Printable View
I would think it is fairly obvious that wealth is relative to wealth...Quote:
Relative to what?
@ CR - Who is to say Supply and Demand still wouldn't be in play? I believe that private industry has a role to play, albeit a much smaller one. Please show me where I or anyone else in this thread has said otherwise.
You do realize that, in the corporate world especially, the best decision is not always necessarily the most popular one.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
A much smaller one? That's the problem; the state would seize every important industry and so have no way to prioritize those industries. Letting supply and demand remain for a few trivial markets would be irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
Like I said, no answer.
Oh, I missed that before. So heaven forbid there's an unpopular group in the workforce that can get the shaft by the majority, huh?Quote:
(ie - the entire business is owned and operator by the workers using democracy as a decision-making tool)
And you do realize workers can own (part) of their companies just by buying stock?
CR
Yes, but nowhere near enough and not a high enough proportion to actually make a difference. Also that only goes for publicly listed companies.
Yep, you got it, wealth is realative to wealth. How does this fact help the argument of socialism?Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
The success of Socialism is also relative to wealth, and fails in societies where people are not so economically challenged to fall blind to its lies and utopian dreams.
I find it surprising that you are not contending my attack on socialism.
Too much truth in what I posted?
I know you believe in the end product of socialism, a society of equality in every aspect (an idea with flagrant diseregard to the differing abilities of human beings), but how should it be implemented?
Uhm, not really. The birth of modern capitalism comes from the transit from agarian to an industrial society.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
And more important, the basis the agriculture, industry and service sector has been existing for millenias, but after this shift you'll either need a new sector of a new system.
You do relize that, in the corporate world unpopular, bad decisions are done all the time? Particullary those "I'm da boss and I'm gonna ger rich(er) by screwing the company" (and by some reason they get actually get employed as da boss :dizzy2: ).Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Personally I feel that you'll need to balance the sence of competition with the sence of justice to get best system. Ignoring either has dire consequences.
You said that everyone gets equally poor. If wealth is relative and everyone is poor, then no one is poor, because everyone is equal. That was just me correcting you on a point. Nothing more, nothing less.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
Which lies would those be? Seriously - I don't know what you are referring to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
Well I see nothing worth me commenting on. Please, point something out. Also I am not able to spend all my day on the internet and there are many, many other things I would prefer to do than pick apart every small attack on my ideology.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
We can achieve it through Democratic means, with an expansion of state control in the economy, and where it is appropriate a decentralisation of the decision making process to unions and the workers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
Also to the people who have been saying that Socialism = Totalitarianism, I will remind you that homosexual rights, environmental activism, the pro-choice movement and many other progressive and anti-government control movements are inextricably linked with Socialism. Please do not equate Socialism with Totalitarianism. Think of it as big government.
ByQuote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
internationalevil capitalist standards, these people would be poor when they don't have to be.
Sorry, but you are incorrect. Read up on what's happening with the Yahoo board of directors, for the most recent big example.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
The point is that what used to take much more labor and people now takes much less, a process that's been going on for centuries. And it's been dealt with by the introduction of new markets - instead of just getting practical clothing, people can get tailored clothes. Or PDAs. Or cell phones. Or the bazillion forms of entertainment. The point is markets have been changing forever, and if we let the socialist fear of change take us over, we'd have basically none of the modern world we have now.Quote:
Uhm, not really. The birth of modern capitalism comes from the transit from agarian to an industrial society.
And more important, the basis the agriculture, industry and service sector has been existing for millenias, but after this shift you'll either need a new sector of a new system.
And then those companies suffer, while the ones that make good decisions prosper. Unlike government supported monopolies who just have to raise taxes.Quote:
You do relize that, in the corporate world unpopular, bad decisions are done all the time? Particullary those "I'm da boss and I'm gonna ger rich(er) by screwing the company" (and by some reason they get actually get employed as da boss
Anyone else seeing the irony? Socialism requires great government control over our lives; it is the enemy of individual liberty. And guess which president started the environmental conservation movement in the US? Teddy Roosevelt. Guess who championed gay rights in the last years of his life? Barry Goldwater, staunch libertarian conservative.Quote:
Also to the people who have been saying that Socialism = Totalitarianism, I will remind you that homosexual rights, environmental activism, the pro-choice movement and many other progressive and anti-government control movements are inextricably linked with Socialism. Please do not equate Socialism with Totalitarianism. Think of it as big government.
Wow. :dizzy2:Quote:
You said that everyone gets equally poor. If wealth is relative and everyone is poor, then no one is poor, because everyone is equal. That was just me correcting you on a point. Nothing more, nothing less.
Anyway, I've yet to seen an answer as to how socialism can prioritize industry without the profit motive and supply and demand capitalism has.
Not surprised, though.
CR
Anyone else seeing the irony?
well anti-goverment controls im assuming is controls on the goverment which is essentially untotalarian, and big goverment isn't nessecarily totalarian goverment, most socailists on issues outside of finiance want the goverment out of peoples lives.
Anyway, I've yet to seen an answer as to how socialism can prioritize industry without the profit motive and supply and demand capitalism has.
I feel just the key industries should be nationalised, eg Electricity, Water and Gas because the goverment will run them for people rather than profit.
Yes, that is the same thing I believe. That was also my answer to you earlier CR.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
Its too early in the morning, I'll get back to the rest later.
OK, I have skim-read this entire thread and seen some good arguments on both sides. I'm confused and most probably way out of my depth, so I'm just going to stick with my view for now.
Socialism imo is a system of government, or a political viewpoint, whereby those with relative wealth contribute to support those who are less fortunate. Ergo, almost all states have an element of socialism in them. Communism would therefore be pure socialism. Imo, there has to be a balance, pure laissez-faire capitalism is not any more viable long-term than communism.
Communism would be the perfect system if humanity was conditioned to accept the essentials to survive. This is quite clearly not the case. In fact (and I know this is slightly off-topic, but indulge me), I was reading an article on consumerism yesterday. In it the author expressed the theory that human nature is to crave material objects, and as such we can never be truly happy by buying more, and indeed paradoxically, the more we indulge that instinct the more we crave to buy.
Back to topic. Communism has been proven as a failure on a number of levels, and far be it from me to bore all you obviously intelligent people with details and reasonings that you've probably heard before.
Laissez-faire Capitalism, or as I have heard it called, Pure Capitalism, is also far too extreme. This term is used to describe capitalist systems with as little government control as possible, and was prevalent during the industrial revolution in Britain and Europe. Due to this exploitation of the working class was easy to establish, and huge profits from the factory owners guaranteed, particularly if they were in business with their 'competition' and were able to form a cartel. It could be argued that this actually influenced Karl Marx and thus, indirectly, spawned Communism.
So we've established that neither Communism nor Laissez-faire Capitalism is viable. As such it makes sense that a mild capitalist system would work best, but how much control should the government exercise? And that is the million dollar (or in actual fact the multi-billion dollar) question.
If the government steps back and allows the market to function with little interference, then big business will eventually undercut small business, by offering more choice at lower prices and establish a sort of control over the market anyway, one that is furthermore detrimental to both the consumer and the government. There is also the issue that eventually such multi-million dollar companies would then be able to influence governments, by witholding supplies, or evn by bribery. Taking this road, higher prices mean that the public clamour for tax breaks, which cuts government income, leading to cuts in spending. No matter how well-intentioned, eventually this will have to result in the cutting of social benefits. Which, coupled with higher prices could lead to widespread poverty.
On the other hand tight government control and the fixing of prices etc. would be beneficial for those less well off. However, so-called 'big government' leads to the government then holding a position of power. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Not entirely sure who said this, but I echo the sentiment. Eventually, even a democraticly elected government, if given too much power can become a monster. Also it begs the question how would such a government, that advocates tight control manage to get elected? Can you imagine big business fat cats, or even those moderately well-off voting for a government that will 'redistribute wealth'? In other words, only through concealing of motives could such a thing come to pass, at least in the first world. That I cannot condone.
In short, there is no ideal system. There is no chance at a utopian society where all are equal (I haven't mentioned this above but merely due to physical and mental differences). As a perfectionist I know these things, but as an idealist, I still give tacit support to socialist ideals. Despite this it is my considered opinion, that socialism is, while infinitely superior to communism, still subject to the same weaknesses, in that it relies on good intentions, and benevolent government, which as a cynic, I suggest cannot exist stably.
That's not an answer. You said key industries would be controlled. That's not a bit of an answer to how they would be prioritized.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
That feel-good crap does no actual good. It is the very profit mechanism - the invisible hand Adam Smith spoke of - that benefits people the most.Quote:
I feel just the key industries should be nationalised, eg Electricity, Water and Gas because the goverment will run them for people rather than profit.
What industries outside of utilities do you consider 'key'?
CR
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
The ones that make the Politburo good vodka.
I don't know about LG, but for me it is largely resources, particularly ones that are harmful to the environment (Such as Uranium and Oil), because I believe that by doing this the government can influence environmental policy, rather than getting companies like Exxon and Shell having huge profits at the expense of the environment. I also think that there are some manufacturing sectors that are largely being outsourced that should be protected (Not nationalised though - some government ownership wouldn't go astray).Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
So how would they be prioritised? If people need what they supply then it should be nationalised and if the ownership of it by business is clearly detrimental to the nation or the world as a whole, then it should also be nationalised.
Its an interesting idea CA, but in practise I'd consider it unworkable. Whose word are we going to take that it is necessary, or harmful, the Government? Thats the problem with representative democracy, the people who have been elected by the collective nation still have their own agendas. Also, in this case, surely the nationalisation of these industries would be too much for a government to handle in one go, it would have to be a gradual process. How popular do you really think that this policy would be? If a government proposed it, they probably wouldn't be able to implement the whole strategy before being ejected from office.
While I agree in principle that if properly implemented such a scheme could be beneficial to society and the environment, I believe that you're being overly idealisitic if you imagine that it could actually take place in the near future, and that there wouldn't be serious problems with it.
Large goverment spending and intervention always ends badly in the long run. Its always better to let the people adapt and overcome than have the goverment do it for them eeven if in the short run it seems counterproductive. History has shown us this time and agian. So why people preach a system of economics based upon these 2 tenantes is beyond me.
HOOVER WAS RIGHT!
If the party runs on a platform where they talk about what they want to Nationalise, then I think that it is up to the people who elect them to decide.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaius Scribonius Curio
Yes I imagine it would take several terms in office to get everything done. That shouldn't be a good enough reason to stop it though.Quote:
Also, in this case, surely the nationalisation of these industries would be too much for a government to handle in one go, it would have to be a gradual process.
Again, if they ran on this policy and explained that it would take time, but the end result would be worth it - then I think more people would understand. Also I think that the mindset of "it would be unpopular, so we shouldn't do it" is a huge problem in politics because it puts the good of the party above the good of the people.Quote:
How popular do you really think that this policy would be? If a government proposed it, they probably wouldn't be able to implement the whole strategy before being ejected from office.
I know there would be unforeseen speed bumps, but I maintain that these could be overcome. Being an optimist by nature helps me believe it will happen, but I do think that within 50 years we will see a lot more socialist aspects in the world as a whole, as people come to see the long-term unsustainability of Capitalism. I expect that everywhere in the western world will be a welfare state, though how much they would go beyond that I don't know.Quote:
While I agree in principle that if properly implemented such a scheme could be beneficial to society and the environment, I believe that you're being overly idealisitic if you imagine that it could actually take place in the near future, and that there wouldn't be serious problems with it.
Also, as I said - just because it may not work is no reason not to try it. It certainly didn't stop Reagan.
I agree, but I just don't see the majority of people actually supporting nationalisation. At least not in the current socio-political climate.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
It is a huge problem with contemporary politics and I personally agree that the end result would probably justify it. However the issue is that if a policy is unpopular, then there is a good chance that the voting public will demonstrate their disapproval during the next election or referendum. There's nothing like feeling ignored to make people irrational. There is also the standpoint that if a party is knocked out of office, it will be unable to implement other, less contraversial policies, that would also help people and the country.Quote:
Again, if they ran on this policy and explained that it would take time, but the end result would be worth it - then I think more people would understand. Also I think that the mindset of "it would be unpopular, so we shouldn't do it" is a huge problem in politics because it puts the good of the party above the good of the people.
Of course, given enough time, resources and manpower, almost any obstacle can be overcome. The question is whether the people would tolerate what could be seen as a 'waste' of taxpayers money. 50 years would be optimistic for a large-scale political change such as you describe, but I could see it happening, because, imo, capitalism in its current form is unsustainable. I can see most of the western world becoming welfare states, but have issues with your time-scale. Again, we can't be certain of any future events, so you may be right.Quote:
I know there would be unforeseen speed bumps, but I maintain that these could be overcome. Being an optimist by nature helps me believe it will happen, but I do think that within 50 years we will see a lot more socialist aspects in the world as a whole, as people come to see the long-term unsustainability of Capitalism. I expect that everywhere in the western world will be a welfare state, though how much they would go beyond that I don't know.
Agree with the sentiment, but again can't see any current political body trying it.Quote:
Also, as I said - just because it may not work is no reason not to try it. It certainly didn't stop Reagan.
Can you see Kevin Rudd nationalising the country in the near future? Or Brendan Nelson?
If you get angry from things said on the internet, you might want to re-examine how you spend your free time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
That's your opinion and your entitled to it.Quote:
You seem like a nice guy, just completely wrong. ~;p
Produce what is needed. This doesn't have to be complicated.Quote:
Now here's a question socialism can't answer; how do you decide what to have the factories produce? That is, you've got a population and they all need certain goods - clothing, food, shelter, etc., and want others. So what do you decide to have the factories produce?
I will repeat my last point. Produce what is needed. We're pretty smart and I'm confident we can find a way.Quote:
How do you decide what goods to produce with your limited resources, what do you prioritize? The fact is, socialism can't answer that question. You can't peek into the mind of every citizen and see if they'd rather have a new pair of pants or shoes. You can't know what the mass of people desires.
I am not as confident as you are that supply and demand works for everyone.Quote:
Capitalism uses supply and demand - and it works for every single person to decide what they want to spend their money on based on how much, they, as individuals, not cogs in the state economy, want a good and what they are willing to pay for it and thereby forgo other goods and services.
Nope, not in the current climate. The world is shifting slowly back to the centre, and that isn't a position conducive to nationalisation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaius Scribonius Curio
Yes I imagine it would be like that, but when you consider that this goes hand-in-hand with other, more popular, programs like universal healthcare and more education funding, not everything will go badly. Gough Whitlam's idea of buying back the farm was a fundamentally good one and it was quite popular, except when it came to the way that his minister tried to finance it. Indeed Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales are very popular in their respective countries after they nationalised oil and several other things. Nationalisation can be popular, if you put it in the right context at the right time.Quote:
It is a huge problem with contemporary politics and I personally agree that the end result would probably justify it. However the issue is that if a policy is unpopular, then there is a good chance that the voting public will demonstrate their disapproval during the next election or referendum. There's nothing like feeling ignored to make people irrational. There is also the standpoint that if a party is knocked out of office, it will be unable to implement other, less contraversial policies, that would also help people and the country.
I see 50 years as being the end of the vanguard period, and then the next 50 years being where all of the real socialist work is done. I don't expect to see full scale socialism during my life, but I like to think my Grandchildren will.Quote:
Of course, given enough time, resources and manpower, almost any obstacle can be overcome. The question is whether the people would tolerate what could be seen as a 'waste' of taxpayers money. 50 years would be optimistic for a large-scale political change such as you describe, but I could see it happening, because, imo, capitalism in its current form is unsustainable. I can see most of the western world becoming welfare states, but have issues with your time-scale. Again, we can't be certain of any future events, so you may be right.
Don't even get me started on the Labor Party, let alone the Liberals... I campaigned for the Greens last election and even they are too conservative on many economic issues for me...Quote:
Agree with the sentiment, but again can't see any current political body trying it.
Can you see Kevin Rudd nationalising the country in the near future? Or Brendan Nelson?
Ouch, ze barb, she stings!Quote:
If you get angry from things said on the internet, you might want to re-examine how you spend your free time.
:laugh4: Especially since you were complaining several posts ago.
I will repeat the question then; what is needed? There is no other way to know than capitalism.Quote:
Produce what is needed. This doesn't have to be complicated.
Oh right, we should rely on the magic socialist fairy who'll come from Marx himself to tell us what fantastic new system we should use.Quote:
I am not as confident as you are that supply and demand works for everyone.
CA, you know this 'nationalization' you speak of is bare-faced theft, right? That those industries you want the government to seize are only as big as they are, as important as they are, they only exist because small groups of people put their sweat and money into building something from nothing, into making a company that produces thousands of cars where cars used to be the province of the rich.
It is only because of their success at making a profit, at using the capitalist system, that there is any industry for those greedy socialist vultures to think of stealing!
People only need oil because of Rockefeller, they only need steel because of Carnegie, they only need cars because of Ford!
And the long term instability of capitalism? Excuse me while I laugh!
Which was it that faltered, the Soviet Union or the USA? Which country's economy is known as the 'Celtic Tiger' because it passed pro-business laws? Why is France getting rid of certain socialist laws to save its economy if socialism is so sustainable? Why is Cuba allowing capitalistic reforms? Could it be because even in Cuba the private farmers are so much more efficient than the state run farms?
Why should people found a new industry, to embark on great new productions, if only to have the state's talentless pigs seize what they have built? Go ahead and nationalize everything important, and 100 years from now car manufacturing or whatever will still be an important industry for you, as the rest of the world is using flying transports and has a whole different economy.
CR
That feel-good crap does no actual good. It is the very profit mechanism - the invisible hand Adam Smith spoke of - that benefits people the most.
What industries outside of utilities do you consider 'key'?
Any power station i think should be in British hands, we would have much more control over our energy policy and it could be run similar to our national health service which i understand is actually good value for money, this way we won't have the situation of old people having to go without heating because the goverment would simply not cut thier power. The health service is something that i think is a key industry as well, its just too important to leave peoples health dependant on thier ability to afford insurance, from what i keep hearing a medicare is very ineffecient anyway...
One more service i think should be nationalised in the UK at least is the post office, post offices are closing around the country because mainly in small villages and towns they are not profitable, this is having a disproportionate effect on older people in these towns and villages who use the service as a social gathering point as well as a service. This would be a money losing service in some places around the country, this makes the nationalism seem ineffecient but it is being done for the people who need the service and is worth it for the cost imo, a few decades down the line when pretty much everyone is online i don't think the post office well be so important to some people and could probably be scaled back.....
I support compensating people in nationalised industries, I have no problem with that. I would also think that they would remain in senior management positions, they do after all have a great deal of industry experience that a government would be stupid to ignore.Quote:
CA, you know this 'nationalization' you speak of is bare-faced theft, right? That those industries you want the government to seize are only as big as they are, as important as they are, they only exist because small groups of people put their sweat and money into building something from nothing, into making a company that produces thousands of cars where cars used to be the province of the rich.
You make it sound as if once we reach Socialism we never go anywhere else again. Of course we keep re-evaluating the current system and the current economic climate. Hell, if nationalisation of industry doesn't work I'm all for undoing it. The thing is I believe that we should experiment with it and see what happens.Quote:
Why should people found a new industry, to embark on great new productions, if only to have the state's talentless pigs seize what they have built? Go ahead and nationalize everything important, and 100 years from now car manufacturing or whatever will still be an important industry for you, as the rest of the world is using flying transports and has a whole different economy.
A good point that I have overlooked, although I doubt it would be enough. Indeed, Gough Whitlam was, imo, the best PM that Australia has had (bearing in mind that I only from 1945 onwards in terms of what happened in Australia, because I'm English originally). Only overexuberance and an obstructive senate stopped his term from being truly productive. Again context is all, and in most of the western world the time is not right.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
It would be nice to think so, but I fear human nature will defeat that ambition.Quote:
I see 50 years as being the end of the vanguard period, and then the next 50 years being where all of the real socialist work is done. I don't expect to see full scale socialism during my life, but I like to think my Grandchildren will.
Australian political parties are all basically the same. Remember Labour claiming that the Libs had 'stolen' their policies (Or was it the other way around? :laugh4:).Quote:
Don't even get me started on the Labor Party, let alone the Liberals... I campaigned for the Greens last election and even they are too conservative on many economic issues for me...
I don't think (think being the key word), that the issue is with the captalist system itself, but rather the imitation laissez-faire system that is particularly prevalent in the USA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
He didn't say that. Any system takes time to develop, so long as socialist values begin to creep into the collective consciousness then a system will eventually develop. With an aging population demographic, more emphasis will have to be placed on welfare in the near future, which is at least a step in the right direction.Quote:
Oh right, we should rely on the magic socialist fairy who'll come from Marx himself to tell us what fantastic new system we should use.
Idealism. While some businesses are created off the blood, sweat and tears of a small group of people who work incessantly in order to provide the best service possible, they are sadly few in number. The industries in question, electricity, water supply, food production, etc., can get away with providing inferior products or services due to the relative scarcity of providers. Nationalisation does make sense, but its something that few people in the western world, conditioned from birth to accept capitalism, want to hear about.Quote:
CA, you know this 'nationalization' you speak of is bare-faced theft, right? That those industries you want the government to seize are only as big as they are, as important as they are, they only exist because small groups of people put their sweat and money into building something from nothing, into making a company that produces thousands of cars where cars used to be the province of the rich.
So the businessmen in charge of Nike, aren't greedy 'capitalist' vultures? When they blatantly exploit the poor working class in developing countries to produce at cheaper prices. Its like the 19th century all over again. And they call it progress... :laugh4:Quote:
It is only because of their success at making a profit, at using the capitalist system, that there is any industry for those greedy socialist vultures to think of stealing!
Communism and socialism are different things, so the collapse of the USSR is not relevant.Quote:
And the long term instability of capitalism? Excuse me while I laugh!
Any economic system which creates a vast economic imbalance must be inherently unstable. When the majority of the population cannot afford enough to survive then maybe you'll see...
What a huge question!!!
First observation: Socialism as ideology and Economical Project exists only because Capitalism failures in large parts of the Society.
Second, Socialism pre-exists Communism, like Christ pre-exists the Vatican and Inquisition…
Third, Socialism isn’t laziness and taking advantage of the System. You will have people using systems like Managers increasing their Salary when companies are closing, huge fiscal advantages given by Capitalistic Governments, and exploiting laws loopholes to escape justice etc.
As a Socialist, I do not see real differences between the Soviet Apparatchiks and the big Industries Captains and Co. Do you remember Iraq’s contracts attribution?
To judge Socialism in regards about what was achieved in USSR is as to judge Capitalism in regards what was done in Nazi Germany or Chile under Pinochet. It was dictatorships….
The problem I have with Capitalist defenders is they ignore what and how the so-call Free-market States impose even in term of economy. I even don’t mention Armies, Police and Justice: these items won’t be privatised, I suppose…
To built dams, railways and monumental infrastructures and equipment, the State will take the land by law if necessary. In normal “free” market, the companies’ should negotiate and pay the price asked by the owners of the land to do the job. But, in recognition of the interests of the most, some lands are taken… Grabbing others properties (of the poorest) was and still is one of the most common things in “capitalist” countries, with the total complicity, agreement and protection of the “free-marketeers” governments…
Socialism tries to have ethnic. You can’t exploit others miseries to do a lot of money, every body have the rights of dignity, opinion, and some basic rights, as food, shelters, education, water, access to health…
People in favour of “capitalism” almost always use “I”. My interests, my health, my property, my car… They are not really concern by others, “they” are lazy, or weak, or whatever, “they” deserved what they are or the conditions “they” are living…
It reminds me the law in the Confederate States which prevented the Slaves to be taught then the reproach made against the Blacks to be illiterate…
“Socialism/Marxism/Whatever does not make everyone equally rich, it makes everyone equally poor, IMHO”: None sense…
“There is a bit more about a product then the end-result at the assembly line. Needs research, investment, planning, taking risks in general. The workers aren't taking any risks they just put the pieces together, they aren't risking anything, and they are being paid for that, why on earth would they have the right on the profit?”
How many managers did die in building bridges, factories, iron, etc…? Risks are with your life, not money, which most of the time belongs to somebody else anyway, as the latest financial scandals showed…
Even managers who failed miserably got huge pensions and stock options… Long life free market!!!! And the workers are fired without pensions: Who got the risks?:oops:
By the way try to work on a roof, just to experiment the "risk-free" workers’ life.:laugh4:
“I'm surprised socialism still has its adherents, but I guess they support it to feel good then out of any knowledge of economics.” I am surprised that hard core Capitalists supporters still exist, but I guess it to feel good about to know something a “dreamed” economy without any support from reality of humanity… And wrong ideas about Socialism…
“And you do realize workers can own (part) of their companies just by buying stock?” Without any control about how their money will be spent, and being at the end of the queue if the things go wrong… See latest bankruptcies…
“That feel-good crap does no actual good. It is the very profit mechanism - the invisible hand Adam Smith spoke of - that benefits people the most.”: State Controlled Companies is not as “principals” against Profit. But instead to target as much profits to pay shares-holders, it focus on delivering better services and research. It is largely ignored but EDF (actually a leading Energy Company) is State Owned Company, SNCF, one of the most efficient Railways Companies is Stare Own, as Air France… The actual Free Market Ideology just ignores facts and prefers dogmas…
The Electrical System collapsed in the USA (free-Market), Italy (free market) because the race for profits over takes on the public interests. The wealth of a minority is more important in Capitalism than the health of the majority.
“What industries outside of utilities do you consider 'key'?” The ones which were built with my ancestors taxes: Transport, Health, energy, as example.
Why are we paying taxes if we got no return on money?
“Now here's a question socialism can't answer; how do you decide what to have the factories produce? That is, you've got a population and they all need certain goods - clothing, food, shelter, etc., and want others. So what do you decide to have the factories produce?”
It is because it is not to Socialism to answer. Why should an economical and political social model decide what to produce?
Socialism is an idea, a political model which proposes an alternative solution to the Capitalist “jungle law”. It is not a totalitarian State… You will not find a more individual freedom lover than a Socialist. Yes, we dare to resist to the big financial lobbies, we dare to remind people that workers are humans; we dare to ask about the wisdom of our managers and to question their abilities. But most, we challenge their God, Money and dogmas…
I know, to find personal willing to work for the good of the majority and not only for their individual and egoistic interest is difficult, but not impossible. I met some in the Army and in Charities. When the global goal is bigger than you, when to protect your country, to fight for your freedom and to shield your family and your values can lead you to die, when saving others unknowned lives is important and valuable… And very rewarded in terms of pride, self-esteem, etc.
“Why is France getting rid of certain socialist laws to save its economy if socialism is so sustainable?” Because the French President is the valet of the big Capitalist and they want to make more money could be the others. To be honest, he just pay them back, he gives them their money back…:beam:
The unlimited market. Would'nt that need an unlimited need for new products? See below what I consider suspect with that idea. Doesn't "the evergrowing market" usually be a pretty good sign of an economic bubble btw?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
My focus is on a different tangent though, what I'm saying is that the growth of the market won't create jobs as fast as it removes them. The only sector were this isn't occuring atm is the service sector and to put an extreme example (I suspect it will happen much earlier), what will happen when the humans in the service sector can be replaced with cheaper andriods that function as well? Some will have to maintain the androids, but it will be much fewer than the jobs the androids will take.
I'm talking about what will happen after that modern capitalism has reached its dead end, in the same way that previous economic systems have done it. Personally, from what I can see the only system that would improve the conditions for most people at that stage is a form of socialism.
Depends, consumerism is a mindset. Did you know that one big complain after the Great Plague was that the workers were much lazier? It was because the lack of workers caused the salaries to rise. And as the worker didn't need more money they simply worked less. How do you think the modern market would handle a backlash to such ideas?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaius Scribonius Curio
What on earth are yoy ranting about in the last pargraph?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
We? Who the hell is that? Are you a worker? One of the prol? I frikin doubt it.
What god and what dogmas? Most capitalists I wager are godless.
Everyone needs a manager, you're just saying that we need one big one, the government. A manager with all the powers of the state under its control as well. Sounds good.
I mean how in heck do you suppose such an idea will be imposed in a democratic society? The most we get of anything these days is always middle of the road lite stuff.
I think perhaps you need a new ideology, socialism wont cut it anymore, people just need to think of the USSR and they squirm.
One can be proletarian without being part of the proletariat. A fine distinction, but it is there.Quote:
We? Who the hell is that? Are you a worker? One of the prol? I frikin doubt it.
Well Evangelicals certainly aren't Socialist...Quote:
What god and what dogmas? Most capitalists I wager are godless.
I don't know, maybe through voting :idea:Quote:
I mean how in heck do you suppose such an idea will be imposed in a democratic society?
“Are you a worker? One of the prol? I frikin doubt it.”: Yep, I am. Pure definition: I sell my force to work. Coming from a family of prol, as you said. You can still doubt of it but we, my family, were peasants, workers and soldiers, a Soviet by full right and definition…:laugh4:
What god and what dogmas: Money, my dear, and the holy market. You need to watch news and read newspapers, at least…
“I mean how in heck do you suppose such an idea will be imposed in a democratic society?”: I don’t want to impose, I want to convince that a better world is possible…
“I think perhaps you need a new ideology, socialism wont cut it anymore, people just need to think of the USSR and they squirm.” We agree on that. We need a new wording for a idea, but it will be still the good old ideal, you know, justice, freedom, dignity for all…
Nothing is eternal, particularly something which has so many inherent flaws as contemporary Capitalism. Eventually it will fold, whether through lack of resources or economic collapse (in the extreme case), or through democratic change and economic policies. I quite agree that the only system that is currently apparent that can improve the lives of the majority of people (and I know that sounds really Utilitarian, I'm not an adherent of that philosphy, just to make things clear), is socialismQuote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
As to your first and second points I was aware of them. What I didn't know was that the workers were happy to accept less money in order to work less. However, I'd be suprised if production needed to be at the old levels, considering the amount of people killed. From memory over one third of the workforce was killed, and the old and the very young were more susceptable, although the plague wasn't particularly discriminating.Quote:
Depends, consumerism is a mindset. Did you know that one big complain after the Great Plague was that the workers were much lazier? It was because the lack of workers caused the salaries to rise. And as the worker didn't need more money they simply worked less. How do you think the modern market would handle a backlash to such ideas?
However while I agree that consumerism is a mindset, it is one that afflicts the majority of people in the western (and by that I mean developed) world. In addition, the situation you describe above is very different to the one which is apparent today. We have an approaching resource shortage and a rapidly increasing population, not one that has been drastically cut in a very short space of time. In other words the modern market wouldn't be able to handle such a shift in ideology, but it will not need to without a huge disaster anyway (which would btw lessen many of problems facing the world in the 21st century, but I'm not advocating genocide).
It was more to point out that it was general mindset at that time, it wasn't something that appeared due to the Plague.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaius Scribonius Curio
Should probably been more clear in the last post, but there's several anti-cunsumerism tendencies today (that was the different mind-set I was focusing on) and at some point they will end up dominant. If nothing else, because you'll reach a point were the only reson to spend is to keep everything afloat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaius Scribonius Curio
To paraphrase Bush after 9/11: Spend, spend proud Americans, do not let the evil terrorists hurt the spending.
And when the anti-consumerism will hit, it should have pretty big consequences.
But I wasn't angry. I just saw continuing our conversation as a waste of my time due to the way you treat me. Big difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
The next time you feel that something said on the internet "stings", I recommend the following cartoon:
http://xkcd.com/386/
It works wonders for me.
If you still find that your angry, because of things that are said on the internet, I recommend taking the night off from the computer. You'd be surprised how much things are put into perspective when you go out and spend time outdoors. :yes:
Perhaps we can get back to topic instead of making assumptions about posters' lifestyles?
Thank you kindly.
:bow:
Didn't know that France was a socialist country, but thanks for pointing it out to me. With your lights, I might understand my country aswell.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
As for your question, France is probably "getting rid of certain socialist laws" (sorry, but lol) because its President is a right-wing liberal moron trying to get as much money as humanly possible for him and his friends before leaving the office ? Mind you, I'm not sure that's the exact reason, but one could argue both facts are linked :holmes:
Point taken. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
But I was making no assumptions. CR stated quite plainly that he was getting angry.
As for getting off-topic, unfortunately this thread got off-topic long ago. What started as an attempt to define socialism became an oppurtunity for some to come in here and throw out red-herrings.
Such as:
A country that claimed it had socialism/communism did not work. Therefore, socialism/communism can not work.
A country that claimed it had socialism/communism was actually tolitarian. Therefore, socialism/communism inevitably leads to tolitarianism.
While we are smart enough to create a "market" to distribute goods, we are not smart enough to think of any other way to distribute goods so we must stay with the market because it is the best we will ever think up.
Those that believe in socialism/communism actually do not understand economics.
If there is socialism/communism, no one will want to work.
--------------------------------------------
Instead of attempting to define what socialism actually means, some rather throw out red-herrings such as the ones above. The red-herrings do little to serve the discourse and aren't even on-topic.
Which is regrettable because I believe a real conversation on the subject, which I admit some on both sides are trying to provide, would serve us well.
The conversation has evolved somewhat, and not for the better, as Kev and Banquo's Ghost have pointed out. I think the definitions we have are adequate (as in everyone knows what we are talking about now). As far as I am concerned the discussion is now on the merits and problems that Socialism can bring (and has been for a while). Its still related to the topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by PrivateerKev
Thanks kev for pointing out the obvious. Some people are coming into the discussion with strong preconceptions (nothing wrong with that), and aren't trying to justify what they are saying (kind of an issue). The above are all misconceptions. Some may have been valid for past instances, but the future is not set in stone. There may be ways around them, better implementation and management for one.
In fact there are several people trying to stimulate discussion, including yourself. This thread isn't dead yet!Quote:
Instead of attempting to define what socialism actually means, some rather throw out red-herrings such as the ones above. The red-herrings do little to serve the discourse and aren't even on-topic.
Which is regrettable because I believe a real conversation on the subject, which I admit some on both sides are trying to provide, would serve us well.
Having thought about this, I believe we are dangerously close to the point where spending is merely for keeping the economy going. However, the majority of people don't see that at the moment. Many people probably don't realise that by buying goods that they don't need they will merely drive the economy to unsustainable levels. It probably doesn't even cross their mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
:laugh4: But so true. If consumerism afflicts any country badly, the worst has to be the USA.Quote:
To paraphrase Bush after 9/11: Spend, spend proud Americans, do not let the evil terrorists hurt the spending.
Yes when the realisation hits there will be massive consequences. It is possible that there could be an economic collapse and depression across the developed world. This of course would then bring China to the fore. The social, economic and political consequences would be huge, and unpredictable.Quote:
And when the anti-consumerism will hit, it should have pretty big consequences.
I wouldn't say completely socialist, but certainly more so than the USA, UK and Australia. As to the rest of western Europe, I couldn't say, I don't know enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
I didn't think Sarkozy was that far right-wing (again, probably lack of information), but if so then that is your reason. If he is right-wing, then why would he support socialism? Even if they're are not necessarily that bad, they could be relatively costly, and Sarkozy is bound to have his own plans (which need to be funded). So CR, political expediency is my argument for why these 'socialist laws' are being repealed.Quote:
As for your question, France is probably "getting rid of certain socialist laws" (sorry, but lol) because its President is a right-wing liberal moron trying to get as much money as humanly possible for him and his friends before leaving the office ? Mind you, I'm not sure that's the exact reason, but one could argue both facts are linked :holmes:
To restate my stance:
Socialism is a beneficial ideology which has the grand aim of creating a state where everyone can live the best life possible.
While I support socialist ideologies, I don't believe it likely that it will be integrated for the foreseeable future due to obdurate resistance from the majority of people who have been conditioned by capitalists.
Furthermore, I see democratic reform as the only acceptable way of integrating these ideals into society.
Discuss. :smash:
And part of that is my fault. I apologize to CR if any of my comments hurt him. It was certainly not my intention. I used to get mad at internet conversations so I took him seriously when he said he was getting angry. My subsequent posts were only meant as advice. (The advice worked for me.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaius Scribonius Curio
Socialism is a very real threat to a small group of people who currently hold power. Therefore, they try to make it seem like a threat to all of us.Quote:
Thanks kev for pointing out the obvious. Some people are coming into the discussion with strong preconceptions (nothing wrong with that), and aren't trying to justify what they are saying (kind of an issue). The above are all misconceptions. Some may have been valid for past instances, but the future is not set in stone. There may be ways around them, better implementation and management for one.
Very true. Which is why I said, "which I admit some on both sides are trying to provide." Some people on here have illuminated real problems for the institution of socialism. I am under no illusions that socialism is perfect. I only believe that it is better for everyone. But the concerns people have are real and need to be addressed.Quote:
In fact there are several people trying to stimulate discussion, including yourself. This thread isn't dead yet!
What is scaring me even more is the use of credit to keep the economy going. Many people were encouraged to finance their spending by taking out lines of credit on their houses that they already could not afford the mortgage to. I believe the mortgage crisis in America is only in it's infancy.Quote:
Having thought about this, I believe we are dangerously close to the point where spending is merely for keeping the economy going. However, the majority of people don't see that at the moment. Many people probably don't realise that by buying goods that they don't need they will merely drive the economy to unsustainable levels. It probably doesn't even cross their mind.
And America's consumerism afflicts other countries as they provide the cheap labor to manufacture the goods sold in Wal-Mart.Quote:
:laugh4: But so true. If consumerism afflicts any country badly, the worst has to be the USA.
I share your concern and it is what compels me to find an answer now instead of later.Quote:
Yes when the realisation hits there will be massive consequences. It is possible that there could be an economic collapse and depression across the developed world. This of course would then bring China to the fore. The social, economic and political consequences would be huge, and unpredictable.
I'm not a fan of Sarkozy but Bush makes him look positively liberal by comparison.Quote:
I didn't think Sarkozy was that far right-wing (again, probably lack of information), but if so then that is your reason. If he is right-wing, then why would he support socialism? Even if they're are not necessarily that bad, they could be relatively costly, and Sarkozy is bound to have his own plans (which need to be funded). So CR, political expediency is my argument for why these 'socialist laws' are being repealed.
Your probably right about democratic reform but I worry that it won't work fast enough.Quote:
Socialism is a beneficial ideology which has the grand aim of creating a state where everyone can live the best life possible.
While I support socialist ideologies, I don't believe it likely that it will be integrated for the foreseeable future due to obdurate resistance from the majority of people who have been conditioned by capitalists.
Furthermore, I see democratic reform as the only acceptable way of integrating these ideals into society.
The constant spend and loan culture always seemed a bit crazy to me, i understand that people going out and spending money is good for the economy and makes it grow, what i don't understand is quite how the system can continue to grow and sustain itself, surely someone somewhere has to pay the bill eventually ? is the sub prime lending (is that what its called.. i forget ?) market basically a smaller scale version of international consumerism ?
NPR had a good one hour story on the housing crisis. They link it to the fact that the global pool of money in banks doubled in the last 6 years. But the number of good investments did not double. Investment houses went shopping around for things to sink the savings of other countries into. They found, and fell in love with, mortgage backed securities.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
Basically take your mortgage, bundle it with other mortgages of the same type, and sell shares to it. It was expected to be easy money and the investment houses couldn't get enough. The banks wanted to keep making more and had to expand the pool of borrowers to meet the demand from on top. Combine this with a scramble for houses from borrowers due to the expanded opportunities and you see why the value for houses skyrocketed.
Desperate for more borrowers, banks started offering NINA loans which stand for No Income, No Asset. Basically, if you had a pulse, and signed the form, you got a loan for a house. No attempt was made to see if you could actually pay the mortgage back.
It was something that could only work if every link in the chain kept doing it's part. But it was unsustainable. While there is yet a consensus as to which link broke first, the links did break. Investment houses stopped putting their investor's money into mortgage backed securities, banks were left with mortgages that investment houses wouldn't buy and borrowers couldn't pay back. The worth of houses dropped because there was less demand. People couldn't pay back their mortgages and had to foreclose, which lowered the property value of everyone in the neighborhood.
At the very least the mortgage crisis proved there needs to be regulation of the financial industry.
The problem with a bubble is that people doesn't need to realise that it's a bubble until it breaks and that breaking usually starts out very small if it's driven far enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaius Scribonius Curio
The downside with a quick cure is that it can hurt more that the problem that it tries to fix. It's tricky to do it correctly. All I can say is that there's interesting times ahead, but I suspect that it usually it that way. :book:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaius Scribonius Curio
Depends on what scale, while it seems to moving away from Socialism today, the pendulum will probably turn again within a few decades. A good question is what's optimal for humanity though, we still seem to construct our own ineqaulity by ourself. Limiting it is certainly a good goal though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaius Scribonius Curio
Democracy it is, working through revolutions doesn't seem to work well and without enough support you'll need oppression to make it work and that is hardly consistant with Socialism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaius Scribonius Curio
Our neightbouring capitalists will tell you that this also causes considerble growth if properly regulated (and this will also reduce eco-damage). What they don't talk about is when it isn't properly regulated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Privateerkev
Neither do they talk about the point were all nations are rich enough to not function as a cheap labour country.
The faster the money travels the system, the larger the economy. Loans work as really good lubricant for that. They aren't all bad though, as some give atleast partial economical equality.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
Things starts to get tricky when you start to loan out money that you haven't gotten yet, and it isn't certain that you'll get them.
But a good evidence that a bubble is a bubble is that it is built on things that aren't real or false assumptions. The housing bubble was built on the assumption that houses would continue to rise in value even though more were being built. Eventually you run out of people to buy the homes. Some people saw this early on but they were ignored.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
True. But I worry that "slow progress" will just turn into stagnation. So I push for quicker change while still supporting incremental progressive measures. Because even small positive change is better than nothing.Quote:
The downside with a quick cure is that it can hurt more that the problem that it tries to fix. It's tricky to do it correctly. All I can say is that there's interesting times ahead, but I suspect that it usually it that way. :book:
I support socialism because it seems to be an ideology that underpins social change that is in line with my values of equality and fairness. If for some reason socialism proves to be harmful to these values, I would drop it like a bad habit.Quote:
Depends on what scale, while it seems to moving away from Socialism today, the pendulum will probably turn again within a few decades. A good question is what's optimal for humanity though, we still seem to construct our own ineqaulity by ourself. Limiting it is certainly a good goal though.
I have the feeling that the question of "when is revolution a moral imperative" could be a backroom thread all by itself.Quote:
Democracy it is, working through revolutions doesn't seem to work well and without enough support you'll need oppression to make it work and that is hardly consistant with Socialism.
A very good point! There seems to be this assumption that a few countries will be on top of the heap while others will be happy to provide cheap labor and lax enviromental laws. But the developing nations want to be where we are. Which is physically unsustainable. The planet simply can not support every nation having the level of development that America has. So our government walks a fine line between getting countries to open up their land for development, while still keeping them subserviant through unfair trade deals.Quote:
Our neightbouring capitalists will tell you that this also causes considerble growth if properly regulated (and this will also reduce eco-damage). What they don't talk about is when it isn't properly regulated.
Neither do they talk about the point were all nations are rich enough to not function as a cheap labour country.
If you really want to get frightened by our financial system, look into "short selling". Basically you bet that a stock will go down in value. You borrow the money to sell the stock that you don't actually own. But you promise to actually purchase it at a later date. On that date, if the stock went down, you keep the difference. :dizzy2:Quote:
The faster the money travels the system, the larger the economy. Loans work as really good lubricant for that. They aren't all bad though, as some give atleast partial economical equality.
Things starts to get tricky when you start to loan out money that you haven't gotten yet, and it isn't certain that you'll get them.
I'd qualify that as most people. There are always some people who can see a crisis on the horizon, the very fact that we're discussing it proves that. Another problem is that as soon as the majority of people realise there is a bubble, it will burst, as people will panic and try to distance themselves from the coming chaos. As you say, the bursting can begin small-scale, but eventually it will become obvious and that's when it becomes a problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
The quick fix is always a risk, but in this case I'm not even sure that there is quick fix. Long-term it will have to be.Quote:
The downside with a quick cure is that it can hurt more that the problem that it tries to fix. It's tricky to do it correctly. All I can say is that there's interesting times ahead, but I suspect that it usually it that way. :book:
The pendulum will turn when people realise that capitalism is an inherently flawed system, but I'd suspect that that wouldn't be for a few centuries at this rate. What is optimal for humanity is a good question and one that will have to be answered by better minds than mine. I'd like to point out that inequality isn't constructed by human thought however, it is everpresent in our genetic makeup. Until all humans are clones, or at least as in a book I read recently a hive mind (now that was scary), intellectual and physical differences will make for an unequal society. However it is down to us to make it as fair as possible.Quote:
Depends on what scale, while it seems to moving away from Socialism today, the pendulum will probably turn again within a few decades. A good question is what's optimal for humanity though, we still seem to construct our own ineqaulity by ourself. Limiting it is certainly a good goal though.
I should hope so, I'm definitely not advocating revolution!Quote:
Democracy it is, working through revolutions doesn't seem to work well and without enough support you'll need oppression to make it work and that is hardly consistant with Socialism.
The whole issue is down to speculation. In my mind it doesn't make sense to give away money that doesn't exist yet. If the banks have the money then yes they should lend it (I agree that loans can provide the basis for a more equal economy), but if they don't then tough luck. They were just asking for trouble.Quote:
The faster the money travels the system, the larger the economy. Loans work as really good lubricant for that. They aren't all bad though, as some give atleast partial economical equality.
Things starts to get tricky when you start to loan out money that you haven't gotten yet, and it isn't certain that you'll get them.
Thats because its too much like common sense. Economic 'experts' are far above realising that if supply outstrips demand prices go down. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by PrivateerKev
I'd support your analysis, but what exactly are you proposing (apologies if you have already mentioned it, I must have missed it :bow:)?Quote:
True. But I worry that "slow progress" will just turn into stagnation. So I push for quicker change while still supporting incremental progressive measures. Because even small positive change is better than nothing.
Egalitarianism is sadly undervalued in todays society. Socialism is the political/economic model that most reflects egalitarian values, hence my tacit support for it also.Quote:
I support socialism because it seems to be an ideology that underpins social change that is in line with my values of equality and fairness. If for some reason socialism proves to be harmful to these values, I would drop it like a bad habit.
And sure to raise the ire of our conservative friends... :laugh4:Quote:
I have the feeling that the question of "when is revolution a moral imperative" could be a backroom thread all by itself.
Unfortunately true.Quote:
A very good point! There seems to be this assumption that a few countries will be on top of the heap while others will be happy to provide cheap labor and lax enviromental laws. But the developing nations want to be where we are. Which is physically unsustainable. The planet simply can not support every nation having the level of development that America has. So our government walks a fine line between getting countries to open up their land for development, while still keeping them subserviant through unfair trade deals.
Gah!:no: :dizzy2:Quote:
If you really want to get frightened by our financial system, look into "short selling". Basically you bet that a stock will go down in value. You borrow the money to sell the stock that you don't actually own. But you promise to actually purchase it at a later date. On that date, if the stock went down, you keep the difference.
I was more talking about it in the abstract than any specific policy. We were talking about fast change and slow change. I prefer fast change but would support slow change. Because it is still change. I've said it earlier on this thread that it really bugs me when people on the left reject progressive social change because it "doesn't go far enough." I don't want people to starve so I can maintain some sort of ideological purity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaius Scribonius Curio
An example is the US minimum wage increase. It went up 2 dollars and 10 cents to 7.25 an hour. Now 7.25 an hour is far too low to live off of but I supported it anyways. Because it was better than the 5.10 that it was. I want the minimum wage to be higher but I also want people in need to get relief right this second. So, in my opinion, a modest increase is better than no increase at all.
I see... and I concur, mostly. Fast change causes more unrest and more problems than slow change, if slow change is a viable option then it should be utilised imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Privateerkev
I agree though that a small change is better than no change. This statement for example is genius...
:applause: :applause: :applause:Quote:
Originally Posted by PrivateerKev