) responding to certain individuals in the past and I can easily imagine myself doing so in the future.

Meh, she's just a kid. She is more mild that some of other allegedly adult posters. Lol.

Very true, laugh .

 

[phoenyx]

We can agree Russia never implemented the ultimate goals of communism. But the U.S.S.R. definitely considered -itself- to be a communist country, as denoted by the fact that the only allowed party was the communist party. Communism as practiced by the U.S.S.R. is recognized by many as a failure, even by Russia itself now.

I consider myself a princess, that doesn't make me one. I could also try to be a princess, but until that goal is achieved, I wouldn't be one.

The definition of a princess that you'll tend to find in a dictionary or wikipedia is that she is either the daughter of a monarch, or the wife or widow of a prince. However, is that always a good thing? If we look at how monarchs came to be monarchs, it's frequently not a pretty story, nor have all princess and princesses been role models. Along this vein, their is an insulting definition of a princess as well:
**A girl that has been pampered, sheltered and spoiled her whole life to the extent that she has no friggin idea about the real world: "
With her hands on her hips, pouting mouth and a big boisterous umph, Dana shows her princess side whenever she doesn't get exactly what she wants when she wants it."**

Source: Urban Dictionary: Princess

Conversely, many parents call their daughters princesses, or their sons little princes, in a very honorary sense, as to them, there is frequently no one more precious in the world then their children. Based on this, everyone could be considered a prince or a princess. This reminds me of a song from Sarah Mclaughlan that was released around the time my first niece was born, a few years before this new millennium, that talks of innocence, and questions whether we ever truly lose it...


Words are frequently very flexible creatures, and terms like princess and communism are no exception. To quote one of my favourite authors:
"Words can carry any burden we wish. All that's required is agreement and a tradition upon which to build."

You missed the entire point of my comparison. I was saying regardless of what someone considers themselves or anything else, that doesn't make it reality.

My father once said, "The line between imagination and reality is more imaginary then real". I'd say this is especially true when it comes to the definitions of words. Words can (and do) mean whatever we want them to mean. As Frank Herbert once said: "All that's required is agreement and a tradition upon which to build."

 

[Pumpkin Row]

We can agree Russia never implemented the ultimate goals of communism. But the U.S.S.R. definitely considered -itself- to be a communist country, as denoted by the fact that the only allowed party was the communist party. Communism as practiced by the U.S.S.R. is recognized by many as a failure, even by Russia itself now.

I consider myself a princess, that doesn't make me one. I could also try to be a princess, but until that goal is achieved, I wouldn't be one.

The definition of a princess that you'll tend to find in a dictionary or wikipedia is that she is either the daughter of a monarch, or the wife or widow of a prince. However, is that always a good thing? If we look at how monarchs came to be monarchs, it's frequently not a pretty story, nor have all princess and princesses been role models. Along this vein, their is an insulting definition of a princess as well:
**A girl that has been pampered, sheltered and spoiled her whole life to the extent that she has no friggin idea about the real world: "
With her hands on her hips, pouting mouth and a big boisterous umph, Dana shows her princess side whenever she doesn't get exactly what she wants when she wants it."**

Source: Urban Dictionary: Princess

Conversely, many parents call their daughters princesses, or their sons little princes, in a very honorary sense, as to them, there is frequently no one more precious in the world then their children. Based on this, everyone could be considered a prince or a princess. This reminds me of a song from Sarah Mclaughlan that was released around the time my first niece was born, a few years before this new millennium, that talks of innocence, and questions whether we ever truly lose it...


Words are frequently very flexible creatures, and terms like princess and communism are no exception. To quote one of my favourite authors:
"Words can carry any burden we wish. All that's required is agreement and a tradition upon which to build."

You missed the entire point of my comparison. I was saying regardless of what someone considers themselves or anything else, that doesn't make it reality.

My father once said, "The line between imagination and reality is more imaginary then real". I'd say this is especially true when it comes to the definitions of words. Words can (and do) mean whatever we want them to mean. As Frank Herbert once said: "All that's required is agreement and a tradition upon which to build."

Yeah, no. Words have definitions for a reason. This is just a way to backtrack and say you weren't wrong. Russia's government and economic system fits the definition of Socialist, and lacks every component of Communism. You can't change the meaning of a word. You've lost this debate.

 

[phoenyx]

I'm going to try a rather novel 'argument' to try to persuade some here to pay more attention to the plight of the poor. The video and the lyrics have some rather coarse language though, so it's not for everyone. It's a video called "What's it's like" from Everlast, and the lyrics contained therein are below it. I think the essence of it is the same as the essence John Donne's "No Man is and Island" poem...


**We've all seen the man at the liquor store beggin' for your change
The hair on his face is dirty, dreadlocked and full of mange
He asked a man for what he could spare with shame in his eyes
"Get a job, you fuckin' slob"'s all he replied

[CHORUS]
God forbid you ever had to walk a mile in his shoes
'Cause then you really might know what it's like to sing the blues
Then you really might know what it's like [4x]

Mary got pregnant from a kid named Tom who said he was in love
He said, "Don't worry about a thing, baby doll, I'm the man you've been dreamin' of."
But three months later he said he won't date her or return her call
And she sweared, "God damn if I find that man I'm cuttin' off his balls."
And then she heads for the clinic and she gets some static walkin' through the door.
They call her a killer, and they call her a sinner, and they call her a whore

[CHORUS]
God forbid you ever had to walk a mile in her shoes
'Cause then you really might know what it's like to have to choose
Then you really might know what it's like [4x]

I've seen a rich man beg
I've seen a good man sin
I've seen a tough man cry

I've seen a loser win
And a sad man grin
I heard an honest man lie

I've seen the good side of bad
And the down side of up
And everything between

I licked the silver spoon
Drank from the golden cup
Smoked the finest green

I stroked the baddest dimes
At least a couple of times
Before I broke their heart

You know where it ends
Yo, it usually depends
On where you start

I knew this kid named Max
He used to get fat stacks
Out on the corner with drugs

He liked to hang out late
He liked to get shit faced
And keep pace with thugs

Until late one night
There was a big gun fight
Max lost his head

He pulled out his Chrome .45
Talked some shit
And wound up dead

And now his wife and his kids
Are caught in the midst
Of all of his pain

You know it comes that way
At least that's what they say
When you play the game

[CHORUS]
God forbid you ever had to wake up to hear the news
'Cause then you really might know what it's like to have to lose
Then you really might know what it's like [3x]
To have to lose...**

 

[phoenyx]

We can agree Russia never implemented the ultimate goals of communism. But the U.S.S.R. definitely considered -itself- to be a communist country, as denoted by the fact that the only allowed party was the communist party. Communism as practiced by the U.S.S.R. is recognized by many as a failure, even by Russia itself now.

I consider myself a princess, that doesn't make me one. I could also try to be a princess, but until that goal is achieved, I wouldn't be one.

The definition of a princess that you'll tend to find in a dictionary or wikipedia is that she is either the daughter of a monarch, or the wife or widow of a prince. However, is that always a good thing? If we look at how monarchs came to be monarchs, it's frequently not a pretty story, nor have all princess and princesses been role models. Along this vein, their is an insulting definition of a princess as well:
**A girl that has been pampered, sheltered and spoiled her whole life to the extent that she has no friggin idea about the real world: "
With her hands on her hips, pouting mouth and a big boisterous umph, Dana shows her princess side whenever she doesn't get exactly what she wants when she wants it."**

Source: Urban Dictionary: Princess

Conversely, many parents call their daughters princesses, or their sons little princes, in a very honorary sense, as to them, there is frequently no one more precious in the world then their children. Based on this, everyone could be considered a prince or a princess. This reminds me of a song from Sarah Mclaughlan that was released around the time my first niece was born, a few years before this new millennium, that talks of innocence, and questions whether we ever truly lose it...


Words are frequently very flexible creatures, and terms like princess and communism are no exception. To quote one of my favourite authors:
"Words can carry any burden we wish. All that's required is agreement and a tradition upon which to build."

You missed the entire point of my comparison. I was saying regardless of what someone considers themselves or anything else, that doesn't make it reality.

My father once said, "The line between imagination and reality is more imaginary then real". I'd say this is especially true when it comes to the definitions of words. Words can (and do) mean whatever we want them to mean. As Frank Herbert once said: "All that's required is agreement and a tradition upon which to build."

Yeah, no. Words have definitions for a reason. This is just a way to backtrack and say you weren't wrong. Russia's government and economic system fits the definition of Socialist, and lacks every component of Communism. You can't change the meaning of a word. You've lost this debate.

Yes, words certainly have definitions for a reason. What I'm trying to explain is that some words have more then one definition. It all depends on who's defining the word. Now, as a general rule, we can discount definitions of words that are only held by a few people. But the U.S.S.R. was hardly a few people, and frankly, most people considered the U.S.S.R. a communist country, not a socialist one, which is why the "Red Scare" focused on communism, not socialism:
Red Scare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Pumpkin Row]

I consider myself a princess, that doesn't make me one. I could also try to be a princess, but until that goal is achieved, I wouldn't be one.

The definition of a princess that you'll tend to find in a dictionary or wikipedia is that she is either the daughter of a monarch, or the wife or widow of a prince. However, is that always a good thing? If we look at how monarchs came to be monarchs, it's frequently not a pretty story, nor have all princess and princesses been role models. Along this vein, their is an insulting definition of a princess as well:
**A girl that has been pampered, sheltered and spoiled her whole life to the extent that she has no friggin idea about the real world: "
With her hands on her hips, pouting mouth and a big boisterous umph, Dana shows her princess side whenever she doesn't get exactly what she wants when she wants it."**

Source: Urban Dictionary: Princess

Conversely, many parents call their daughters princesses, or their sons little princes, in a very honorary sense, as to them, there is frequently no one more precious in the world then their children. Based on this, everyone could be considered a prince or a princess. This reminds me of a song from Sarah Mclaughlan that was released around the time my first niece was born, a few years before this new millennium, that talks of innocence, and questions whether we ever truly lose it...


Words are frequently very flexible creatures, and terms like princess and communism are no exception. To quote one of my favourite authors:
"Words can carry any burden we wish. All that's required is agreement and a tradition upon which to build."

You missed the entire point of my comparison. I was saying regardless of what someone considers themselves or anything else, that doesn't make it reality.

My father once said, "The line between imagination and reality is more imaginary then real". I'd say this is especially true when it comes to the definitions of words. Words can (and do) mean whatever we want them to mean. As Frank Herbert once said: "All that's required is agreement and a tradition upon which to build."

Yeah, no. Words have definitions for a reason. This is just a way to backtrack and say you weren't wrong. Russia's government and economic system fits the definition of Socialist, and lacks every component of Communism. You can't change the meaning of a word. You've lost this debate.

Yes, words certainly have definitions for a reason. What I'm trying to explain is that some words have more then one definition. It all depends on who's defining the word. Now, as a general rule, we can discount definitions of words that are only held by a few people. But the U.S.S.R. was hardly a few people, and frankly, most people considered the U.S.S.R. a communist country, not a socialist one, which is why the "Red Scare" focused on communism, not socialism:
Red Scare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As I explained, there's no debate here, because they lacked every component of Communism. They also had the components of Socialism, all of them. You have to redefine the words in order to change that. They called it Communism because of the Communist party, even though they hadn't changed the government structure to Communism. Why? Because if they did, they'd lose all of the power they had gained by making it Socialist.

 

[phoenyx]

The definition of a princess that you'll tend to find in a dictionary or wikipedia is that she is either the daughter of a monarch, or the wife or widow of a prince. However, is that always a good thing? If we look at how monarchs came to be monarchs, it's frequently not a pretty story, nor have all princess and princesses been role models. Along this vein, their is an insulting definition of a princess as well:
**A girl that has been pampered, sheltered and spoiled her whole life to the extent that she has no friggin idea about the real world: "
With her hands on her hips, pouting mouth and a big boisterous umph, Dana shows her princess side whenever she doesn't get exactly what she wants when she wants it."**

Source: Urban Dictionary: Princess

Conversely, many parents call their daughters princesses, or their sons little princes, in a very honorary sense, as to them, there is frequently no one more precious in the world then their children. Based on this, everyone could be considered a prince or a princess. This reminds me of a song from Sarah Mclaughlan that was released around the time my first niece was born, a few years before this new millennium, that talks of innocence, and questions whether we ever truly lose it...


Words are frequently very flexible creatures, and terms like princess and communism are no exception. To quote one of my favourite authors:
"Words can carry any burden we wish. All that's required is agreement and a tradition upon which to build."

You missed the entire point of my comparison. I was saying regardless of what someone considers themselves or anything else, that doesn't make it reality.

My father once said, "The line between imagination and reality is more imaginary then real". I'd say this is especially true when it comes to the definitions of words. Words can (and do) mean whatever we want them to mean. As Frank Herbert once said: "All that's required is agreement and a tradition upon which to build."

Yeah, no. Words have definitions for a reason. This is just a way to backtrack and say you weren't wrong. Russia's government and economic system fits the definition of Socialist, and lacks every component of Communism. You can't change the meaning of a word. You've lost this debate.

Yes, words certainly have definitions for a reason. What I'm trying to explain is that some words have more then one definition. It all depends on who's defining the word. Now, as a general rule, we can discount definitions of words that are only held by a few people. But the U.S.S.R. was hardly a few people, and frankly, most people considered the U.S.S.R. a communist country, not a socialist one, which is why the "Red Scare" focused on communism, not socialism:
Red Scare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As I explained, there's no debate here, because they lacked every component of Communism.

By some definitions, perhaps, but clearly not by the definitions of most people who were around during the cold war between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. In Wikipedia's article on Communism, there's actually a point where it uses the terms communism and socialism as if they were 2 sides of the same coin:
**The 1917 October Revolution in Russia set the conditions for the rise to state power of Lenin's Bolsheviks, which was the first time any avowedly communist party reached that position. The revolution transferred power to the All-Russian Congress of Soviets,[15][16][17] in which the Bolsheviks had a majority. The event generated a great deal of practical and theoretical debate within the Marxist movement. Marx predicted that socialism and communism would be built upon foundations laid by the most advanced capitalist development. Russia, however, was one of the poorest countries in Europe with an enormous, largely illiterate peasantry and a minority of industrial workers. Marx had explicitly stated that Russia might be able to skip the stage of bourgeois rule.[18] Other socialists also believed that a Russian revolution could be the precursor of workers' revolutions in the West.

The moderate Mensheviks opposed Lenin's Bolshevik plan for socialist revolution before capitalism was more fully developed. The Bolsheviks' successful rise to power was based upon the slogans such as "Peace, bread, and land" which tapped the massive public desire for an end to Russian involvement in the First World War, the peasants' demand for land reform, and popular support for the Soviets.[19]

The Second International had dissolved in 1916 over national divisions, as the separate national parties that composed it did not maintain a unified front against the war, instead generally supporting their respective nation's role. Lenin thus created the Third International (Comintern) in 1919 and sent the Twenty-one Conditions, which included democratic centralism, to all European socialist parties willing to adhere. In France, for example, the majority of theFrench Section of the Workers' International (SFIO) party split in 1921 to form the French Section of the Communist International (SFIC). Henceforth, the term "Communism" was applied to the objective of the parties founded under the umbrella of the Comintern. Their program called for the uniting of workers of the world for revolution, which would be followed by the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat as well as the development of a socialist economy.**

Source: Communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Pumpkin Row]

You missed the entire point of my comparison. I was saying regardless of what someone considers themselves or anything else, that doesn't make it reality.

My father once said, "The line between imagination and reality is more imaginary then real". I'd say this is especially true when it comes to the definitions of words. Words can (and do) mean whatever we want them to mean. As Frank Herbert once said: "All that's required is agreement and a tradition upon which to build."

Yeah, no. Words have definitions for a reason. This is just a way to backtrack and say you weren't wrong. Russia's government and economic system fits the definition of Socialist, and lacks every component of Communism. You can't change the meaning of a word. You've lost this debate.

Yes, words certainly have definitions for a reason. What I'm trying to explain is that some words have more then one definition. It all depends on who's defining the word. Now, as a general rule, we can discount definitions of words that are only held by a few people. But the U.S.S.R. was hardly a few people, and frankly, most people considered the U.S.S.R. a communist country, not a socialist one, which is why the "Red Scare" focused on communism, not socialism:
Red Scare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As I explained, there's no debate here, because they lacked every component of Communism.

By some definitions, perhaps, but clearly not by the definitions of most people who were around during the cold war between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. In Wikipedia's article on Communism, there's actually a point where it uses the terms communism and socialism as if they were 2 sides of the same coin:
**The 1917 October Revolution in Russia set the conditions for the rise to state power of Lenin's Bolsheviks, which was the first time any avowedly communist party reached that position. The revolution transferred power to the All-Russian Congress of Soviets,[15][16][17] in which the Bolsheviks had a majority. The event generated a great deal of practical and theoretical debate within the Marxist movement. Marx predicted that socialism and communism would be built upon foundations laid by the most advanced capitalist development. Russia, however, was one of the poorest countries in Europe with an enormous, largely illiterate peasantry and a minority of industrial workers. Marx had explicitly stated that Russia might be able to skip the stage of bourgeois rule.[18] Other socialists also believed that a Russian revolution could be the precursor of workers' revolutions in the West.

The moderate Mensheviks opposed Lenin's Bolshevik plan for socialist revolution before capitalism was more fully developed. The Bolsheviks' successful rise to power was based upon the slogans such as "Peace, bread, and land" which tapped the massive public desire for an end to Russian involvement in the First World War, the peasants' demand for land reform, and popular support for the Soviets.[19]

The Second International had dissolved in 1916 over national divisions, as the separate national parties that composed it did not maintain a unified front against the war, instead generally supporting their respective nation's role. Lenin thus created the Third International (Comintern) in 1919 and sent the Twenty-one Conditions, which included democratic centralism, to all European socialist parties willing to adhere. In France, for example, the majority of theFrench Section of the Workers' International (SFIO) party split in 1921 to form the French Section of the Communist International (SFIC). Henceforth, the term "Communism" was applied to the objective of the parties founded under the umbrella of the Comintern. Their program called for the uniting of workers of the world for revolution, which would be followed by the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat as well as the development of a socialist economy.**

Source: Communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Technically they are two sides of the same coin, in the sense that neither one is a functioning system that can actually succeed. Also, the fact that you're acknowledging the Wikipedia article as a reliable source also means you acknowledge that their system lacked every component of Communism. What you're doing is twisting words in an attempt to sound correct, when in actuality by definition their system was Socialist, as it had every component of the system. The fact is that a system is what it has the most components of, or the components that take the most importance. The second part hardly matters, because again, they had no Communist components.

 

[Rshermr]

There was a stock bubble for starters. Where was the self regulation there ?
Capitalism is inherently stable and self-regulating? Sure, it just needs a crash to get on track again.
That's like saying a blind man is on course. Sure he will correct course once he bumps into a wall ... or falls from a cliff.
Terrorists? Gimme a break , the stock had already crashed by 9/11/2001.

Even if that were the case, Socialism IS a crash.
Really? Do you know what socialist countries are out there? Lets take a look and see if we can help educate you.

"Below, you will see some of the most socialistic nations in the world today:

• 
  
  
  • China.
  • Denmark.
  • Finland.
  • Netherlands.
  • Canada.
  • Sweden.
  • Norway.
  • Ireland."

blog.peerform.com/top-ten-most-socialist-countries-in-the-world/
Uh, they are hardly crashes, dipshit.

It destroys every Nation stupid enough to practice it. Really, are you stupid enough to think those countries listed above were destroyed by socialism, dipshit?

On the upside, at least you are a great example of what NOT to think.

So, again for your education (if that is possible) what economic types do you recognize as real. In general, economists recognize:
1. Pure Capitalism (Libertarianism) Does not exist in real life.
2. Mixed economies mostly Capitalist The US
3. Socialist Mixed See above
4. Socialist See above
5. Communist Viet Nam and a couple others. Bound to fail.

Those were not countries that crashed because they are socialist, dipshit. They crashed for lots of reasons. I mean, jesus, lets take a look at your ignorance:
Most of these counties are failure prior to becoming socialist. Others are not. And I notice you produced a list with no link. Which proves you to be dishonest. Those that are not third world countries, such as Germany, are doing quite well, dipshit. Got a link, me dishonest con troll. You see, dipshit, any person with any integrity would provide a link to a impartial source. Is that beyond you?


Afghanistan(Twice), Albania(Three times), Angola, Benin, Bulgaria, Cambodia(Twice), Congo-Brazzaville, Czechoslovakia(twice), Ethiopia(twice), Germany, Hungary, North Korea, Mongolia, Mozambique, Poland, Romania, Somalia, Russia, North Vietnam, South Yemen, Yugoslavia, Venezuela, Greece. A list of Socialist failures just for you.

Socialism is bound to fail also. Hardly. That is nonsense. Goldman Sachs is foreclosing on China, Really. Got a source, me lying con troll? Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, and Ireland are on the fast track to failing, or converting to systems closer to the US, Really. Got a source, me lying con troll? and Canada used to have people coming over to the United States for healthcare. Another lie, me lying con troll. Again, no link for obvious reasons.
You, me con troll, are far from an expert on anything. Especially economics. Saying things with no proof and just asking someone to believe you simply makes you look stupid. Which I assume you are. So, nice try but you loose. You do not know what socialism is, or what communism is, or that there is any difference. Because you are an idiot. You suggest that the US is capitalistic, but can not express why. Because you are an idiot.

Expecting people to believe me? No, I don't expect anything from Socialists, aside from ignorance and the routes of national destruction. You'll see Goldman Sachs foreclose on China soon enough, I don't need to show you. They have massive debt that's increasing rapidly.

The mere fact that Socialism can't work is enough evidence in and of itself, but there's also the fact that businesses will eventually leave due to regulations and taxes. You can only feed failure off the backs of success for so long before the workers decide they're done. At that point, they pull a Russia and try to replace industry with government, at which point they can't sustain themselves, like Russia. Though, debating with you is pointless, because if Socialists could learn from the past, they wouldn't exist today.

Ed, you are famous for discussing topics without a Iota of evidence to support your words.
The bottom line here: there is significant evidence that capitalism is not stable by itself.
It can be argued that government intervention caused the crash ( predatory lending notwithstanding).
But then , what about the 2001 crisis ? Was that too fueled by government intervention?

9/11, and the Federal Reserve Fund caused too much money to be channeled into higher asset prices like real estate and stocks rather than the price of consumer goods. So, yeah, terrorism and the government.

There was a stock bubble for starters. Where was the self regulation there ?
Capitalism is inherently stable and self-regulating? Sure, it just needs a crash to get on track again.
That's like saying a blind man is on course. Sure he will correct course once he bumps into a wall ... or falls from a cliff.
Terrorists? Gimme a break , the stock had already crashed by 9/11/2001.

Even if that were the case, Socialism IS a crash.
Really? Do you know what socialist countries are out there? Lets take a look and see if we can help educate you.

"Below, you will see some of the most socialistic nations in the world today:

• 
  
  
  • China.
  • Denmark.
  • Finland.
  • Netherlands.
  • Canada.
  • Sweden.
  • Norway.
  • Ireland."

blog.peerform.com/top-ten-most-socialist-countries-in-the-world/
Uh, they are hardly crashes, dipshit...

Rshermr, I imagine you are making some good points- I certainly don't consider my own country Canada to be a 'crash', and I know that Pumpkin has stated that she detests socialists and brands a lot of people here (including myself) as such. But I don't think that using base insults against our opponents is going to help anything. I'm -really- averse to insulting young people, I certainly wouldn't want to be considered a bad influence on their language -.-

Our point of difference is that I do not consider pumpkin an opponent. I consider her/he/it a con troll, which I recognize based on her posts. So, I do not accept con trolls saying something as true to be anything of import. They, being non experts and recognized as non experts, as having anything to say that is true based on their saying it. In other words, if you want me to believe something, use a valid provable argument. Period. And if you are making unprovable arguments, you are wasting people's time for reasons that I do not accept. Primarily because of agenda. And if you are posting things as facts which are simply talking points favoring your agenda, then you deserve what you get. In other words, have the integrity to be able to prove what you say.

 

[phoenyx]

Rshermr, I imagine you are making some good points- I certainly don't consider my own country Canada to be a 'crash', and I know that Pumpkin has stated that she detests socialists and brands a lot of people here (including myself) as such. But I don't think that using base insults against our opponents is going to help anything. I'm -really- averse to insulting young people, I certainly wouldn't want to be considered a bad influence on their language -.-

Our point of difference is that I do not consider

Ok, again that's fine, my real point is just that I think it would have been better if you'd avoided the base insults against Pumpkin. That's the type of thing that can get a conversational opponent to tune a person out, as a matter of fact, she's now said that she's blocked you.

 

[Indeependent]

Rshermr, I imagine you are making some good points- I certainly don't consider my own country Canada to be a 'crash', and I know that Pumpkin has stated that she detests socialists and brands a lot of people here (including myself) as such. But I don't think that using base insults against our opponents is going to help anything. I'm -really- averse to insulting young people, I certainly wouldn't want to be considered a bad influence on their language -.-

Our point of difference is that I do not consider

Ok, again that's fine, my real point is just that I think it would have been better if you'd avoided the base insults against Pumpkin. That's the type of thing that can get a conversational opponent to tune a person out, as a matter of fact, she's now said that she's blocked you.

Pumpkin's a troll.

 

[phoenyx]

My father once said, "The line between imagination and reality is more imaginary then real". I'd say this is especially true when it comes to the definitions of words. Words can (and do) mean whatever we want them to mean. As Frank Herbert once said: "All that's required is agreement and a tradition upon which to build."

Yeah, no. Words have definitions for a reason. This is just a way to backtrack and say you weren't wrong. Russia's government and economic system fits the definition of Socialist, and lacks every component of Communism. You can't change the meaning of a word. You've lost this debate.

Yes, words certainly have definitions for a reason. What I'm trying to explain is that some words have more then one definition. It all depends on who's defining the word. Now, as a general rule, we can discount definitions of words that are only held by a few people. But the U.S.S.R. was hardly a few people, and frankly, most people considered the U.S.S.R. a communist country, not a socialist one, which is why the "Red Scare" focused on communism, not socialism:
Red Scare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As I explained, there's no debate here, because they lacked every component of Communism.

By some definitions, perhaps, but clearly not by the definitions of most people who were around during the cold war between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. In Wikipedia's article on Communism, there's actually a point where it uses the terms communism and socialism as if they were 2 sides of the same coin:
**The 1917 October Revolution in Russia set the conditions for the rise to state power of Lenin's Bolsheviks, which was the first time any avowedly communist party reached that position. The revolution transferred power to the All-Russian Congress of Soviets,[15][16][17] in which the Bolsheviks had a majority. The event generated a great deal of practical and theoretical debate within the Marxist movement. Marx predicted that socialism and communism would be built upon foundations laid by the most advanced capitalist development. Russia, however, was one of the poorest countries in Europe with an enormous, largely illiterate peasantry and a minority of industrial workers. Marx had explicitly stated that Russia might be able to skip the stage of bourgeois rule.[18] Other socialists also believed that a Russian revolution could be the precursor of workers' revolutions in the West.

The moderate Mensheviks opposed Lenin's Bolshevik plan for socialist revolution before capitalism was more fully developed. The Bolsheviks' successful rise to power was based upon the slogans such as "Peace, bread, and land" which tapped the massive public desire for an end to Russian involvement in the First World War, the peasants' demand for land reform, and popular support for the Soviets.[19]

The Second International had dissolved in 1916 over national divisions, as the separate national parties that composed it did not maintain a unified front against the war, instead generally supporting their respective nation's role. Lenin thus created the Third International (Comintern) in 1919 and sent the Twenty-one Conditions, which included democratic centralism, to all European socialist parties willing to adhere. In France, for example, the majority of theFrench Section of the Workers' International (SFIO) party split in 1921 to form the French Section of the Communist International (SFIC). Henceforth, the term "Communism" was applied to the objective of the parties founded under the umbrella of the Comintern. Their program called for the uniting of workers of the world for revolution, which would be followed by the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat as well as the development of a socialist economy.**

Source: Communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Technically they are two sides of the same coin, in the sense that neither one is a functioning system that can actually succeed. Also, the fact that you're acknowledging the Wikipedia article as a reliable source also means you acknowledge that their system lacked every component of Communism.

We've gone over that argument before- I mentioned that that was only the -ideal- of communism, and perhaps not even everyone's ideal. More importantly, both within and outside of the U.S.S.R., defined it as a communist country. I think Obi-Wan Kenobi from Star Wars said it best:
"what I told you was true... from a certain point of view."

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Rshermr, I imagine you are making some good points- I certainly don't consider my own country Canada to be a 'crash', and I know that Pumpkin has stated that she detests socialists and brands a lot of people here (including myself) as such. But I don't think that using base insults against our opponents is going to help anything. I'm -really- averse to insulting young people, I certainly wouldn't want to be considered a bad influence on their language -.-

Our point of difference is that I do not consider

Ok, again that's fine, my real point is just that I think it would have been better if you'd avoided the base insults against Pumpkin. That's the type of thing that can get a conversational opponent to tune a person out, as a matter of fact, she's now said that she's blocked you.

Pumpkin's a troll.

Apparently not being a Socialist whackjob and understanding how the economy works makes someone a troll. Excuse me while I try to phase all knowledge of history and the economy out of my mind so I can become a Socialist, that way, I can be part of the cancer that destroys Nations.

 

[phoenyx]

Rshermr, I imagine you are making some good points- I certainly don't consider my own country Canada to be a 'crash', and I know that Pumpkin has stated that she detests socialists and brands a lot of people here (including myself) as such. But I don't think that using base insults against our opponents is going to help anything. I'm -really- averse to insulting young people, I certainly wouldn't want to be considered a bad influence on their language -.-

Our point of difference is that I do not consider

Ok, again that's fine, my real point is just that I think it would have been better if you'd avoided the base insults against Pumpkin. That's the type of thing that can get a conversational opponent to tune a person out, as a matter of fact, she's now said that she's blocked you.

Pumpkin's a troll.

I don't believe that's the case, but if you -do- feel that way, you can, ofcourse, simply block her, just as Pumpkin blocked Rshermr.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Yeah, no. Words have definitions for a reason. This is just a way to backtrack and say you weren't wrong. Russia's government and economic system fits the definition of Socialist, and lacks every component of Communism. You can't change the meaning of a word. You've lost this debate.

Yes, words certainly have definitions for a reason. What I'm trying to explain is that some words have more then one definition. It all depends on who's defining the word. Now, as a general rule, we can discount definitions of words that are only held by a few people. But the U.S.S.R. was hardly a few people, and frankly, most people considered the U.S.S.R. a communist country, not a socialist one, which is why the "Red Scare" focused on communism, not socialism:
Red Scare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As I explained, there's no debate here, because they lacked every component of Communism.

By some definitions, perhaps, but clearly not by the definitions of most people who were around during the cold war between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. In Wikipedia's article on Communism, there's actually a point where it uses the terms communism and socialism as if they were 2 sides of the same coin:
**The 1917 October Revolution in Russia set the conditions for the rise to state power of Lenin's Bolsheviks, which was the first time any avowedly communist party reached that position. The revolution transferred power to the All-Russian Congress of Soviets,[15][16][17] in which the Bolsheviks had a majority. The event generated a great deal of practical and theoretical debate within the Marxist movement. Marx predicted that socialism and communism would be built upon foundations laid by the most advanced capitalist development. Russia, however, was one of the poorest countries in Europe with an enormous, largely illiterate peasantry and a minority of industrial workers. Marx had explicitly stated that Russia might be able to skip the stage of bourgeois rule.[18] Other socialists also believed that a Russian revolution could be the precursor of workers' revolutions in the West.

The moderate Mensheviks opposed Lenin's Bolshevik plan for socialist revolution before capitalism was more fully developed. The Bolsheviks' successful rise to power was based upon the slogans such as "Peace, bread, and land" which tapped the massive public desire for an end to Russian involvement in the First World War, the peasants' demand for land reform, and popular support for the Soviets.[19]

The Second International had dissolved in 1916 over national divisions, as the separate national parties that composed it did not maintain a unified front against the war, instead generally supporting their respective nation's role. Lenin thus created the Third International (Comintern) in 1919 and sent the Twenty-one Conditions, which included democratic centralism, to all European socialist parties willing to adhere. In France, for example, the majority of theFrench Section of the Workers' International (SFIO) party split in 1921 to form the French Section of the Communist International (SFIC). Henceforth, the term "Communism" was applied to the objective of the parties founded under the umbrella of the Comintern. Their program called for the uniting of workers of the world for revolution, which would be followed by the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat as well as the development of a socialist economy.**

Source: Communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Technically they are two sides of the same coin, in the sense that neither one is a functioning system that can actually succeed. Also, the fact that you're acknowledging the Wikipedia article as a reliable source also means you acknowledge that their system lacked every component of Communism.

We've gone over that argument before- I mentioned that that was only the -ideal- of communism, and perhaps not even everyone's ideal. More importantly, both within and outside of the U.S.S.R., defined it as a communist country. I think Obi-Wan Kenobi from Star Wars said it best:
"what I told you was true... from a certain point of view."

Points of view don't deal in facts. The USSR factually was Socialist, and factually were not using a Communist system. Maybe Communist ideals got them there, but when it came to giving up their powers to move from Socialist to Communist, they chose not to do it. Their system was Socialist, and never became Communist at any point.

 

[phoenyx]

Rshermr, I imagine you are making some good points- I certainly don't consider my own country Canada to be a 'crash', and I know that Pumpkin has stated that she detests socialists and brands a lot of people here (including myself) as such. But I don't think that using base insults against our opponents is going to help anything. I'm -really- averse to insulting young people, I certainly wouldn't want to be considered a bad influence on their language -.-

Our point of difference is that I do not consider

Ok, again that's fine, my real point is just that I think it would have been better if you'd avoided the base insults against Pumpkin. That's the type of thing that can get a conversational opponent to tune a person out, as a matter of fact, she's now said that she's blocked you.

Pumpkin's a troll.

Apparently not being a Socialist whackjob and understanding how the economy works makes someone a troll. Excuse me while I try to phase all knowledge of history and the economy out of my mind so I can become a Socialist, that way, I can be part of the cancer that destroys Nations.

Uh oh -.- Come on everyone, let's not give in to the dark side ;-). People have different points of views. Sometimes, debates can get heated, and people can forget that we're actually talking to fellow human beings, not "trolls" and "socialist whackjobs". Here's a nice little video, poking fun at Obi-Wan's "certain point of view" dialogue, but I think that contained therein is a very serious point:


Here's to hoping we can learn to accept the fact that just because we don't always agree with each other doesn't mean the other side deserves to be insulted. To quote Nietzsche:
"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you."

Source: Friedrich Nietzsche - Wikiquote

 

[Rshermr]

There was a stock bubble for starters. Where was the self regulation there ?
Capitalism is inherently stable and self-regulating? Sure, it just needs a crash to get on track again.
That's like saying a blind man is on course. Sure he will correct course once he bumps into a wall ... or falls from a cliff.
Terrorists? Gimme a break , the stock had already crashed by 9/11/2001.

Even if that were the case, Socialism IS a crash.
Really? Do you know what socialist countries are out there? Lets take a look and see if we can help educate you.

"Below, you will see some of the most socialistic nations in the world today:

• 
  
  
  • China.
  • Denmark.
  • Finland.
  • Netherlands.
  • Canada.
  • Sweden.
  • Norway.
  • Ireland."

blog.peerform.com/top-ten-most-socialist-countries-in-the-world/
Uh, they are hardly crashes, dipshit.

It destroys every Nation stupid enough to practice it. Really, are you stupid enough to think those countries listed above were destroyed by socialism, dipshit?

On the upside, at least you are a great example of what NOT to think.

So, again for your education (if that is possible) what economic types do you recognize as real. In general, economists recognize:
1. Pure Capitalism (Libertarianism) Does not exist in real life.
2. Mixed economies mostly Capitalist The US
3. Socialist Mixed See above
4. Socialist See above
5. Communist Viet Nam and a couple others. Bound to fail.

Those were not countries that crashed because they are socialist, dipshit. They crashed for lots of reasons. I mean, jesus, lets take a look at your ignorance:
Most of these counties are failure prior to becoming socialist. Others are not. And I notice you produced a list with no link. Which proves you to be dishonest. Those that are not third world countries, such as Germany, are doing quite well, dipshit. Got a link, me dishonest con troll. You see, dipshit, any person with any integrity would provide a link to a impartial source. Is that beyond you?


Afghanistan(Twice), Albania(Three times), Angola, Benin, Bulgaria, Cambodia(Twice), Congo-Brazzaville, Czechoslovakia(twice), Ethiopia(twice), Germany, Hungary, North Korea, Mongolia, Mozambique, Poland, Romania, Somalia, Russia, North Vietnam, South Yemen, Yugoslavia, Venezuela, Greece. A list of Socialist failures just for you.

Socialism is bound to fail also. Hardly. That is nonsense. Goldman Sachs is foreclosing on China, Really. Got a source, me lying con troll? Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, and Ireland are on the fast track to failing, or converting to systems closer to the US, Really. Got a source, me lying con troll? and Canada used to have people coming over to the United States for healthcare. Another lie, me lying con troll. Again, no link for obvious reasons.
You, me con troll, are far from an expert on anything. Especially economics. Saying things with no proof and just asking someone to believe you simply makes you look stupid. Which I assume you are. So, nice try but you loose. You do not know what socialism is, or what communism is, or that there is any difference. Because you are an idiot. You suggest that the US is capitalistic, but can not express why. Because you are an idiot.

Expecting people to believe me? No, I don't expect anything from Socialists, aside from ignorance and the routes of national destruction. So, you have no proof of what you say. Got it. If you could provide a link, you would have a chance of swaying me. Not having such a link tells me that you are simply using a con talking point, which is the same as lying. You'll see Goldman Sachs foreclose on China soon enough Goldman Sachs, I don't need to show you. They have massive debt that's increasing rapidly. Me poor ignorant con troll, Goldman Sachs could no more foreclose on China than a flea could eat a horse. That is simply a conservative talking point, which is why you are again unable to back up the stupid claim with a link. Are you ashamed of your sources, me poor con troll?

The mere fact that Socialism can't work is enough evidence in and of itself, I gave you 10 that are working just fine, me poor ignorant con troll. And all are top 35 successful nations. You loose.
but there's also the fact that businesses will eventually leave due to regulations and taxes.
Says you, the economic expert. Problem is, the trend is just the opposite. They are doing quite well, me girl. You can only feed failure off the backs of success for so long before the workers decide they're done. And again, you are saying things totally against all recent evidence. Got any proof? Of course not. At that point, they pull a Russia and try to replace industry with government, at which point they can't sustain themselves, like Russia.
Or they will just continue to succeed, me poor ignorant con troll. Though, debating with you is pointless, because if Socialists could learn from the past, they wouldn't exist today.
It is pointless, because you have no facts at all. Just the opinion of a person who has no basis to be believed. Just con talking points. I have an economic background and you have none. It is that simple.