[Jester]

Ask questions, ignore the answers you don't want to hear, then run off... Thats so many kinds of fail it may be a record.

Ta ta.

[Quinny]

Thought I was being ignored anyway.

I suppose the simple thing is that you (and Mr Bill) assume that government = consumption and cannot create wealth. So we get a factory creating goods/wealth and as soon as it becomes government owned it suddenly becomes consumption. It doesn't work like that!

Well guys it's been fun but it's time for me to step out.

Everybody had plenty of an opportunity to speak their mind
*look at how many pages there are! - that's a lot for 1 person to reply to*
so I don't want to hear anyone complaining or accusing me of trying to avoid the issue b/c that is false.

Sorry Quinny you showed up too late to the party.

Bas and bl00k I found your discussions to be the most fruitful.

Later guys

[Javaman]

You haven't explained why capitalist countries do better than comunist countries

Do they? Are you sure? The United States spent forty years after WWII living off the fact that its principal competitors in Europe and Japan were under reconstruction and economically beholden to it, and the twenty subsequent years living off their credit like some unemployed uncle flopped on your couch, and the result is a financial crisis that just might rival the Great Depression. If the Soviet Union had lived a trillion dollars a year beyond its means, hey...

If West Germany and South Korea really were doing well because they had "help" from the US, why weren't Eastern Europe and North Korea not doing better with the "help" they had from large communist nations? And again, why the Iron Curtain and Berlin Wall?

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but... how many millions of people did the United States lose in World War II? How many Stalingrads were fought on its soil? How many of its cities endured three-year sieges like Leningrad? How many hundreds of miles did its armies have to retreat, leaving behind infrastructure that was used against it, and finally destroyed on the retreat of the foe? All things considered, the marvel isn't that the Soviet Union and its bloc did so poorly after the war, but that in fact they did so well. They managed to go toe-to-toe with us for forty-five years. They became a nuclear superpower, built the first ICBM, they put the first satellite in orbit, the human being in space, sent the first object to the Moon, built the first space station, all while rebuilding from a conflict the likes and scope of which the United States has never seen on its own soil. In truth, it's astounding they managed all that. Unquestionably the paranoia of their political system was objectionable but that's not automatically part-and-parcel of a centralized economy or socialist ideas about managing the wealth of a society. Confronted with the resources available to the US and its Western allies, they faced a considerable bleed-off of labour in Berlin, and made regrettable decisions in dealing with it. The United States makes such policies, attempting to erect a similar, if legislative, wall around Cuba, for example.

Now I have repeatedly responded to your questions. I would like you to address mine. And those were:

• why some communist countries were better off than others
• why they were better off than free-market economies in the Third World
• why the Soviet Union gave us a run for our money for 50 years as the other superpower, surpassing the might of all free market economies but one, and looks on the verge of doing so again
• why China, a planned economy, is in a position to lend money to Western economies (the United States in particular), and a creditor to free market economy debtor nations

We'd all like to know why capitalism was not the automatic road to affluence, why planned economies can end up effectively owning the great free market ones, and how there can be actual disparities within systems you're so sure are absolutes in black and white. Please enlighten us.

When you study cause and effect, you have to control all but two factors. You can then look at one factor and see how it affects the other. Comparing a capitalist republic in North America with a socialist country in Europe, or with a communist country in Asia, or a developing nation in Africa, or a capitalist democracy in Asia doesn't really get you anywhere because there are too many variables at work. When you compare adjacent countries with cultures that are similar, but that differ mainly in their economic/political systems, a pattern begins to emerge, namely that communism/socialism/collectivism does NOT work as well as capitalism, all things considered. Which is to say, socialism doesn't work. People living under it make often make attempts to avoid its bad effects or to escape from it entirely.

If you don't believe that, ask yourself why the communists built the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain, or why it's so dangerous for North Koreans to attempt to leave their country. Or why ingenious auto mechanics might build these:

http://www.floatingcubans.com/

I like the '59 Buick. Talk about style!

[Javaman]

Which is why as Marx always said Socialism has to be International!

And your point being? As I went on to post later the second factory will STILL be opened if there is a market for it's product. 10% return on an investment is better than NO return.

Yes the 2nd factory will be built ---> but in a different country.
A country with lower taxes because it doesn't have to provide as much social welfare.

Yes, that way you can eliminate your competition by not allowing it to exist in the first place! You also won't need as many concrete walls or barbed wire fences because there will be no place left for anyone to defect!

The biggest problem for the average person will be that no one will work any harder than they have to, and soon most people will have no more than the "basics" for survival. Some won't have even that. The ruling elite will do OK though.

[Javaman]

Granted you received a benefit from government, perhaps universal health care. That seems quite popular amongst the middle class and the poor too.
But did society really climb one step higher on the ladder at the expense of a rich man being forced to take one step down?
An argument can be made the middle class gained nothing.
They simply received "free" health care insurance by sacrificing thousands of ship building jobs.
Receive B but Sacrifice A.

I'd say that the same number of jobs would be created in healthcare and that the product is far more beneficial to far more people than one man's pleasure yacht.

Even if laborers were paid more at the expense of the rich guy they would expend that money on far more efficiently produced goods and services than the one yacht and therefor the overall welfare would increase by much more than the one yacht, also in this case the number of jobs would be the same.

If I would follow your line of reasoning though, I could make the argument that there would be more jobs than on the yacht as a yacht entails more capital costs. A yacht infact would result in net joblosses.

There are probably some physicians who own yachts. Maybe there are some nurses and other hospital workers who might want to take vacations on rented yachts. Some patients might be able to own yachts. The rich businessman who owns a yacht might also be providing a healthcare plan for his employees. Maybe the employees at a boatyard would rather build yachts than work in hospitals or clinics. Maybe the owner of the boatyard, having seen what socialized medicine might do to his earnings, decided to start building boats, instead of going to med school.

The cost of a yacht might only be enough to pay the salaries of just a few healthcare professionals anyway. One might do better by confiscating all of the money spent on bass boats, daysailers and jet skis. Or just letting people spend or invest their money as they see fit.

[oiless]

No. I understand perfectly.
.....
If you want to make statements the onus is on you to prove them, not upon others to disprove them.

Of course it was a statement!
But notice how it was worded.
Simply stated: Why does income redistribution not work?
You only need to give 1 counter-example and that would completely destroy my point.
But you never even tried!
How hard can it be to find only 1 example?
If you disagree with me then you obviously must have one example in mind right?
I mean that is why people disagree with each other right?
Because they have one example in mind.

For example if I said, "all sheep are white" and you disagreed with me and said, "I saw a black sheep and I know where it is.......oh! but I'm not going to show it to you. That's your problem not mine."
*cough*
I think it is you who is being unfair.

In case you still monitor this thread:
Why would I do that? You've been given numerous examples by others, which you have ignored.
You made a statement and you have no intention of changing your mind about it. It is an article of your faith. I could show you a field of black sheep and you would see them white.
The truth is better served by me pointing out that trickle down economics does not work.

[cube]

...
In case you still monitor this thread:
Why would I do that? You've been given numerous examples by others, which you have ignored.
You made a statement and you have no intention of changing your mind about it. It is an article of your faith. I could show you a field of black sheep and you would see them white.
The truth is better served by me pointing out that trickle down economics does not work.

You openly admit that you never had any intentions to reply to my comment seriously.
I think there's a word for that but it's not very flattering.
Well at least you are being honest!

[cube]

I suppose the simple thing is that you (and Mr Bill) assume that government = consumption and cannot create wealth. So we get a factory creating goods/wealth and as soon as it becomes government owned it suddenly becomes consumption. It doesn't work like that!

Logical Fallacy - strawman argument.

Your argument does not address my own.
Nice try though!
It is clear you have lost the debate.
That is why you have attempted to misrepresent my position.

[cube]

Considering how you phrase the question it is pretty clear that you made up your mind. It's not "could income re-distribution work" it is: "why does it have to fail."

You sit here and lecture me about how I have already "made up your mind" but without any awareness of your own hypocrisy it seems you too have "made up your mind".
//
I can see right through you.
There is one point you do NOT want to admit too but you know it is true.
Your attempt to suggest it does not matter if a rich man is taxed 20% or 60% he has has equal potential to open up the same number of factories in either case is laughable.
Of course a heavier tax rate diminishes a person's spending power! ---> that's a no brainer
//
Why do you avoid this point? It is obvious.
If you admit to it then that would be an admission that (income redistribution / social welfare programs) are nothing more then a sacrificing of investment in exchange for consumption.
You have made many attempts to steer this discussion as far away as hell as you can from that point. You think I didn't notice, nice try!
//
You are very strange Snowrunner.
You agree with me completely on that point.
Your logic is exactly the same as mine!
But your emotions are different.
You hate rich people so bad that you want to punish them at all cost even if it ultimately means also hurting the rest of society.

[oiless]

You openly admit that you never had any intentions to reply to my comment seriously.
I think there's a word for that but it's not very flattering.
Well at least you are being honest!

Oh? What word is that?
Okay, I'll show you a black sheep, however I expect you'll only see white sheep...

From the early 1930's (New Deal) until the late 1960's income inequality in the USA decreased. From then on income inequality increased.
Both these phenomena are the result of wealth redistribution, first from the top down, then from the bottom up.
This wealth redistribution was/is partly caused by changes in the nature of work and by technologies in the work place, but a large portion of it has also been caused by US government policies.
Policies that change the distribution of wealth constitute wealth redistribution.

[cube]

Oh? What word is that?
Okay, I'll show you a black sheep, however I expect you'll only see white sheep...

From the early 1930's (New Deal) until the late 1960's income inequality in the USA decreased. From then on income inequality increased.
Both these phenomena are the result of wealth redistribution, first from the top down, then from the bottom up.
This wealth redistribution was/is partly caused by changes in the nature of work and by technologies in the work place, but a large portion of it has also been caused by US government policies.
Policies that change the distribution of wealth constitute wealth redistribution.

Income inequality can fluctuate because of various reasons. It does not necessarily have to be because of government action.
For example it is a fact that rich people have more of their money tied into *investments*. The stock market is a good example.
Therefore if the stock market goes up then the rich will benefit more and Income inequality increases.
If the stock market crashes the rich losses more so therefore Income inequality decreases.

The stock market tends to go up when the economy is good and down when it is bad so an argument can be made that the financial fortunes of the average man tends to also follow the rich.
Both move up together and both move down together.

[Quinny]

Dominican Republic - Haiti

You haven't explained why capitalist countries do better than comunist countries

Do they? Are you sure? The United States spent forty years after WWII living off the fact that its principal competitors in Europe and Japan were under reconstruction and economically beholden to it, and the twenty subsequent years living off their credit like some unemployed uncle flopped on your couch, and the result is a financial crisis that just might rival the Great Depression. If the Soviet Union had lived a trillion dollars a year beyond its means, hey...

If West Germany and South Korea really were doing well because they had "help" from the US, why weren't Eastern Europe and North Korea not doing better with the "help" they had from large communist nations? And again, why the Iron Curtain and Berlin Wall?

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but... how many millions of people did the United States lose in World War II? How many Stalingrads were fought on its soil? How many of its cities endured three-year sieges like Leningrad? How many hundreds of miles did its armies have to retreat, leaving behind infrastructure that was used against it, and finally destroyed on the retreat of the foe? All things considered, the marvel isn't that the Soviet Union and its bloc did so poorly after the war, but that in fact they did so well. They managed to go toe-to-toe with us for forty-five years. They became a nuclear superpower, built the first ICBM, they put the first satellite in orbit, the human being in space, sent the first object to the Moon, built the first space station, all while rebuilding from a conflict the likes and scope of which the United States has never seen on its own soil. In truth, it's astounding they managed all that. Unquestionably the paranoia of their political system was objectionable but that's not automatically part-and-parcel of a centralized economy or socialist ideas about managing the wealth of a society. Confronted with the resources available to the US and its Western allies, they faced a considerable bleed-off of labour in Berlin, and made regrettable decisions in dealing with it. The United States makes such policies, attempting to erect a similar, if legislative, wall around Cuba, for example.

Now I have repeatedly responded to your questions. I would like you to address mine. And those were:

• why some communist countries were better off than others
• why they were better off than free-market economies in the Third World
• why the Soviet Union gave us a run for our money for 50 years as the other superpower, surpassing the might of all free market economies but one, and looks on the verge of doing so again
• why China, a planned economy, is in a position to lend money to Western economies (the United States in particular), and a creditor to free market economy debtor nations

We'd all like to know why capitalism was not the automatic road to affluence, why planned economies can end up effectively owning the great free market ones, and how there can be actual disparities within systems you're so sure are absolutes in black and white. Please enlighten us.

When you study cause and effect, you have to control all but two factors. You can then look at one factor and see how it affects the other. Comparing a capitalist republic in North America with a socialist country in Europe, or with a communist country in Asia, or a developing nation in Africa, or a capitalist democracy in Asia doesn't really get you anywhere because there are too many variables at work. When you compare adjacent countries with cultures that are similar, but that differ mainly in their economic/political systems, a pattern begins to emerge, namely that communism/socialism/collectivism does NOT work as well as capitalism, all things considered. Which is to say, socialism doesn't work. People living under it make often make attempts to avoid its bad effects or to escape from it entirely.

If you don't believe that, ask yourself why the communists built the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain, or why it's so dangerous for North Koreans to attempt to leave their country. Or why ingenious auto mechanics might build these:

http://www.floatingcubans.com/

I like the '59 Buick. Talk about style!

[Quinny]

In times of plenty people always want more - greed takes over from need. When the ads for tat are broadcast over the border and there's a bubble expanding next door, sure it might be tempting to look for more, but it sure ain't sustainable!

Cuba would be toast now but for the co-operation between people and communitites used to working together. The US tried to starve it out and now Havana grows 90% of it's food within 5km of the city. Roberto Perez states that one of the main reasons for their success was their community cased efforts.

Seems to me the right in the USA would be fighting over preps and carrots in the fields rather than trying to plan a way forward. Some form of collectivism is needed for the future - even with massive die-off the survivors cannot follow the disastrous path of infinite growth that capitalism requires.

Hopefully we can get through the death throes of capitalism without too much suffering.

[Javaman]

Dominican Republic - Haiti

Both countries are located on the same island, but have different languages, cultures, and histories. Haiti seems to have had more problems with government corruption, and has had very little investment, either foreign or domestic. Tourists visit the Dominican Republic, but not Haiti.

[Nickel]

A rich man can only eat so much so therefore, He may put 10% of his money into consumption and 90% into investment.
For the middle class it may be the reverse.

Ah, you get a fire hose from the least-expected sources sometimes... even a pyromaniac.

Investment and consumption are very, very simplistic generalities, but they do serve to illustrate the point. They're not unrelated; one wise and one foolish. They're the exact flip sides of the same coin. In our society, very little can be consumed that is not the investment of someone or something. And investment that promotes no consumption fails -- it generates no profits or even sustainability. Growth, generally speaking, occurs in the markup placed on the consumption of investment. It's necessarily inflationary but so long as it's gradual enough, it doesn't present problems that outweigh the benefits.

Now, you yourself have come to the crux of the matter: the rich man can only, as you say, "eat so much". One model of what to do with the rest is to suppose it is entirely his, to do with as he wishes. Another model is to suppose that any excess at all beyond his needs is surplus derived from, and therefore accruing to, the people. Somewhere in the middle is the idea that some of the excess should enrich the individual, but some should return to the greater society to become "investments" for the general good, rather than the private good. This is taxation.

It's often been suggested that taxation is the other extreme from free enterprise; it is not. Wholesale expropriation is. Taxation is median course that permits some individuals to continue to use their advantages to acquire more, while at the same time society is enabled to retain some of the wealth generated by its own general activities to the betterment of society.

[Nickel]

1) Sweden and Denmark have a 50%
2) Austria and Switzerland it's 30%
I'd rather take the 2nd choice!

Why? Is it merely a matter of these numbers, or can you demonstrate a solid positive outcome of the latter or negative of the former?

[Nickel]

A country with lower taxes because it doesn't have to provide as much social welfare.

You do know that most companies in the US spend more per employee than they do in Europe or for example Canada. Certain things scale well, and if you take the profit margin out of the healthcare aspect for example you find that it is overall cheaper.

This is a very good point. A couple of years ago, GM was making a pitch for the US to get serious about getting a national health care system like Canada has. Why? Because the Big Three showed they were spending something in the neighbourhood of $1000 (averaged out) for every car that rolled off the line in the US on health care benefits they weren't paying for when the same car rolled off the line in Canada... and they went on to stroke their beards and wonder aloud if perhaps they shouldn't be building more cars in Canada, et al., in the future.

Chrysler's outspoken former CEO Lee Iacocca is said to be the first to credit public health care as providing Canadian businesses a serious competitive advantage over their U.S. counterparts.

A car built in Detroit in 1984 cost about $500 US more to produce than to do it in Windsor. This amount equalled the value of health care benefits Chrysler was providing to its U.S. employees, while Canadian workers received comparable benefits through the Ontario government.

Today, General Motors estimates that private health care expenditures for workers in U.S. plants add about $1,500 to the cost of each vehicle produced there. Chrysler puts U.S. health care costs at $1,400 per vehicle while Ford says its burden is $1,100. In Canada, GM estimates its costs were less than $500 per vehicle.

Socialism can be good for business. Who knew?

[oiless]

I'll show you a black sheep, however I expect you'll only see white sheep...

Income inequality can fluctuate because of various reasons. It does not necessarily have to be because of government action.

I gave two other reasons for the changes. However US government policies toward taxes and trade have done most of the pushing.

For example it is a fact that rich people have more of their money tied into *investments*. The stock market is a good example.
Therefore if the stock market goes up then the rich will benefit more and Income inequality increases.
If the stock market crashes the rich losses more so therefore Income inequality decreases.

You noticed that I picked the New Deal as my start point? The point where the stock market had been pummelled and had pretty much no where to go but up? So, from that point on income inequality should have increased, as the well-to-do saw gains. (Albeit slow and faltering ones, it wasn't until the early fifties that the DOW crossed it's 1929 high again. ) Yet income inequality decreased until the late 60's/early 70's.

The stock market tends to go up when the economy is good and down when it is bad so an argument can be made that the financial fortunes of the average man tends to also follow the rich.
Both move up together and both move down together.

It appears to me as though the fortunes of the rich are following the fortunes of the average man at the moment.

[Snowrunner]

Considering how you phrase the question it is pretty clear that you made up your mind. It's not "could income re-distribution work" it is: "why does it have to fail."

You sit here and lecture me about how I have already "made up your mind" but without any awareness of your own hypocrisy it seems you too have "made up your mind".

My hypocrisy? Huh?

You ride in here with a statement. I counter your statement and point out that you made a statement, not posing a question and that makes me a hypocrite?

Someone get cube a dictionary please.

[cube]

...
My hypocrisy? Huh?

You ride in here with a statement. I counter your statement and point out that you made a statement, not posing a question and that makes me a hypocrite?

Someone get cube a dictionary please.

here's some free advice.
Next time if you disagree with someone then say:

"I disagree with you and here is my reason *--->insert argument in here<---*"

But you didn't do that did you? Nope. Allow me to refreshen your memory.
You attempted to hijack this thread and push it towards a completely different direction.
There's a word for that and it is called Trolling.

Be honest Snowrunner you like me.
You can't get enough of me.
You enjoy talking to me.
You want to see my cube. click here to see cube's cube
That's why you will come back to me and reply to my comments.