Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
      4. Frontier Pursuits
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. DLC
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
      7. The Diamond Casino Heist
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Sign in to follow this  
Svip

The Cold War... naked

Recommended Posts

Svip

Yes I took the title from The Beatles - Let It Be... Naked, I couldn't think of anything better, sue me!

 

Anyways. In the past weeks, a lot of reports has been showing up from Russia, that tells us that perhaps the only reason the Cold War lasted so long was not Soviet's fault, but more NATO's fault.

 

Hmmm?

 

To understand it better. NATO and the Western always thought that the enemy was the Soviet, and the enemy was communists, and they had a lot of weapons, and they were planning to bomb Europe and America to the stone age.

 

Scary stuff. But fact seems different, cause the Soviet didn't want to attack Europe, they didn't want to attack America, they couldn't.

 

In 1975 the Soviet realizes that their military is by far worse than NATO's military, and it would be impossible to keep up with the NATO. So attacking any of the members of the NATO would be the worst thing the Soviet could do.

 

A lot of people believe it's Reagan's fault that the Soviet broke down. Reports shows that Reagan did very little to the closing of Soviet, in fact, Soviet had been killing itself from within in many years.

 

These are exactly the problems NATO can stand by and watch now, all their ideas, agencies, theories and what have you, was wrong. Yes, it was bad for the Soviet. But the Soviet managed to stay alive for 10 years just because the rest of the world believed they had power, which they didn't.

 

The same reason is why Cuba still has Castro as their leader, because the American government tells their people that Cuba is evil, and all that. Thus it leaves to support of Castro in Cuba, because he is hated by the Americans.

 

If the American government said that Castro was an okay fella, the people of Cuba would soon admit to themselves that the American government was lying, and they could possible overthrow Castro. But you cannot be sure.

 

Anyways, keep the subject on the Cold War and on Cuba if you like. biggrin.gif

 

Discuss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
magical_trevor

Cuba sucks, in my opinion, they were one of the major reasons for the downfall of the Soviet Union, since they basically leeched Soviet money for a few decades, which under Cominform, Russia was obliged to give.. Combined with the insane amounts of money spent on the arms race, (which wasn't helped by Reagan, who re-sparked the arms race after the détente of the 1970s), the Soviet Union couldn't survive, not even with Gorbachev's plans for economic restructuring. But yeah, I would agree that the Soviet Union did kill itself from within, after all, Stalin started Cominform, and didn't do much to kerb spending on weapons or space technology, and neither did any of his successors, since they didn't want to appear weak, although IMO being too scared to actually change things is a greater display of weakness, but whatever.

 

 

 

Slightly off-topic: has anyone else noticed that the BBC don't like saying the word 'Communist'? Instead, they just say something is 'Anti-Capitalist' or 'against globalisation'. heh.

 

That is all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leftcoast

 

Slightly off-topic: has anyone else noticed that the BBC don't like saying the word 'Communist'? Instead, they just say something is 'Anti-Capitalist' or 'against globalisation'. heh.

 

I look through the BBC now and then. Not enough to notice I guess. I like that they say somthing other than communist, it has some very negative aspects as a word to most people, and most people don't know what communism realy is.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
just another thug

Communism is a dirty word because of propaganda and such. Many don't realize that it really has the potential to be a perfect system.

 

Anyway, the Soviet Union was bound to end itself, but Reagan did force them to spend more than they could afford, which in turn put them over the edge. If the Soviets wouldn't have prided themselves on military then they could possibly be the only superpower left standing today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jizzyman

Communism a perfect system....no system is perfect, every system has its flaws, capitalism provides very extreme class divisions, the rich and the poor, communism provides an "equality" that keeps the population equal but poor. A perfect system would have to be a compromise between the two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leftcoast

 

Communism a perfect system....no system is perfect, every system has its flaws, capitalism provides very extreme class divisions, the rich and the poor, communism provides an "equality" that keeps the population equal but poor. A perfect system would have to be a compromise between the two.

 

It's nice to know other people out there have similer ideas to mine.

I have for quite some time talked about the possibilities of a government that allows free trade to an extent and has some socialist aspects to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ISuck
Communism a perfect system....no system is perfect, every system has its flaws, capitalism provides very extreme class divisions, the rich and the poor, communism provides an "equality" that keeps the population equal but poor. A perfect system would have to be a compromise between the two.

 

It's nice to know other people out there have similer ideas to mine.

I have for quite some time talked about the possibilities of a government that allows free trade to an extent and has some socialist aspects to it.

Good luck with that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
russificator

kids... um... WTF is COMINFORM?

 

 

In 1975 the Soviet realizes that their military is by far worse than NATO's military, and it would be impossible to keep up with the NATO.

...really?

 

ouch... D&D... I'm sorry... good luck, anyways...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leftcoast

 

Good luck with that...

 

Where do you live?

 

I live in the US, as conservative as it is, we still don't allow buisness to do what ever it wants, and we still have things like public school, understand.

 

Do think educating the public is wrong, do you think telling companies that they can't make 6 year old children work in a sweat shop for 50 cents a day is wrong?

 

From what you say you sound like you are as far right as one can get, but I don't think you totaly understand the implications of the policies you think you agree with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dertyjerzian

I love my West Side and we'll prevail over all debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
magical_trevor
kids... um... WTF is COMINFORM?

 

 

In 1975 the Soviet realizes that their military is by far worse than NATO's military, and it would be impossible to keep up with the NATO.

...really?

 

ouch... D&D... I'm sorry... good luck, anyways...

COMINFORM was the 'Communist Information Bureau', and it was set up in response to some Soviet leaders attending a meeting about Marshall Aid (the USA giving money to countries damaged in WWII), because Stalin didn't want any countries under his power to accept Western money as it would undermine Communism. So basically, it involved giving stupid amounts of money to weaker countries to stop them becoming capitalist, and this drain of money helped bring about the downfall of the USSR.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ISuck
Good luck with that...

 

Where do you live?

 

I live in the US, as conservative as it is, we still don't allow buisness to do what ever it wants, and we still have things like public school, understand.

 

Do think educating the public is wrong, do you think telling companies that they can't make 6 year old children work in a sweat shop for 50 cents a day is wrong?

 

From what you say you sound like you are as far right as one can get, but I don't think you totaly understand the implications of the policies you think you agree with.

Eh, Im in America.

 

And businesses should be allowed to o whatever they want without infringing on the rights of others. I don't care what you say, regulation regulation regulation is not liberty.

 

Educating the public? Don't you think it is somewhat scary that the government has a virtual monopoly on education? Especially when they teach revisionist stuff like pro-Lincoln propoganda...

 

And guess what, child labor was not slavery. Children still had a choice and that is not infringing on the rights of them and if the labor was forceful, then no I don't approve of it as that is called slavery.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leftcoast

 

And businesses should be allowed to o whatever they want without infringing on the rights of others. I don't care what you say, regulation regulation regulation is not liberty.

 

I guess I understand, you think it's ok for a buisness to create a monopoly and screw every one else, you think it's ok for a buisness to pollute peoples drinking water.

 

 

Educating the public? Don't you think it is somewhat scary that the government has a virtual monopoly on education? Especially when they teach revisionist stuff like pro-Lincoln propoganda...

 

 

Do you understand that most people couldn't afford to get educated without public school, most people either couldn't read or would be functionaly illiterate. Without gov. funding of Universities we would have only a small fraction of the college graduates, and due to that our economy would be crap and we wouldn't be able to compete with any other countries. But you feel this is the way to go.

 

 

And guess what, child labor was not slavery. Children still had a choice and that is not infringing on the rights of them and if the labor was forceful, then no I don't approve of it as that is called slavery.

 

Yah, those kids had choices. Go to work and get abused for pennies a day or starve to death, and you think this is ok. You think it's a wonderful thing when poor people work 2 jobs to support their families and can't make ends meet. Do you know what that's like? No you don't, because we wouldn't be having this conversation if you did. I have gone hungry before, I have been totaly screwed by employers before.

 

Have you ever had a real job and where? I'm not saying that to be offensive, I'm just wondering. I know a few people who's views are very similer to yours and none of them have ever worked a real job, let alone a real hard days work. They have never been in a position where they didn't know if they would eat or have a place to stay when the next week came.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ISuck

 

And businesses should be allowed to o whatever they want without infringing on the rights of others. I don't care what you say, regulation regulation regulation is not liberty.

 

I guess I understand, you think it's ok for a buisness to create a monopoly and screw every one else, you think it's ok for a buisness to pollute peoples drinking water.

 

Why does everybody excuse federal monopolies but get all hissy pissy when a company does it legally and without infringin on others' rights?

 

A company cannot pollute people's drinking water unless a company owns it, and then why the f*ck would the public drink it anyway?

 

 

 

Educating the public? Don't you think it is somewhat scary that the government has a virtual monopoly on education? Especially when they teach revisionist stuff like pro-Lincoln propoganda...

 

 

Do you understand that most people couldn't afford to get educated without public school, most people either couldn't read or would be functionaly illiterate. Without gov. funding of Universities we would have only a small fraction of the college graduates, and due to that our economy would be crap and we wouldn't be able to compete with any other countries. But you feel this is the way to go.

 

And why can't people afford private schools? Maybe because they work 9 months out of the year solely for the federal government(taxes). So now private schools are a much too expensive alternative to public schools because people are being forced to spend a good chunk of their money each year to fund the public schools. Sounds like a real monopoly to me...

 

 

 

And guess what, child labor was not slavery. Children still had a choice and that is not infringing on the rights of them and if the labor was forceful, then no I don't approve of it as that is called slavery.

 

Yah, those kids had choices. Go to work and get abused for pennies a day or starve to death, and you think this is ok. You think it's a wonderful thing when poor people work 2 jobs to support their families and can't make ends meet. Do you know what that's like? No you don't, because we wouldn't be having this conversation if you did. I have gone hungry before, I have been totaly screwed by employers before.

 

People working for their money, what the f*ck has this world come to! By the way, Ive gone hungry too, Ive been in the lower class and my parents have worked multiple jobs before, but Im not sensationalizing anything to get my point across.

I don't think you understand that in a truly free trade environment, the consumer controls the employer. If people are sick of low wages, they create unions. Those that are willing to work for a low wage can work for a low wage and those that are in the union can make the case for higher wages. If wages are truly too low, then there will not be enough workers to operate said company and wages will be raised by the employer. If unions are just getting greedy, then there will be workers willing to work for lower wages.

 

You kind of have a warped sense of rights and liberty here.

Might I suggest Michael Badnarik's Constitution Class.

 

http://www.archive.org/details/Michael_Badnarik

Edited by ISuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
holdenrulz

Now

(please note as I am Australian and have no access to american law I am assuming that the laws are similar if not the same)

 

Why does everybody excuse federal monopolies but get all hissy pissy when a company does it legally and without infringin on others' rights

A Federal Monopoly is a great system do you know why ???

Because it's run by the public for the public if they act in a unsatisfactory manner we have a choice to do something about it.

We as the public control it, that is why I believe it's better whereas a private company is run for the owners and if it was a monopoly and change was needed it wouldn't happen as there would be no alternative so we would be forced to accept how the company is run and how good/poor it's services would be and most importantly no choice.

 

So now private schools are a much too expensive alternative to public schools because people are being forced to spend a good chunk of their money each year to fund the public schools. Sounds like a real monopoly to me...

Private schools are there as an alternative, but that money the govenment is taking as tax is also given to private school's as well as public so even though public school recieve a higher percentage than Private, the fee's are regulated by the owners of the private school, they make it expensive not the government. Not to forget Religous schools and other type's which also are partially funded by the Government

 

 

I don't think you understand that in a truly free trade environment, the consumer controls the employer. If people are sick of low wages, they create unions. Those that are willing to work for a low wage can work for a low wage and those that are in the union can make the case for higher wages. If wages are truly too low, then there will not be enough workers to operate said company and wages will be raised by the employer. If unions are just getting greedy, then there will be workers willing to work for lower wages.

Now I gather that you assume that a union can be created by unfair conditions set by the company. But what happens when the amount of people who need a job far outweight's the amount of jobs that have been created. If you have five workers who need a job for the one worker you have then you will find people will not care about a union and will just be happy with the fact they have a job while others don't. As for the Child Labour Commetn it is slavery if it is exploitation(sp?) or die because those children only have those choices.

 

Now Back to the main topic

Now Communism was going to be the Perfect system BUT as Homer Simpson said "In theory Communism worked, In theory"

I believe that Communism failed because it is both a Political and Economic System. Where most other country's have two seperate system, in most cases Democracy and Capitalism. This speration of Politic's and the Economy is I believe needed for a country to function in the long term, as we know Communism can work in the short term but I feel it cannot be sustained purely because as we are human we are victim to greed and other feelings. Communism would be perfect if there was no greed or other corrupting emotions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leftcoast

 

Now Back to the main topic

Now Communism was going to be the Perfect system BUT as Homer Simpson said "In theory Communism worked, In theory"

I believe that Communism failed because it is both a Political and Economic System. Where most other country's have two seperate system, in most cases Democracy and Capitalism. This speration of Politic's and the Economy is I believe needed for a country to function in the long term, as we know Communism can work in the short term but I feel it cannot be sustained purely because as we are human we are victim to greed and other feelings. Communism would be perfect if there was no greed or other corrupting emotions.

 

Very well stated, I guess it also saves me some typing time, thanks.

 

You say communism is a perfect system in theory (which it is), a totaly free trade society is also a perfect system in theory. In reality neither work when used as the extremes they are, they never have and probably never will. They both have strenghts and weaknesses, but they are both such extreme ideas that their downsides make them fail. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH TAKING WHATS GOOD FROM SEVERAL THINGS AND ADDING THEM TOGETHER TO MAKE A BETTER PRODUCT. We do this with engineering all the time, in my area, we call them composites. We take things with the desired attributes and mix them together. The outcome is something that has amazing properties, you get the best of both worlds and loose many of the weak points.

 

 

Why does everybody excuse federal monopolies but get all hissy pissy when a company does it legally and without infringin on others' rights?

 

A company cannot pollute people's drinking water unless a company owns it, and then why the f*ck would the public drink it anyway?

 

As I stated above, a totaly free trade system is perfect in theory. You talk about companies as if they are ethical. One of my biggest problem with right-wing government is it seems to always give buisness the benefit of the doubt. Well, you and me and the guy down the street are human. Were not perfect, we will all on ocation, do things that are; wrong, illegal, unethical, ect, just to improve our lives. If you give buisness extra freedom they will take 3 times the freedom we gave them, why, BECAUSE IT MAKES THEM MORE MONEY!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ISuck

 

Now

(please note as I am Australian and have no access to american law I am assuming that the laws are similar if not the same)

Why does everybody excuse federal monopolies but get all hissy pissy when a company does it legally and without infringin on others' rights

A Federal Monopoly is a great system do you know why ???

Because it's run by the public for the public if they act in a unsatisfactory manner we have a choice to do something about it.

We as the public control it, that is why I believe it's better whereas a private company is run for the owners and if it was a monopoly and change was needed it wouldn't happen as there would be no alternative so we would be forced to accept how the company is run and how good/poor it's services would be and most importantly no choice.

 

The public does not run a federal monopoly nor a state sponsored monopoly by any means. Take tariffs for example, tariffs are called "protectionist" because they "protect" businesses from foreign competition. They also deprive the consumer of the lower prices and higher quality products or goods that would be obtained through a competitive market. The people have no control over this, only the politicians, and face it, when politicians and corporations become buddies, things take a downturn for the consumer. The corporation provides power to the politicians and the politicians provide power to the corporation.

 

That's why a state monopoly is bad

 

So now private schools are a much too expensive alternative to public schools because people are being forced to spend a good chunk of their money each year to fund the public schools. Sounds like a real monopoly to me...

Private schools are there as an alternative, but that money the govenment is taking as tax is also given to private school's as well as public so even though public school recieve a higher percentage than Private, the fee's are regulated by the owners of the private school, they make it expensive not the government. Not to forget Religous schools and other type's which also are partially funded by the Government

 

People sending their kids to private school also have to pay taxes, and as you've stated, the majority of these taxes go to public schools(which are completely useless to them). Yep, still a monopoly.

 

I don't think you understand that in a truly free trade environment, the consumer controls the employer. If people are sick of low wages, they create unions. Those that are willing to work for a low wage can work for a low wage and those that are in the union can make the case for higher wages. If wages are truly too low, then there will not be enough workers to operate said company and wages will be raised by the employer. If unions are just getting greedy, then there will be workers willing to work for lower wages.

Now I gather that you assume that a union can be created by unfair conditions set by the company. But what happens when the amount of people who need a job far outweight's the amount of jobs that have been created. If you have five workers who need a job for the one worker you have then you will find people will not care about a union and will just be happy with the fact they have a job while others don't. As for the Child Labour Commetn it is slavery if it is exploitation(sp?) or die because those children only have those choices.

 

1.) That's how entreprenours are born, and also, a minority of unemployed people, in order to get a job, needs an incentive for a business to hire them over one of the current workers.

2.)Exploitation is only born when a person allows it. Everybody has a choice between working or starving, the only difference is that leftist social programs try to hinder the working by creating minimum wage laws(which hurt companies forcing them to give less jobs) and maximum work hours. "The worker's party" my ass....

 

As I stated above, a totaly free trade system is perfect in theory. You talk about companies as if they are ethical. One of my biggest problem with right-wing government is it seems to always give buisness the benefit of the doubt. Well, you and me and the guy down the street are human. Were not perfect, we will all on ocation, do things that are; wrong, illegal, unethical, ect, just to improve our lives. If you give buisness extra freedom they will take 3 times the freedom we gave them, why, BECAUSE IT MAKES THEM MORE MONEY!

 

Whether businesses are ethical or not is of no importance, it's the fact that businesses have no power to legislation or power to take rights from an individual. Government on the other hand.....

 

 

And leftcoast, here's the thing I was poking fun at. The fact that you consider yourself viable to mix socialism and capitalism when you obviously know nothing of the latter. How much Mises do you read? Or Hayek, or DiLorenzo, or MacKenzie? How much do you know about Austrian economics and how much do you know as Austrian economics in comparison to Keynesian or Chicago School economics? And you have the nerve to call me stupid....

Edited by ISuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leftcoast

 

And leftcoast, here's the thing I was poking fun at. The fact that you consider yourself viable to mix socialism and capitalism when you obviously know nothing of the latter. How much Mises do you read? Or Hayek, or DiLorenzo, or MacKenzie? How much do you know about Austrian economics and how much do you know as Austrian economics in comparison to Keynesian or Chicago School economics? And you have the nerve to call me stupid....

 

Thank you for opening pandoras box...

 

I never actualy called you stupid. I will say, since you say I know nothing of capitolism, your comments here show that you know even less about socialism. Why can the two be mixed? Well, it's easy (I have been trained as an engineer, this was implied above, it's my job to make sure things work) back to point, of course they can be mixed you just have to think about it, and then find a solution.

 

Either way most (modern ones, I'm sure you know what I mean though) governments are not totaly capitolist nor are they totaly communist/socialist. Please tell me what you call them, it's very likely that is what I call a mix between the two systems.

 

 

 

 

The people have no control over this, only the politicians, and face it, when politicians and corporations become buddies, things take a downturn for the consumer.

 

In fact, this is bad for every one in the long run, not just consumers. I agree with you here. This is Cronyism not Capitolism or Socialism.

 

 

People sending their kids to private school also have to pay taxes, and as you've stated, the majority of these taxes go to public schools(which are completely useless to them). Yep, still a monopoly.

 

I do work with several colleges (all of wich get public funding) most of what I do is in the Engineering disiplines, but I also heavily deal with manufacturing technology. I can tell you from personal experience that our economy benifits from using Federal money to fund these programs, our grads. quality education helps us compete with the rest of the world from a manufacturing standpoint. Cheap chinese labour is second to knowledge, I know this.

 

 

 

1.) That's how entreprenours are born, and also, a minority of unemployed people, in order to get a job, needs an incentive for a business to hire them over one of the current workers.

2.)Exploitation is only born when a person allows it. Everybody has a choice between working or starving, the only difference is that leftist social programs try to hinder the working by creating minimum wage laws(which hurt companies forcing them to give less jobs) and maximum work hours. "The worker's party" my ass....

 

Actualy socialism helps ensure people can make a living wage, history has showed us many times that pure capitolism leads to great poverty, either way, I need you to show evidence of your claim without right-wing banter.

 

 

Whether businesses are ethical or not is of no importance, it's the fact that businesses have no power to legislation or power to take rights from an individual. Government on the other hand.....

 

How I wish this were true. But in reality, buisness has a crapload of legislative power because they have the $$$$$$ to make people in government make things very favorable for themselves.

 

On a side note, no, I never said you were stupid. Without people like you here there would be no one here to argue the other side as many here are of a moderate to left stance. Even if (hypotheticaly) I know your incorrect or think you are, I still hold respect for yours and other opinions. Your last post gave me the impresion that I realy offended you, I may not have the same political views but It was not my intention to offend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ISuck

 

I never actualy called you stupid.  I will say, since you say I know nothing of capitolism, your comments here show that you know even less about socialism.  Why can the two be mixed?  Well, it's easy (I have been trained as an engineer, this was implied above, it's my job to make sure things work) back to point, of course they can be mixed you just have to think about it, and then find a solution.

 

Either way most (modern ones, I'm sure you know what I mean though) governments are not totaly capitolist nor are they totaly communist/socialist.  Please tell me what you call them, it's very likely that is what I call a mix between the two systems.

 

Why can't the two be mixed? Because, as Ive said before, power to the government tends to increase exponentially, governments should be given as little power as possible. Look at the Iraqi war. It started by Congress giving Bush the power to use force, but Congress can't do that as giving said power to the President is not one of the 18 things Congress can do. Instead of voting to declare war as they were supposed to, they gave more power to the President. This is the type of bullsh*t things governments do when you give them power, so no, a "mix" of socialism and capitalism won't work as it is not capitalism in any form to give more and more power to the government. What you are thinking of is national syndicalism (which was more common with Mussolini's fascista).

 

Most modern governments are supposed to be one thing but are completely different. The United States is supposed to be a Constitutional Republic, a little left of Jeffersonian. But instead it, like many other countries, is a welfare state.

 

 

 

The people have no control over this, only the politicians, and face it, when politicians and corporations become buddies, things take a downturn for the consumer.

 

In fact, this is bad for every one in the long run, not just consumers. I agree with you here. This is Cronyism not Capitolism or Socialism.

 

Corporate Welfare can be called protectionism or mercantilism. Most people will be quick to assert that mercantilism is capitalist but it is not, it is very left of capitalism.

 

 

I do work with several colleges (all of wich get public funding) most of what I do is in the Engineering disiplines, but I also heavily deal with manufacturing technology.  I can tell you from personal experience that our economy benifits from using Federal money to fund these programs, our grads. quality education helps us compete with the rest of the world from a manufacturing standpoint.  Cheap chinese labour is second to knowledge, I know this.

 

Dependence on the federal government is never good. We've done it with the federal reserve and it's not helping, we're just screwing ourselves over in the long run. Handouts are welfare, and welfare when welfare is as subjective as this, it is a bad thing no matter how egalitarian one might make of it.

 

 

Actualy socialism helps ensure people can make a living wage, history has showed us many times that pure capitolism leads to great poverty, either way, I need you to show evidence of your claim without right-wing banter.

 

What system are you claiming is pure capitalism and what evidence would you like me to provide?

 

 

How I wish this were true.  But in reality, buisness has a crapload of legislative power because they have the $$$$$$ to make people in government make things very favorable for themselves.

 

Only when the government extends a helping hand to those businesses does that happen, which capitalism is against.

 

 

On a side note, no, I never said you were stupid.  Without people like you here there would be no one here to argue the other side as many here are of a moderate to left stance.  Even if (hypotheticaly) I know your incorrect or think you are, I still hold respect for yours and other opinions.  Your last post gave me the impresion that I realy offended you, I may not have the same political views but It was not my intention to offend.

 

Im not an easily offended guy, I really don't care how stupid or crazy people think I am. No, I wasn't offended, Im just opposed by these types of posts:

 

 

ISuck, look, I'm not going to quote you and restate what I have already said. I will say that I will argue with you later after you mature a little and think about your positions, over half the things you say are just plain incorect. It's not worth my time to argue with you when you won't listen. I hope you can soak in what other people are saying here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
holdenrulz

The public does not run a federal monopoly nor a state sponsored monopoly by any means. Take tariffs for example, tariffs are called "protectionist" because they "protect" businesses from foreign competition. They also deprive the consumer of the lower prices and higher quality products or goods that would be obtained through a competitive market. The people have no control over this, only the politicians, and face it, when politicians and corporations become buddies, things take a downturn for the consumer. The corporation provides power to the politicians and the politicians provide power to the corporation.

 

That's why a state monopoly is bad

 

 

Federal refers directly to the central government of a specific country

Now if we look at Federal Monopoly with this definition it refer's to a monopoly being run by the Government of a country.

Now a Tariff doesn't deprive the consumer, the aim of Tariff's is to stop a country being flooded with cheap goods which would increase the debt owed to other country's. Also it encourages business's create jobs in the country which would boost the economy of the country which is a aim which can improve the quality if life of the citizens of said country. I have an example of a Federal Monopoly in Australia, one of the largest phone company's here is Telstra.

 

History and Development of Company

 

Our origins date back to 1901, when the Postmaster-General's Department was established by the Commonwealth Government to manage all domestic telephone, telegraph and postal services, and to 1946, when the Overseas Telecommunications Commission was established by the Commonwealth Government to manage international telecommunications services. Since then we have been transformed and renamed several times as follows:

 

    * the Australian Telecommunications Commission, trading as Telecom Australia in July 1975;

    * the Australian Telecommunications Corporation, trading as Telecom Australia in January 1989;

    * the Australian and Overseas Telecommunications Corporation Limited in February 1992;

    * Telstra Corporation Limited in April 1993, trading internationally as Telstra; and

    * trading domestically as Telstra in 1995.

 

We were incorporated as an Australian public limited liability company in November 1991. Following the opening of Australia's telecommunications markets to full competition in July 1997, we underwent a partial privatisation in November 1997 under which the Commonwealth sold approximately 33.3% of our issued shares to the public. Following the initial privatisation, those of our shares that are not held by the Commonwealth are quoted on the Australian Stock Exchange and on the New Zealand Stock Exchange. American depositary shares, each representing five shares evidenced by American depositary receipts, have been issued by the Bank of New York as depositary (Depositary) and are listed on the New York Stock Exchange.

 

A further global offering by the Commonwealth of up to 16.6% of our issued shares was launched in September 1999. The shares sold by the Commonwealth were also listed on the Australian Stock Exchange, the New Zealand Stock Exchange and the New York Stock Exchange on 18 October 1999. The Commonwealth currently owns approximately 50.1% of our issued shares and it is required by legislation to own at least that much.

 

Now WHO control's the Politician ????

That's right the voter's but Unlike in America voting is compulsory in Australia so in effect the people have full control over the Politician's because if we don't like them they don't get re-elected.

 

 

People sending their kids to private school also have to pay taxes, and as you've stated, the majority of these taxes go to public schools(which are completely useless to them). Yep, still a monopoly.

 

 

Do you understand what a Monopoly is ?????

from you statement above you must not

 

 

Primary characteristics of a monopoly

 

    * Single Seller

 

  A pure monopoly is an industry in which a single firm is the sole producer of a good or the sole provider of a service. This is usually caused by a blocked entry.

 

    * No Close Substitutes

 

    The product or service is unique in ways which go beyond brand identity, and cannot be easily replaced (a monopoly on water from a certain spring, sold under a certain brand name, is not a true monopoly; neither is Coca-Cola, even though it is differentiated from its competition in flavor).

 

    * Price Maker

 

    In a pure monopoly a single firm controls the total supply of the whole industry and is able to exhert a significant degree of control over the price, by changing the quantity supplied. In subtotal monopolies (for example diamonds or petroleum at present) a single organization controls enough of the supply that even if it limits the quantity, or raises prices, the other suppliers will be unable to make up the difference and take significant amounts of market share.

 

    * Blocked Entry

 

    The reason a pure monopolist has no competitors is that certain barriers keep would be competitors from entering the market. Depending upon the form of the monopoly these barriers can be economic, technological, legal (basic patents on certain drugs), or of some other type of barrier that completely prevents other firms from entering the market.

 

 

Now that is the definition of a Economic Monopoly but as they're the same in type if not in wording.

So in fact a public school is not a monopoly purely by the fact you can choose a private school I should have mentioned it before.

 

Now I gather that you assume that a union can be created by unfair conditions set by the company. But what happens when the amount of people who need a job far outweight's the amount of jobs that have been created. If you have five workers who need a job for the one worker you have then you will find people will not care about a union and will just be happy with the fact they have a job while others don't. As for the Child Labour Commetn it is slavery if it is exploitation(sp?) or die because those children only have those choices.

 

 

1.) That's how entreprenours are born, and also, a minority of unemployed people, in order to get a job, needs an incentive for a business to hire them over one of the current workers.

2.)Exploitation is only born when a person allows it. Everybody has a choice between working or starving, the only difference is that leftist social programs try to hinder the working by creating minimum wage laws(which hurt companies forcing them to give less jobs) and maximum work hours. "The worker's party" my ass....

 

How does a Minimum wages lower the amount of jobs avaliable ?????

Simple it doesn't you never see a company lower wages to hire more people, it will lower wages to increase profit's

No Company on earth would like profit decrease than increase and if that means some faceless worker will have to live on less so be it, why ????

Because of greed.

 

 

As I stated above, a totaly free trade system is perfect in theory. You talk about companies as if they are ethical. One of my biggest problem with right-wing government is it seems to always give buisness the benefit of the doubt. Well, you and me and the guy down the street are human. Were not perfect, we will all on ocation, do things that are; wrong, illegal, unethical, ect, just to improve our lives. If you give buisness extra freedom they will take 3 times the freedom we gave them, why, BECAUSE IT MAKES THEM MORE MONEY!

 

 

Whether businesses are ethical or not is of no importance, it's the fact that businesses have no power to legislation or power to take rights from an individual. Government on the other hand.....

Now I agree with Leftcoast no company on earth is ethical completly and though there maybe exception I don't know of any

 

Now as for ISuck's post, wether a business is ethical or not is very important as if a company has no ethic's than it will be less concerned with infriging on the right's of the community for example you said

 

A company cannot pollute people's drinking water unless a company owns it, and then why the f*ck would the public drink it anyway

Now if that company send's that water into a stream that run's into a catchment then they have polluted the drinking water of the public, water it doesn't own so it infringe's the right of the water company and the public who ulitimatly drink the water.

 

Now I believe we should either get back to the topic at hand or create a new thread on this topic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ISuck

A tariff's goal may not be to deprive the consumer but, invariably, it does, as with most government intervention. Let's see how a federal monopoly was born and how it led to The War for Southern Independence:

 

An Industrial Revolution was born in the North and businesses, of course, outweighed agriculture.

The State raised tariffs-A Hamiltonian/Clay idea.

-the tariffs would "protect" businesses in the North from overseas competition

-in the South it was mainly agricultural and imports were needed more than they were in the North.(the South paid 87% of the tariffs, tariffs constituted for 95% of the federal revenue)

-the South's economy had been wrecked by tariffs for the better part of America's short life.

-The North would buy goods from the South for cheap prices, as the South was poor and the price system allowed this

-So now the South was forced to buy goods from the North, however sh*tty they might be

 

Bam, monopoly(and consequently secession)

 

 

Primary characteristics of a monopoly

 

    * Single Seller

 

  A pure monopoly is an industry in which a single firm is the sole producer of a good or the sole provider of a service. This is usually caused by a blocked entry.

 

The government has the power to weed out any other schools by any means it wants. Whether that be taxes or anything else, you can't deny that the government can give itself a pretty hand in whatever card game it plays

 

 

    * No Close Substitutes

 

    The product or service is unique in ways which go beyond brand identity, and cannot be easily replaced (a monopoly on water from a certain spring, sold under a certain brand name, is not a true monopoly; neither is Coca-Cola, even though it is differentiated from its competition in flavor).

 

 

education....check

 

 

    * Price Maker

 

    In a pure monopoly a single firm controls the total supply of the whole industry and is able to exhert a significant degree of control over the price, by changing the quantity supplied. In subtotal monopolies (for example diamonds or petroleum at present) a single organization controls enough of the supply that even if it limits the quantity, or raises prices, the other suppliers will be unable to make up the difference and take significant amounts of market share.

 

 

government def. has this power....check

 

 

    * Blocked Entry

 

    The reason a pure monopolist has no competitors is that certain barriers keep would be competitors from entering the market. Depending upon the form of the monopoly these barriers can be economic, technological, legal (basic patents on certain drugs), or of some other type of barrier that completely prevents other firms from entering the market.

 

expense...check

 

 

 

Now as for ISuck's post, wether a business is ethical or not is very important as if a company has no ethic's than it will be less concerned with infriging on the right's of the community for example you said

 

A company cannot pollute people's drinking water unless a company owns it, and then why the f*ck would the public drink it anyway

Now if that company send's that water into a stream that run's into a catchment then they have polluted the drinking water of the public, water it doesn't own so it infringe's the right of the water company and the public who ulitimatly drink the water.

 

A company can pollute all the water it wants if it owns it, once it pollutes somebody else's, then it is infringing on their rights. Nothing new here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • 2 Users Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 2 Guests

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.