Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Socialism fails again. Goalposts being moved as we speak.

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Senior Member Senior Member Brenus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Wokingham
    Posts
    3,523

    Default Re: Socialism fails again. Goalposts being moved as we speak.

    Yes, as it never happened before:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caracazo
    400 shot by the National Guard
    Failure of Capitalism. Reason why Socialist won elections. From 1999, year when Chavez was elected, 19 elections, each time validated by International bodies. That is dictatorship for you...
    And Bangladesh, capitalist country without any workers's right, is a so successful developed country...
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire.

    "I've been in few famous last stands, lad, and they're butcher shops. That's what Blouse's leading you into, mark my words. What'll you lot do then? We've had a few scuffles, but that's not war. Think you'll be man enough to stand, when the metal meets the meat?"
    "You did, sarge", said Polly." You said you were in few last stands."
    "Yeah, lad. But I was holding the metal"
    Sergeant Major Jackrum 10th Light Foot Infantery Regiment "Inns-and-Out"

  2. #2
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,978

    Default Re: Socialism fails again. Goalposts being moved as we speak.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brenus View Post
    Yes, as it never happened before:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caracazo
    400 shot by the National Guard
    Failure of Capitalism. Reason why Socialist won elections. From 1999, year when Chavez was elected, 19 elections, each time validated by International bodies. That is dictatorship for you...
    And Bangladesh, capitalist country without any workers's right, is a so successful developed country...
    I believe in the principles of socialism, but it works best at a lower level. At national level, leftism works better with reforms akin to the Liberal reforms of the early 20th century, which sought to regulate and alleviate the more unpleasant effects of uncontrolled capitalism.

  3. #3
    Praefectus Fabrum Senior Member Anime BlackJack Champion, Flash Poker Champion, Word Up Champion, Shape Game Champion, Snake Shooter Champion, Fishwater Challenge Champion, Rocket Racer MX Champion, Jukebox Hero Champion, My House Is Bigger Than Your House Champion, Funky Pong Champion, Cutie Quake Champion, Fling The Cow Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Virus Champion, Solitaire Champion, Worm Race Champion, Rope Walker Champion, Penguin Pass Champion, Skate Park Champion, Watch Out Champion, Lawn Pac Champion, Weapons Of Mass Destruction Champion, Skate Boarder Champion, Lane Bowling Champion, Bugz Champion, Makai Grand Prix 2 Champion, White Van Man Champion, Parachute Panic Champion, BlackJack Champion, Stans Ski Jumping Champion, Smaugs Treasure Champion, Sofa Longjump Champion Seamus Fermanagh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Latibulm mali regis in muris.
    Posts
    11,454

    Default Re: Socialism fails again. Goalposts being moved as we speak.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    I believe in the principles of socialism, but it works best at a lower level. At national level, leftism works better with reforms akin to the Liberal reforms of the early 20th century, which sought to regulate and alleviate the more unpleasant effects of uncontrolled capitalism.
    I take the stance that governmental decisions should be resolved at the lowest possible level. While I don't like most of the socialist approaches, I am very much in favor of communities making decisions for themselves where possible, with a 'higher' level of government superseding only so as to stand as arbiter for the boundaries of each community (on a 'my rights stop at your nose" basis mostly) OR where the more local community is demonstrably inappropriate for making decisions in that context (the Seminole County Florida Board of Commissioners and County Manager would not be the right level for conducting foreign policy for the USA). I acknowledge that some measure of communalism/socialism WILL factor into decisions at the community level.

    I also concur that some degree of regulation is required for capitalism to function effectively. Though Smith's 'invisible hand' should still be the prime mover, I do acknowledge that the <1% of truly unethical bastards can do horrific economic damage to others (especially in the elctronic era) absent some form of regulation. While I prefer that regulation be kept to the absolute minimum to discourage and police fraud and to mandate certain minimums for occupational and public safety, some degree of regulation is a must.
    "The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken

  4. #4
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    15,617

    Default Re: Socialism fails again. Goalposts being moved as we speak.

    Quote Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh View Post
    I take the stance that governmental decisions should be resolved at the lowest possible level. While I don't like most of the socialist approaches, I am very much in favor of communities making decisions for themselves where possible, with a 'higher' level of government superseding only so as to stand as arbiter for the boundaries of each community (on a 'my rights stop at your nose" basis mostly) OR where the more local community is demonstrably inappropriate for making decisions in that context (the Seminole County Florida Board of Commissioners and County Manager would not be the right level for conducting foreign policy for the USA). I acknowledge that some measure of communalism/socialism WILL factor into decisions at the community level.

    I also concur that some degree of regulation is required for capitalism to function effectively. Though Smith's 'invisible hand' should still be the prime mover, I do acknowledge that the <1% of truly unethical bastards can do horrific economic damage to others (especially in the elctronic era) absent some form of regulation. While I prefer that regulation be kept to the absolute minimum to discourage and police fraud and to mandate certain minimums for occupational and public safety, some degree of regulation is a must.
    But isn't that more or less how we ended up where we are now?
    I'd assume most societies started out with relatively simple laws but due to the world becoming more complex in general and people using and abusing loopholes left and right, the laws had to become more complex as well. Not that I studied the history of law, it just seems like a natural development to me. Simplifying certain things would likely create a lot of loopholes and require more complexity again to fix them. Of course on the other hand, the complexity can at some point be used again to create loopholes in the first place...

    As for decisions at a lower level, you get the problem of competition, in the extreme example, a corporation such as Monsanto could starve a community if it refuses to relax certain environmental protection standards and so on. Preventing such shenanigans would then again require a sufficiently powerful government (i.e. one that controls a market large enough that it would hurt a corporation to ignore the market) to forbid such shenanigans, which also makes legislation more complex and so on.

    In the end I would argue that current laws are still too lax or at least not sufficiently enforced given that there are several corporations that only keep a few small competitors around so they can claim not to have a monopoly while they do in fact have a quasi-monopoly. My favourite example: Intel. The monopoly is already reflected in pricing and other policies, they can pretty much shape the market to their liking because AMD could not really compete in recent years. And when AMD could, they bribed retailers, which was proven in Germany, to not sell their products and thus denied AMD income that might have helped AMD to stay on top of their game. The punishment they received for that was relatively laughable. Which leads me to believe that currently the government is not controlling businesses in a sufficient way, prices that are 20-30% above what they would be on a truly competitive market are not in the interest of the customer and should not be in the interest of the government because they effectively increase wealth inequality, hinder progress, etc.

    So I guess in some ways I agree with you that laxer rules would be desirable, I would argue however that the complexity of the modern world and human greed make more complex laws on higher levels of government a natural development.


    "Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu

    Member thankful for this post:



  5. #5

    Default Re: Socialism fails again. Goalposts being moved as we speak.

    Ride the tiger.

  6. #6
    Backordered Member CrossLOPER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Brass heart.
    Posts
    2,414

    Default Re: Socialism fails again. Goalposts being moved as we speak.

    Do the monkey.
    Requesting suggestions for new sig.

    -><- GOGOGO GOGOGO WINLAND WINLAND ALL HAIL TECHNOVIKING!SCHUMACHER!
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    WHY AM I NOT BEING PAID FOR THIS???

  7. #7

    Default Re: Socialism fails again. Goalposts being moved as we speak.

    I guess it's inevitable that "the invisible hand" should appear in a discussion of regulation.
    The beauty of it is, it is without content, Adam Smith appeals to it once in the entire Wealth of Nations: it is a black box which pundits may fill with whatever content they most desire.
    Why don't Smith's well defined ideas get the same shout out?
    Dissolution of monopolies, oligopolies, professional associations, marketing boards etc.
    What exactly are the consequences of Smith's insistence that our "fellow feeling" is what legitimates each seeking their own best result?
    Oooops! these ideas have content and might require action (bad)
    Ja-mata TosaInu

  8. #8
    Praefectus Fabrum Senior Member Anime BlackJack Champion, Flash Poker Champion, Word Up Champion, Shape Game Champion, Snake Shooter Champion, Fishwater Challenge Champion, Rocket Racer MX Champion, Jukebox Hero Champion, My House Is Bigger Than Your House Champion, Funky Pong Champion, Cutie Quake Champion, Fling The Cow Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Virus Champion, Solitaire Champion, Worm Race Champion, Rope Walker Champion, Penguin Pass Champion, Skate Park Champion, Watch Out Champion, Lawn Pac Champion, Weapons Of Mass Destruction Champion, Skate Boarder Champion, Lane Bowling Champion, Bugz Champion, Makai Grand Prix 2 Champion, White Van Man Champion, Parachute Panic Champion, BlackJack Champion, Stans Ski Jumping Champion, Smaugs Treasure Champion, Sofa Longjump Champion Seamus Fermanagh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Latibulm mali regis in muris.
    Posts
    11,454

    Default Re: Socialism fails again. Goalposts being moved as we speak.

    Quote Originally Posted by Husar View Post
    But isn't that more or less how we ended up where we are now?
    I'd assume most societies started out with relatively simple laws but due to the world becoming more complex in general and people using and abusing loopholes left and right, the laws had to become more complex as well. Not that I studied the history of law, it just seems like a natural development to me. Simplifying certain things would likely create a lot of loopholes and require more complexity again to fix them. Of course on the other hand, the complexity can at some point be used again to create loopholes in the first place...

    As for decisions at a lower level, you get the problem of competition, in the extreme example, a corporation such as Monsanto could starve a community if it refuses to relax certain environmental protection standards and so on. Preventing such shenanigans would then again require a sufficiently powerful government (i.e. one that controls a market large enough that it would hurt a corporation to ignore the market) to forbid such shenanigans, which also makes legislation more complex and so on.

    In the end I would argue that current laws are still too lax or at least not sufficiently enforced given that there are several corporations that only keep a few small competitors around so they can claim not to have a monopoly while they do in fact have a quasi-monopoly. My favourite example: Intel. The monopoly is already reflected in pricing and other policies, they can pretty much shape the market to their liking because AMD could not really compete in recent years. And when AMD could, they bribed retailers, which was proven in Germany, to not sell their products and thus denied AMD income that might have helped AMD to stay on top of their game. The punishment they received for that was relatively laughable. Which leads me to believe that currently the government is not controlling businesses in a sufficient way, prices that are 20-30% above what they would be on a truly competitive market are not in the interest of the customer and should not be in the interest of the government because they effectively increase wealth inequality, hinder progress, etc.

    So I guess in some ways I agree with you that laxer rules would be desirable, I would argue however that the complexity of the modern world and human greed make more complex laws on higher levels of government a natural development.
    I would argue that simpler laws would have fewer loopholes -- which are the misshappen children of complex legislation. We contributed mightily to the winning of the second world war with a tax code that started at about 500 pages in '39 and finished at 8200 in '45 despite the complexities of a global conflict. We now have more than 75,000 pages of tax code. Has that order of magnitude difference really helped anything?

    Yes complexity grows, but unless it is pruned back regularly it grows in counterproductive ways. Again, some regulation is a must. Left without any there are corporations that will poison the environment for generations to turn a higher quarterly profit. I just want the minimum needed to stop fraud and encourage general health.

    Your Monsanto example IS in line with what I am saying. There needs to be a government that says: "this is too far, you are defrauding/harming and it must stop."
    "The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken

    Members thankful for this post (2):



  9. #9
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    15,617

    Default Re: Socialism fails again. Goalposts being moved as we speak.

    Quote Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh View Post
    I would argue that simpler laws would have fewer loopholes -- which are the misshappen children of complex legislation. We contributed mightily to the winning of the second world war with a tax code that started at about 500 pages in '39 and finished at 8200 in '45 despite the complexities of a global conflict. We now have more than 75,000 pages of tax code. Has that order of magnitude difference really helped anything?

    Yes complexity grows, but unless it is pruned back regularly it grows in counterproductive ways. Again, some regulation is a must. Left without any there are corporations that will poison the environment for generations to turn a higher quarterly profit. I just want the minimum needed to stop fraud and encourage general health.

    Your Monsanto example IS in line with what I am saying. There needs to be a government that says: "this is too far, you are defrauding/harming and it must stop."
    I agree with this 100%.

    If the complexity is indeed what introduces the loopholes, and I can absolutely see how that can be the case, then a simplification is obviously preferable.


    "Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO