So how many of you are socialists of some kind?

File: 39 KB, 210x305, 090116jenny-mccarthy2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon May 9 10:54:53 2011 No.3024504 [Reply] [Original]

So how many of you are socialists of some kind?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 10:56:53 2011 No.3024514 >>3024504 The majority of the people here. I am not though, as I support total Liberty.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 10:59:53 2011 No.3024526 >>3024514 Syndicalist here. Come at me. Universities are basically the closest thing to syndicalism anyways. Professors teach what they want, guide and direct their own research and are in charge of their own direction and livelihoods.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 11:01:53 2011 No.3024540 >>3024514 And what exactly is total Liberty? I didn't know Liberty was a define and concret concept everyone could agree on. Please elaborate.

Anonymous Mon May 9 11:01:53 2011 No.3024541

I'm a Marxist, although I'm somewhat opposed to the centralization of power. Big believer in the democratic control of the means of production by the workers themselves.

I think May 68' provides incredibly important lessons on how a successful revolution can be carried out.

>>3024514
What does that mean, you support "total Liberty"?

>>	Atwill !kelPcGZQlE Mon May 9 11:01:53 2011 No.3024543 File: 62 KB, 400x519, 6a00d8357f3f2969e2014e872a4c2a970d.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Fuck yeah, the queen of reason.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 11:03:53 2011 No.3024550 >>3024540 In this case, economic freedom and social freedom.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 11:04:53 2011 No.3024557 >>3024526 They actually teach what they are told to teach.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 11:05:53 2011 No.3024563 democratic socialist here

Anonymous Mon May 9 11:06:53 2011 No.3024566

>>3024526
I didn't think I'd get into detailing what particular tendency I most align with, but I think I could be described as a libertarian Marxist of the Luxemburg variety. Only a class movement of workers can overthrow capitalism, communism is a global system, all power to the worker councils, etc. Although, I'm also somewhat of a pragmatist. If revolution comes, I'm with whatever direction the working class goes in.

Anonymous Mon May 9 11:07:53 2011 No.3024571

>So how many of you are socialists of some kind?

I assume most of this board will be left leaning as it's full of upper middle class students in their late teens/early 20s.

However; I'm 29, married and have a career. So I'm a Conservative. Anything else would be silly.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 11:08:53 2011 No.3024583 >>3024550 By "economic freedom", I'm assuming you mean the freedom to own productive property, like a company? The freedom to be an entrepreneur?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 11:09:53 2011 No.3024589 File: 22 KB, 300x359, 2009_0114_getty_obama_thumbs_upcrop.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3024571

Anonymous Mon May 9 11:11:53 2011 No.3024600

>>3024583

Sort of. Economic freedom means you own your labor. You can trade, sell, or rent your labor without fear of encroachment by others. Just because 5 people tell me my labor is now theirs to use as they want, it does not make it so. In other words, democracy (majority force rule) is slavery.

Anonymous Mon May 9 11:13:53 2011 No.3024607

>>3024571
>However; I'm 29, married and have a career

How is this incompatible with you having co-ownership and democratic control with your coworkers over your workplace?

Anyway, the percentage of U.S. total income in 1976 that went to the top 1% of American households: 8.9% That figure in 2007 was 23.5% The only year since 1913 that the top 1 percent’s share was that high was 1928. The combined net worth of the Forbes 400 wealthiest Americans in 2007 was $1.5 trillion. The combined net worth of the poorest 50% of American households: $1.6 trillion. U.S. minimum wage per hour is $7.25. Steve Jobs' wage per hour, averaged on a 40 hour work week, comes out to about $8900 per hour. Average hourly wage in 1972, adjusted for inflation: $20.06. Average hourly wage in 2010, according to the BLS was $22.87 - and the BLS doesn't take into account the unemployed - and if they did, the average hourly earnings would be much lower, especially considering the official unemployment figure has been so high the past few years.

Unemployment and underemployment are high, especially among youth - even youth who've earned degrees. So unrest is coming, you have to decide who's side you'll be on. People who work, or people who own.

People change during times of upheaval. You might as well.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 11:14:53 2011 No.3024611 >>3024571 >upper middle class NOPE we should really dispence with the whole notion of a middle class. The term is meaningless. In some contexts its used to refer to workers. I mean wtf, by definition they are working class,.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 11:14:53 2011 No.3024613 >>3024600 > democracy (majority force rule) is slavery. Ignorance is Strength Freedom is Slavery War is Peace

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 11:15:53 2011 No.3024615 >>3024611 Everyone should be working class.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 11:15:53 2011 No.3024616 >>3024607 The worst thing for young workers is minimum wage laws.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 11:16:53 2011 No.3024621 >>3024613 > implying majority force rule is not slavery Ignorance is Strength Freedom is Slavery War is Peace

Anonymous Mon May 9 11:18:53 2011 No.3024628

>>3024611

I think it would be safe to say that most of the posters on this board aren't working class. In fact, I'd put good money on 98 percent of this board never having done a manual or physical job in their lives.

>>3024607

>How is this incompatible with you having co-ownership and democratic control with your coworkers over your workplace?

Because socialist doesn't hold that meaning in my country. I despise the left and leftist politics. They don't love the poor, they simply hate the rich.

You can't run a company on left wing ideals. After spending the early years of my life as a victim of socialism and it's evils, I'm not fond of it.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 11:18:53 2011 No.3024630 >>3024621 The governing rules of society have to be formed by some basis. Pick one. I'm not arguing for pure democracy, really; it's inefficient. Also, are you quoting IngSoc seriously now?

Anonymous Mon May 9 11:19:53 2011 No.3024636

>>3024600
To what extent goes your labor? Your own body (Nozick said that, ultimely, the freedom of your ego is the very thing that no one, even you, should sell)? The capitals you own?

Because if capitals are included, I would like to know how you acquire these things without breaking someones' liberty at some point. If you build a cross bow to hunt(just an example), do you owe the three where the wood comes from? Do you owe the animals you kill?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 11:20:53 2011 No.3024638 >>3024630 Then you support a constitutional democracy. Liberty is all that needs to be followed. I don't get to control you, your labor, your property, or your movement (if possible).

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 11:21:53 2011 No.3024643 >>3024636 Unowned property that you transform into something is yours. Property you steal is not yours. This is simple.

Anonymous Mon May 9 11:21:53 2011 No.3024649

>>3024628
>I think it would be safe to say that most of the posters on this board aren't working class. In fact, I'd put good money on 98 percent of this board never having done a manual or physical job in their lives.
How ballsy of you to put money on something untestable that neither you nor anyone else has any data on.

Anonymous Mon May 9 11:22:53 2011 No.3024650

>>3024600
What you're supposedly raging against is already under your nose. This autonomy you seek to protect is already violated because you do not own your labor. Your employer owns your labor. He or she profits from the goods and services you create. She wouldn't knowingly pay you the full value of your labor. For example, if you produce twenty items in an hour that sell for $1 a piece, you wouldn't be paid $20 an hour. There would be no profit.

The owners of companies make decisions with social consequences that further violate autonomy. For instance, how much to pay herself, her employees, what to produce, how much to reinvest in the company. These are decisions with clear consequences for society at large but lack any input from the overwhelming majority of the community, especially the community employed at the company who's responsibility it is to produce whatever the company must produce.

It's tyrannical.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 11:23:53 2011 No.3024656 >>3024643 >Unowned property that you transform into something is yours. Property you steal is not yours. This is simple. Please give definitions for the words you just used. What is this "transform"

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 11:23:53 2011 No.3024659 >>3024650 Of course I do not currently own my labor as I live in a state. The state, not the company, is stealing my labor.

Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. Mon May 9 11:24:53 2011 No.3024663
File: 17 KB, 229x261, 1259670815640.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Post-scarcity automation libertarian socialist here.

Seeing as my preferred is a little outside of the realm of current technology I like to stick with social democracy.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 11:24:53 2011 No.3024664 >>3024659 So, you aren't paid, and free to buy what you want?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 11:25:53 2011 No.3024665 >>3024656 A stick is not a bow. Once you transform (alter it, change it, make it into something else, etc) it is a new item. Do not confuse this with needing to transform something to own it though.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 11:25:53 2011 No.3024666 >>3024621 >Implying privilege and overwhelming power for the few somehow a free society makes

Anonymous Mon May 9 11:25:53 2011 No.3024667

>>3024649

Working class kids don't post on imageboards. Especially imageboards based around Japanese culture.

And even if they did, /sci/ is about the last place they'd come along with /lit/

People here have had good upbringings, with the benefits of a capitalist society throughout their lives. They're educated - or have the aspiration/ability to achieve an education.

Working class people very rarely argue for the implementation of socialism. They aren't bothered about politics, they're actually more apathetic than all other groups. The people that "champion their cause" are usually rich, educated people who realise the best way to achieve and retain people is through the implementation of socialist politics - giving people a false enemy.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 11:25:53 2011 No.3024671 We're all socialists of SOME sort. The question is a matter of degree, not of kind. I'm a social democrat myself, like every other sane person in the world who knows anything about economics, politics, and history.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 11:25:53 2011 No.3024672 >>3024650 >implying employers don't deserve any wage at all OK

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 11:25:53 2011 No.3024673 >>3024664 I cannot opt out of the state, no.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 11:25:53 2011 No.3024670 >>3024663 You're a libertarian? ;_;

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 11:26:53 2011 No.3024677 >>3024666 So it doesn't? What's more free than giving everyone the same opportunity?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 11:26:53 2011 No.3024679 >>3024666 > implying 2 people forcing me to do something because there is 2 to 1 is not slavery

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 11:27:53 2011 No.3024684 >>3024671 FUCK YES SOCIAL DEMOCRACY Universal access to education and health care, and you don't starve to death just because the job market goes to hell when CEOs fuck up. I approve.

>>	Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. Mon May 9 11:27:53 2011 No.3024686 >>3024670 Not the widely publicized American kind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

Anonymous Mon May 9 11:28:53 2011 No.3024691

>>3024673
That's not what I said.

You're paid for your labor. Ergo, you own the fruit of your labors.

I think you've just got some intellectual masturbation going on here. Humans succeed as societies. If you don't like this one, please describe the one you would like. But just saying you'd like out is asinine.

Anonymous Mon May 9 11:28:53 2011 No.3024692

>>3024671

>We're all socialists of SOME sort.

No. It's become fashionable for politics to seize the middle ground. It's what Blair did back in 1997. Go after the middle ground and do it through soft policy with recycled ideas.

>I'm a social democrat myself, like every other sane person in the world who knows anything about economics, politics, and history.

Socialist mindset summed up beautifully.

"If you aren't with us, you're wrong."

Anonymous Mon May 9 11:28:53 2011 No.3024694

>>3024667
Are you kidding me?

Do you know what the working class is?

A person is working class when they must exchange their labor for wage. This person does not own the means of production or possess the means to produce for their self, so they must enter the market in order to sell their labor for a wage, so that they can buy their means of satisfying their needs in the market. They do not profit from the labor of others, they do not collect interest or rents.

Basically, we're talking about the overwhelming majority of humankind.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 11:29:53 2011 No.3024698 >>3024684 > universal access to products and services > doesnt know those things have costs Incurring costs without getting payment is slavery.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 11:30:53 2011 No.3024707 >>3024686 Ah, I see.

Anonymous Mon May 9 11:30:53 2011 No.3024708

>>3024694
He's probably imagining children working on coal mines, or something.

Anyway, I agree. "Working class" means you have a job which draws a wage. In not-too-long-ago England, having a job was stigmatized. The landed gentry didn't need to *work*. That's for peasants!

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 11:30:53 2011 No.3024711 >>3024691 My labor is stolen with taxes, for one.

Anonymous Mon May 9 11:32:53 2011 No.3024718

>>3024694

>Do you know what the working class is?

Yes. It's when you live by your means and work to cover your lifestyle.

You aren't working class. No one in this thread is. They're all middle class, or from families where they have enough money to lead a middle class lifestyle.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 11:32:53 2011 No.3024720 >>3024698 ? Everyone working gets paid. I don't know what you're even saying. The education and health care are primarily supported through taxes - preferably regressive taxes to limit wealth inequalities.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 11:33:53 2011 No.3024726 >>3024720 >preferably regressive taxes to limit wealth inequalities. Why? What possible benefit does it have to steal from people for the sake of it.

Anonymous Mon May 9 11:33:53 2011 No.3024727

>>3024692
Blair is a socialist to some degree, just not to the same degree as the Socialist Party. Once you accept nationalized health care (as in the UK), you're a socialist to a significant degree.

Mindset of any person who believes anything: "If you aren't with us, you're wrong." DUH.

Anonymous Mon May 9 11:33:53 2011 No.3024730

>>3024718
You're living in a fantasy world.
>Working class is when you live by your means and work to cover your lifestyle.
>You aren't working class. No one in this thread is. They're all middle class
I don't know about you, but I have a job, and I live within my income. That meets your working class description.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 11:34:53 2011 No.3024736 >>3024730 Do you have a degree?

Anonymous Mon May 9 11:37:53 2011 No.3024745

>>3024726
It is not stealing.

I'd support flat taxes, if it weren't possible to buy legislation that gives you tax breaks.

From the recent Bershire Hathaway annual meeting, with Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger:
>On Taxes: "The hedge fund managers of America are getting lower tax rates than physics professors or cab drivers. That is demented." -- C.M.
>On Bailouts: "I think that any institution that requires bailing out by society should see its CEO and its spouse left dead broke." -- W.B.
>On Donald Trump: "Obviously, I think he's a jerk." -- C.M.

And if you don't know who Warren Buffett is, I don't have anything more to say to you.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 11:38:53 2011 No.3024751 >>3024736 Yes. Moving the goal-posts are we? I'm working-class in the sense that I have a job, and it pays entirely for my living. Use another definition if you want, but define it first.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 11:39:53 2011 No.3024753 >>3024720 Then you support theft of labor. Nice that socialism includes theft of labor,

Anonymous Mon May 9 11:39:53 2011 No.3024758

>>3024745

>limit wealth

Is stealing. People earn what they earn, simple as.

Is it right that a guy who can run around a pitch and kick a ball gets more than a teacher? Probably not. But the alternative is far far worse.

Limiting what people earn by taxing them is a slippery slope.

Anonymous Mon May 9 11:42:53 2011 No.3024769

There's some person in this thread that keeps trying to equate socialism with slavery.

Let's examine whether or not this has any merit.

First, I'd like to bring up that actual chattel slavery has famously existed and continues to exist in the global capitalist system. Unpaid labor happens even in advanced industrialized nations like the US everyday, in the guise of prison labor, in unpaid internships, and coerced off-the-clock work by many employers around the country. The reason for this unpaid labor is because it maximizes profit because it drastically decreases production costs. This goes on because the workers themselves have no power - they do not own or control the company for which they labor. This privilege of ownership is the exact opposite of freedom. Companies are dictatorships. For instance, when's the last time you had freedom of speech inside of your work? That is, exercised speech which went against the interests of the owners of the company? Never.

Conversely, in a socialist society, the overwhelming majority would act in the interest of the overwhelming majority, rather than the tiny minority exercising disproportionate power and control over society like we have today. Workers would equally own and democratically control the workplace. They would decide what to produce and how to control production for their own benefit - and when the entire society is organized this way, you have everyone acting in their own interests and the interests of others, because they become one in the same.

So, no. Socialism is not slavery. It's emancipation from slavery.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 11:43:53 2011 No.3024773 >>3024753 GRRRRRAWR "THEFT" IS A FUCKING LEGAL TERM DESCRIBING AN UNLAWFUL ACT OF REPOSSESSION! SOMETHING THAT'S LEGAL, LIKE FUCKING TAXES, CAN THEREFORE, BY FUCKING DEFINITION, NOT BE FUCKING THEFT, YOU UNEDUCATED, SOUNDBITE-SPEWING SHITFUCKER!

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 11:43:53 2011 No.3024774 Communist, no, socialist, yes. I like social security and medicare.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 11:44:53 2011 No.3024782 >>3024758 Except in the real world, the people with power rig the game. CEOs make millions when their companies succeed. They make millions when their companies fail.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 11:44:53 2011 No.3024785 >>3024769 > says the majority decides for all > says that is not slavery for those not in the majority lol

Anonymous Mon May 9 11:45:53 2011 No.3024790

>>3024667
You're wrong.
Im from a lower class neighborhood. Joined the Army after being thrown out by my parents when i was 17. Did two years to get the Post (9/11 G.I Bill. Now I'm in college earning a Bachelors In Applied Science (Fire Science Technology). My current job?
I load trucks all day for Payless Distrubtion

My point i that making assumptions make you look like an arrogant fag. Because, i am working class, I didn't have a "good" upbringing, yet, I'm not a fucking socialist.

Libertarian all the way. My labor and money is mine and I'm not share it with anyone.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 11:46:53 2011 No.3024798 >>3024782 No, you EARNED that money, you see. Otherwise they wouldn't have it. You see, the libertarian definition is that you own whatever you can manage to take.

Anonymous Mon May 9 11:46:53 2011 No.3024799

>>3024718
>You aren't working class. No one in this thread is. They're all middle class, or from families where they have enough money to lead a middle class lifestyle.

What? Just because trinkets like a computer have lowered in cost so much that working class people can afford them doesn't make us magically middle class. Lots of poor people around the world can afford cell phones, nowadays, for example. Does that mean they are any less poor? At the same time, even though computers have lowered in price over the past two decades that I can actually afford it, I still have to exchange my labor for a wage. It doesn't make me rich.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 11:47:53 2011 No.3024810 >>3024785 Yes, yes, tyranny of the majority. That's why we have the bill of rights.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 11:49:53 2011 No.3024821 >>3024785 You're claiming that the majority making a democratic decision is slavery, yet the master-slaves relationship is one of minority power against majority repression. You don't make any sense.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 11:50:53 2011 No.3024832 >>3024821 I wouldn't expect him to start making sense any time soon. Also, all this talk of slavery and theft is a travesty against the people who are ACTUALLY in slavery. >>3024769

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 11:51:53 2011 No.3024837 >>3024810 Then you support a constitutional democracy. >>3024821 Majority force is not slavery because some other kind of slavery is done by the minority? Haha, you need to take a logics class.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 11:52:53 2011 No.3024846 >>3024790 Bro, you've got it upside down. Your labor and your money aren't yours. They are the owner's labor and your money. This autonomy you're so passionate about doesn't exist in the current system.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 11:53:53 2011 No.3024852 >>3024846 You make no fucking sense. He's paid for his work, and does whatever the hell he wants with the money.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 11:55:53 2011 No.3024858 >>3024846 See >>3024852 Honestly, I just get sick of all the privileged fucks I see on this board pretending to know more than they actually do.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 11:56:53 2011 No.3024864 I'm not. We shouldn't have roads. Nor sidewalks. Nor schools & libraries. Nor should we be funding any kind of army. Nor should we be fucking around feeding our own children!

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 11:57:53 2011 No.3024868 >>3024852 He's paid a dividend for his work. Not the full value. He labors in an attempt to enrich himself, but his labor primarily enriches the the owner or majority shareholders of his company. The lower he's paid, the greater the profit margin.

Anonymous Mon May 9 11:57:53 2011 No.3024870

>>3024504

yes, i believe countries should have armies, police men, schools, and even health plans paid by taxes, organized by the government, for the good of everyone

i also think democracy is only good for unimportant things, we can let the masses decide issues as long as they aren't too important (race issues, human rights, economic matters, etc) the masses are too stupid and susceptible to unjust thinking...we can't have democracy for everything, the majority might want to subjugate a minority...

so ya, socialism and a bit of benevolent tyranny are good

Anonymous Mon May 9 11:59:53 2011 No.3024882

>>3024868
Cue labor unions, etc.
The main complaint seems to be "I'm not paid enough". OK, how do you determine what you SHOULD be paid? And on what basis are you worth that much?

IMO, if you threaten to quit if you don't get a raise and the employer refuses, that's how much your labor is worth.

Anonymous Mon May 9 11:59:53 2011 No.3024884

>>3024864

> implying there are no, or have never been private roads
> implying there are no, or have never been private sidewalks
> implying there are no, or have never been private schools
> implying there are no, or have never been private libraries
> implying there are no, or have never been private funded militaries
> implying kids don't eat unless there is socialism

You are hilarious.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 11:59:53 2011 No.3024888 >>3024870 >benevolent tyranny If only we could do that reliably.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 12:01:53 2011 No.3024894 >>3024884 You're being silly. I don't want to hand over my water supply to a business monopoly. Since it's a natural monoply, I'd rather have it taken over the by government which is accountable to me, instead of a company which isn't.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 12:02:53 2011 No.3024902 >>3024894 > implying monopolies are great if they are gubbmints > implying companies are not accountable to the people that keep them in business You are still hilarious.

Anonymous Mon May 9 12:03:53 2011 No.3024910

>>3024858
>Honestly, I just get sick of all the privileged fucks I see on this board pretending to know more than they actually do.

>raging against privilege, thirsts for autonomy

Dude, you are a fucking socialist, you just haven't figured it out yet. I am not some privileged kid. I'm a vet, too. I spent 5 years as a Master at Arms in the Navy. Spent a long time being stationed out of Bahrain, bouncing around the box, and then spent my last two years in Gtmo. I'm using my post 9-11 for Integrated Social Studies and Education with a dual in History. Which is a long mouthed way of saying I'm hoping to become a history teacher and coach sports.

I'm not your enemy. I want you to have greater control over your life, not less. I don't want privileged people to have control over you. In a society in which everyone is equal, privilege doesn't exist! Everyone owns, works, and controls their own lives. Yes, decisions on what/when/why/where/how to produce would be made by the majority. This isn't tyrannical - it's the exact opposite! It's democratic!

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 12:04:53 2011 No.3024921 >>3024663 > libertarian > socialist What the fuck am I reading

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 12:04:53 2011 No.3024922 >>3024902 Natural monopolies, bitch. They can't be avoided. How many independent power lines are going to your house? How many independent water supplies? Sewage systems? Can you even imagine that having several of each is a good idea?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 12:04:53 2011 No.3024925 >>3024888 we do it. we have laws and constitutions that are not subject to mass "democracy" if whites want to pass a law that explicitly discriminates against blacks, it can't happen, it wont happen (suspension of democracy)

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 12:05:53 2011 No.3024930 >>3024910 ... and the trolls from earlier already said that democracy is slavery. sigh I think I see how this works for them now. Still doesn't make much sense.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 12:06:53 2011 No.3024933 >>3024922 Hopefully there will be other technologies that will make them redundant. Fuck monopolies.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 12:06:53 2011 No.3024937 >>3024922 > implying i dont have private lines to my house because they would not do it > implying the gubbmint's monopoly does not alter that > implying competition is bad You are fucking hilarious.

Anonymous Mon May 9 12:10:53 2011 No.3024955

>>3024910
Here's my problem with Socialism and democracy in general. Who gets to decide whats right and wrong? Does the majority dictate to me how to live my life in a democracy? It seems that way. I want EVERY person to have their opinion voiced. I don't want anyone telling someone else what they should value,what they should purchase or deciding how their money should be spent or how much their labor is worth.

I'm not a economist or a political science so I won't pretend to be an expert. I'm just a man who deeply values individual choice and freedom. And those get lost in every society or type of government it seems.

Anonymous Mon May 9 12:11:53 2011 No.3024961

>>3024882
Perhaps the way we should be paid for a time should be this. For one hour of your labor, you are able to demand something which takes one hour of labor to produce. Eventually, money should be abolished. In a feudal society, Commodities were exchanged for tangible Money (gold, silver), which was then exchanged for more Commodities. Profit came from overpricing goods. After the market grew to a certain point in which things could not be overpriced, profit had to come somewhere. In a capitalist society, Money is used to produce Commodities, which is then sold in the market for Money. The profit in this process comes from unpaid labor. In a society society, this process is ended. Everyone decides what must be produced, and produces it. No privilege, no kings, no rich men. Only people freely associating themselves for mutual gain.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 12:12:53 2011 No.3024967 >>3024922 So we should outlaw septic tanks, solar panels, and desalination technology because they are encroaching on the respective utilities monopolies?

Anonymous Mon May 9 12:12:53 2011 No.3024972

>>3024937
>implying competition is bad
Stop strawmanning already.

I'd love for a free market to take care of everything. But there are certain aspects of infrastructure that do not lend themselves to competition. They are called natural monopolies. If left to a free market, they naturally become monopolies.

Those should become government monopolies, as I consider them a lesser evil.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 12:13:53 2011 No.3024980 >>3024967 What? No. See >>3024972 I'm not saying we should ENFORCE monopolies. Just replace them in situations where they are already inevitable.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 12:14:53 2011 No.3024992 >>3024961 Not all hour is equal. An hour of a electrician's time is worth more than an hour of a janitor's time.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 12:15:53 2011 No.3025007 >>3024972 So you support monopolies if they dont have to prove they are efficient (make a profit). You are a fucking idiot.

Anonymous Mon May 9 12:16:53 2011 No.3025011

>>3024955
>I want EVERY person to have their opinion voiced. I don't want anyone telling someone else what they should value,what they should purchase or deciding how their money should be spent or how much their labor is worth.
I THINK MY LABOR IS WORTH INFINITY DOLLARS
YOU CAN'T SAY DIFFERENTLY, THAT'S SLAVERY

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 12:16:53 2011 No.3025014 This thread actually turned into something awesome. There are a lot of interesting ideas here. I actually learned something that I don't at all agree with! AWESOME!

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 12:17:53 2011 No.3025020 >>3024769 What a thoughtful and poignant analysis. Kudos.

Anonymous Mon May 9 12:17:53 2011 No.3025021

>>3025007
You still don't seem to get what I'm saying.

In some cases, the choice is between:
1. A corporate monopoly
2. A government monopoly
3. Forced competition through heavy regulation. This includes having several municipal watter supply systems running to each house, several independent sewage systems, etc. I think this one is lunacy.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 12:19:53 2011 No.3025027 File: 188 KB, 650x857, Economics Prof.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3024955 Here's my problem with you; pic related.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 12:19:53 2011 No.3025032 File: 62 KB, 294x294, herewego.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3025011

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 12:19:53 2011 No.3025034 Social capitalist here. Best of both worlds. Have government guarantee cheap alternatives to basic services (welfare, healthcare, education), the less should be left completely on the free market. Scandinavian model rulez.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 12:21:53 2011 No.3025046 >>3025021 1. Business that proves they are efficient 2. government that takes from me to cover their inefficiency 3. The start of the market that will eventually lead to 1 Why would anyone pick something other than 1?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 12:21:53 2011 No.3025047 >>3025034 Fuck yes Scandinavia. http://www.ifitweremyhome.com/compare/US/NO

Anonymous Mon May 9 12:21:53 2011 No.3025048

>>3025034
We call this social democracy. But I would add that it's hard to define "basic," "fundamental," even "necessary." Better to say, get the best result, using market forces only insofar as they are useful (which is a great deal), and not based on any ideological bullshit of the kind spouted by the Ayn Rand/Ron Paul airheads on /b/.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 12:22:53 2011 No.3025053 File: 1.69 MB, 265x306, Queen Chloe.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3025027 >mfw when you actually think thats what I believe

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 12:22:53 2011 No.3025056 Fuck utilities.

Anonymous Mon May 9 12:23:53 2011 No.3025062

>>3025046
Natural. Monopolies.

There are services/infrastructures that naturally become monopolies. High infrastructure cost and/or limited space for redundant systems are one way this happens. And once you have a corporate monopoly, they don't have to prove they're efficient at anything other than price-gouging.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 12:24:53 2011 No.3025066 >>3025056 I KNOW! Fucking electricity and water.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 12:25:53 2011 No.3025074 >>3025062 Profit and the ability to stay in business if proof. I will chose that over the gubbmint forcing me and others to pay for products they didn't ask for or use.,

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 12:26:53 2011 No.3025078 >>3025066 Moisture farms and solar panels. Fuck that shit, yo.

Anonymous Mon May 9 12:28:53 2011 No.3025088

>>3025007

>So you support monopolies if they dont have to prove they are efficient (make a profit).

Dude lol, do you even get why monopolies are bad? - they are able to make huge profit ALWAYS, even by NOT BEING EFFICIENT (just by having a monopoly on a resource/service).

Unregulated private monopoly makes huge profits that go to few people. Government monopoly either does not make so huge profits (since it is controlled also by customers who want lower prices), or if it makes huge profits, at least they go all taxpayers.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 12:29:53 2011 No.3025094 >>3025074 what We're talking about basic utilities here. And you CAN opt out of those, within reason.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 12:30:53 2011 No.3025095 >>3025047 Holy shit this site is amazing

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 12:32:53 2011 No.3025102 >>3025095 :)

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 12:32:53 2011 No.3025103 >>3025094 And the DEA will fuck you up for having electricity, but not paying any electricity bills to the local utility. Because that means you are growing weed!

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 12:33:53 2011 No.3025104 >>3025095 Glad you like it.

Anonymous Mon May 9 12:33:53 2011 No.3025107

I think this country is like two hundred fifty million pressure cookers in the middle of a dry field with a thunderstorm on the horizon. It might rain, or lightning might strike, and this whole fucking place is going to explode. Gas prices, employment, underemployment, and the lack of sustainable work is driving us to the edge.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 12:34:53 2011 No.3025110 >>3025107 Doomsday predictions have been with us for a long, long time.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 12:36:53 2011 No.3025120 File: 127 KB, 373x500, 718933691_1b96fe6dee.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] communist programmer reporting in

Anonymous Mon May 9 12:37:53 2011 No.3025121

Social Democrat for now, strong Libertarian Socialist urges. I haven't read Marx's work explicitly but from what I know I would consider myself a Marxist. I agree with the free market, although in many cases such as health care, public transport and banks etc should be nationalised, financial institutions are too big and morally bankrupt imo.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 12:44:53 2011 No.3025154 >>3025110 I'm not saying it's going to be doomday, or whatever kind of crypto-religious bullshit, I'm saying there is going to be massive unrest. Like in the 30s or 60s, but bigger.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 12:44:53 2011 No.3025156 >>3025107 Go back to glennbeck.com, you enormous faggot.

Anonymous Mon May 9 12:45:53 2011 No.3025160

>>3025121
>Social Democrat for now, strong Libertarian Socialist urges. I haven't read Marx's work explicitly but from what I know I would consider myself a Marxist. I agree with the free market

You literally just claimed three contradictory positions. Read Capital and David Harvey's companion to it. If you agree with it, then yes, you're a Marxist. If you don't, you're not.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 12:48:53 2011 No.3025168 SMBC Theater for this thread. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57vCBMqnC1Y

Anonymous Mon May 9 12:50:53 2011 No.3025179

>>3025156
Glenn Beck? I'm a socialist.

Haven't you been paying attention to what's happening in this global capitalist society since the Great Recession? Like the PIIGS exploding, uprisings and general strikes every day across the Middle East, or perhaps the 500,000 person march in downtown London for an alternative to capitalism, or perhaps the unions and workers occupying government buildings and universities in the US, or the armed insurrections ongoing in Latin America and India, and the illegal union activity in China?

If you haven't been paying attention, you better start. The world is catching on fire.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 12:50:53 2011 No.3025181 Wow, it's like I'm really in /new/ again! Come any closer to finding the answer to what the best system is, folks?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 12:52:53 2011 No.3025186 >>3025181 Law 1: Tits or GTFO That's about as far as we've gotten

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 12:53:53 2011 No.3025191 >>3025168 Fantastic.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 12:54:53 2011 No.3025198 File: 22 KB, 300x199, bro-fist.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] bro-fist me fellow socialists let's work hard to remove the parasitic nature of capitalism

Anonymous Mon May 9 12:54:53 2011 No.3025202

>>3025160
Marxist in the sense that I know at some point in the future a classless society will eventually emerge.
I have Social Democratic views in the political system in which we have now. Free markets that are not products of state capitalism such as banks and arms dealer work for now.
However I do wish for a Libertarian Socialist society made up of many small democracies made up of people with no overarching government, mutual views to land and resources and a slight collectivist philosophy but without a state to control it.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 12:58:53 2011 No.3025221 Natural monopolies - a notion invented by socialists to scare people into thinking that there were some things only governments could do.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 12:59:53 2011 No.3025232 >>3025221 >implying there are no natural monopolies Get your head out of your ass. Several have been mentioned ITT already.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 13:02:53 2011 No.3025251 File: 11 KB, 503x430, everyworkergetsashare.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I am socialist of some kind. I think that leftism, as lenin defined it, is the category that fits me the best.

Anonymous Mon May 9 13:06:53 2011 No.3025281

>>3025202
I'm a Marxist.

First, a successful revolution is guaranteed. The only thing that is guaranteed is an endless supply of opportunities to overthrow capitalism as long as it exists, because it is prone to crises.

Second, a Marxist wouldn't support social democratism because that is reform of capitalism, and not it's overthrow.

Third, libertarian socialism is not incompatible with a stateless, classless society - this is not a contradictory position to hold if you actually do (in the future) accept Marx's critique of capitalism.

Supporting the "free market" is exactly the opposite of what Marxists do. Marxism isn't something you simply are. Marxism is an idea that is a threat to those in power - Marxism is a weapon. If you're a Marxist and you support the "free market" - however fictitious such a thing is - you support the bourgeoisie.

So do yourself a favor and figure out a coherent approach. Read Capital and a companion to it. If you agree with it, you're a Marxist, and you'll come to understand why you're being nonsensical right now, or you'll disagree with it and attain coherence and just be a social democrat.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 13:08:53 2011 No.3025288 >>3025202 Whoops, I wrote this post >>3025281 I wrote >First, a successful revolution is guaranteed. I meant >First, a successful revolution is not guaranteed.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 13:09:53 2011 No.3025299 Fully support the socialist healthcare

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 13:11:53 2011 No.3025306 File: 37 KB, 170x226, 170px-Unabomber-sketch.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3025251 >>3024628 >leftist >leftism

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 13:11:53 2011 No.3025310 >The only thing that is guaranteed is an endless supply of opportunities to overthrow capitalism as long as it exists, because it is prone to crises. It did ssolve a lot of its contradictions, though.

Anonymous Mon May 9 13:13:53 2011 No.3025317

>>3025232
>Implying there are natural monopolies

Only 1 has been mentioned so far, water supply. Which historically only became known as a "natural monopoly" when the municipalities in Britain took over water distribuition because there WAS TOO MUCH COMPETITION.

Hamish !LDrfaggOtQ Mon May 9 13:30:53 2011 No.3025384

I don't know the word for what I am but it's on the left

-Firstly I'm an anarchist: No authority should be allowed to claim a piece of the crust of a planet billions of years old and rule over every being there. I find nationalism repulsive, given the involuntary nature of home nations, and in any other case a set of laws that you automatically had to follow from birth, in some cases on pain of death would be seen as insane.

At the same time, I understand that progress cannot be made without co-operation, and that protection from nature is not possible without a level of organisation. Because of this I support the concept of countries with control over regions. I do, however, think that transit between them should be without regulation, rather than a method of forced division between rich and poor.
I think that nationalised medicine, transport, policing, and scientific research are all sensible and required in a good nation, and that any nations' method of supporting citizens should be socialist rather than capitalist in nature. I support capitalism because It's what humans do- Trade- But not to the extent that I would be willing for a private company to take control of any elements of government.

Tl;Dr no legal reason for nations, they're needed for pragmatic reasons, Everyone should get equal services, but capitalism should still be allowed

Anonymous Mon May 9 13:51:53 2011 No.3025480
File: 34 KB, 464x600, COMEATMEBRO.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3024628
>I think it would be safe to say that most of the posters on this board aren't working class. In fact, I'd put good money on 98 percent of this board never having done a manual or physical job in their lives.
Independent contractor reporting in. Testifying that the worker gets screwed while capitalists take the largest percentage of pay for my work. Further testifying that only government contracts have paid for my work without skimming large gobs off for private use.

>Because socialist doesn't hold that meaning in my country. I despise the left and leftist politics. They don't love the poor, they simply hate the rich.
(half-brained) socialists don't simply hate the rich. they hate the mechanism by which they become rich, because it is based on what amounts to doing no work at all which is a drain on any economy. if they're going to be paid to do no work they need to be on welfare instead of heralded as heroes of the economy and given huge portions of the economy that they're not even capable of managing responsibly.

>You can't run a company on left wing ideals. After spending the early years of my life as a victim of socialism and it's evils, I'm not fond of it.
herp derp pretend to be a victim of a fictional system Ayn Rand style. GJ brah

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 13:54:53 2011 No.3025488 File: 76 KB, 594x454, Q.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Post-scarcity egalitarianism up in this bitch.

Anonymous Mon May 9 14:08:53 2011 No.3025553

I'm a committed socialist and have been for a long time. I'm 24, work in the manufactoring sector but I'm a mix of blue and white collar job wise (I still pick heavy boxes up and move them around but I spend just as much time sat in an office staring at a computer screen).

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 14:13:53 2011 No.3025582 >>3025553 so if anarchists took over the world and gave everyone fair shares in the ownership of their companies, you'd be mad?

>>	Atwill !kelPcGZQlE Mon May 9 14:15:53 2011 No.3025586 I don't even know what I am.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 14:16:53 2011 No.3025594 I am. Of some kind. I like taxes for instance, but I dislike the inefficiency of it all.

Anonymous Mon May 9 14:46:53 2011 No.3025767
File: 10 KB, 264x282, ngbbs4cba33b83c840.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

The pseudo-intellectual, hipster libertarian movement in high school and college students is incredibly worrying. This movement is a lot bigger than most people realize. I wouldn't ever put money on taking a random selection of people at a university and having that sample turn up overwhelmingly leftist, which would have been the case during the past 60-70 years.

>mfw I'm a technocratic socialist

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 15:53:53 2011 No.3026029 File: 45 KB, 433x538, 1301976539713.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Mon May 9 15:55:53 2011 No.3026036 >>3026029 I saw the signal and I came. Whats going on in this thread?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 15:58:53 2011 No.3026048 File: 22 KB, 400x399, 1301653539756.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3026036 n/m just opining on subjects that we've read little to nothing about >yfw we vote in 2012

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 16:02:53 2011 No.3026066 >>3025767 >mfw I'm a technocratic socialist That you, inurdaes?

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Mon May 9 16:03:53 2011 No.3026071 File: 61 KB, 252x221, 1300858519438.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3026048 I see, well carry on. >mfw indeed when people vote

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 16:04:53 2011 No.3026077 I suppose I'm a liberal socialist, and some days I'm chaotic evil. Whats your point?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 16:05:53 2011 No.3026084 >Libertarian >Former Paultard

pascal !n5Z3VuZapw Mon May 9 16:15:53 2011 No.3026132

If i have a job working for 10 dollars an hour. Then 10 dollars is what an hour of my labor is worth. Why does the government tax me on my trade? I didn't produce a profit, it was just an even trade.

When a company hires my services out for 20 dollars an hour, they do not pay taxes on the profit made with my labor, unless they made a profit across the board.

This seems unfair.

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Mon May 9 16:17:53 2011 No.3026154 >>3026132 What profit did the government make? Not that I think its appropriate to measure profitability in the government. But if by hiring you, you costed them money, then you are hurting their profitability.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 16:23:53 2011 No.3026174 I'm a social democrat. It sounds nicer than socialist.

Anonymous Mon May 9 16:26:53 2011 No.3026188

>>3026132
>When a company hires my services out for 20 dollars an hour, they do not pay taxes on the profit made with my labor

Monitoring the profitability of each individual employee would be hugely expensive. And it would make a lot of beaurocrats very happy.

>>	pascal !n5Z3VuZapw Mon May 9 16:28:53 2011 No.3026193 >>3026188 If the company buys me dinner, it counts as a expense. When I buy dinner it doesn't.

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Mon May 9 16:28:53 2011 No.3026194 >>3026132 >>3026154 >>3026188 Oh excuse me pascal I misread your post. When a company makes a profit off your labor, they absolutely pay taxes on it.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 16:29:53 2011 No.3026200 >>3026194 If they didnt make profit across the board, then the only thing you might have contributed is revenue. And revenue isnt taxed.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 16:30:53 2011 No.3026203 >>3026194 Yes, but what he's saying is that if his labour is worth 10 dollars per hour then he is not making any profit. Then taxing it is unfair. I disagree with his conclusion but I kinda see where he's coming from.

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Mon May 9 16:30:53 2011 No.3026205 >>3026200 Thats me.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 16:32:53 2011 No.3026208 >>3026193 1. Found a business 2. Buy yourself dinner 3. It was an expense! 4. My company is making a loss :( 5. Pay no tax

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 16:32:53 2011 No.3026209 File: 15 KB, 375x375, Politics .jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] nope.avi

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Mon May 9 16:35:53 2011 No.3026219

>>3026203

Thats kind of an interesting idea, but Im still kind skeptical of it. It a company sells you something it cant just go "its an even rate, I didnt actually gain anything"

Also, you cant conclude his labor is worth $10. It implies there is a perfect competition.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 16:36:53 2011 No.3026225 >>3026209 >Left is right >right is left Fuck you for confusing me.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 16:37:53 2011 No.3026230 >>3026208 And if you think I'm joking, this what a lot of wealthy people do to avoid tax. Tony Blair is a good example. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/dec/01/mystery-tony-blair-finances

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 16:41:53 2011 No.3026254 >>3026230 Oh, that's NOTHING. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting >A WB receipt was leaked online, showing that the hugely successful movie Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix ended up with a $167 million loss on paper.

>>	pascal !n5Z3VuZapw Mon May 9 16:44:53 2011 No.3026271 >>3026219 at the very least my labor is worth 7.25 because of minimum wage laws.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 16:46:53 2011 No.3026280 File: 119 KB, 888x888, 1261731845006.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3026254 >their accountants' faces when

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 16:47:53 2011 No.3026285 >>3026066 Nope. I'm not sure who this inurdaes is, but he certainly isn't me.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 16:49:53 2011 No.3026294 >>3026271 >at the very least my labor is worth 7.25 because of minimum wage laws. If you can get someone to hire you, then yes. If you can't, then no.

Anonymous Mon May 9 16:50:43 2011 No.3026298 [DELETED]

>>3026209

Libertarians are just more leftist capitalists?
Anarchists are just more extreme libertarians?
Fascism and totalitarianism have no overlap?

This graph is pretty bad.

>>3026230

I would do that if I could! Its a good idea!

>>3026254

Thats really interesting! Thank you!

>>3026271

At the very least, your labor COSTS 7.25, which I think its different. How much its worth, has to factor how much revenue it generated, relative to the costs, and relative to the alternatives of your labor.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 16:50:53 2011 No.3026297 File: 42 KB, 789x617, uyfg76f8i.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] National Democratic Socialist Reporting In

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Mon May 9 16:52:53 2011 No.3026317

>>3026209

Libertarians are just more leftist capitalists?
Anarchists are just more extreme libertarians?
Fascism and totalitarianism have no overlap?

This graph is pretty bad.

>>3026230

I would do that if I could! Its a good idea!

>>3026254

Thats really interesting! Thank you!

>>3026271

At the very least, your labor COSTS 7.25, which I think its different. How much its worth, has to factor how much revenue it generated, relative to the costs, and relative to the alternatives of your labor.

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Mon May 9 16:53:53 2011 No.3026323 >>3026297 What website is this from?

pascal !n5Z3VuZapw Mon May 9 16:54:53 2011 No.3026330

>But in the last profit statement given to Straczynski, Warner Bros. claimed the property was $80 million in debt. "Basically," says Straczynski, "by the terms of my contract, if a set on a WB movie burns down in Botswana, they can charge it against B5's profits."[12]

lol hollywood

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 16:56:53 2011 No.3026342 File: 25 KB, 272x204, Springtime for Hitler.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3026254 >It's springtime for Hitler and Germanyyyyyyyyy!!

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 16:58:53 2011 No.3026348 >>3026317 >Libertarians are just more leftist capitalists? Wut? Libertarians are more right than capitalists, that is obviously pointed in the picture. It's bad graph i can agree with you on that but seriously. It's btw economic and social graph.

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Mon May 9 16:58:53 2011 No.3026353 >>3026348 Republicans are on the left, and democrats are on the right. The graph has it inverted.

Anonymous Mon May 9 17:06:53 2011 No.3026398

>>3026353
It's the lateral axle is something along the lines of social liberties or something like that.
Meaning left here is police state with state first and right is people first and liberalism.

The classical left (democrats) right (republicans) is the vertical axle, economic side of things.
It's a bad graph because this is not too clear.

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Mon May 9 17:14:53 2011 No.3026451 >>3026398 Oh I see. Wow that is confusing. I think I would distagree still about the placement, but, whatever.

Anonymous Mon May 9 17:29:53 2011 No.3026536

>>3026451
Well it's confusing.
I don't see massive problemes with the positioning of the groups. The could be couple more groups or some different names for those that are there.
I guess that you can't make these things absolutely right anyway but all in all fairly good representation.

But because it lacks the markings on the axels and other explanations it's pretty bad.

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Mon May 9 17:36:53 2011 No.3026568 >>3026536 I would disagree that there is such a large difference between republican and democrat in terms of social liberties

Anonymous Mon May 9 17:46:53 2011 No.3026608

>>3026568
Well, there is already some overlap in those two groups
Then there is the problem as what "republican" and "democrat" mean in this context.
And then there is the centrist group where many of the actual democrat politicians belong (same with the republicans in lesser extent)

The problem is proably that these areas represent the areas where you still are republican, not where most of republicans are.

Anonymous Mon May 9 20:07:53 2011 No.3027271

It is my belief that extremes aren't the best answer. That a balance between ideas is the best solution.

However, I support universal health care (as our lives should not have a price) and free education (as education builds our society as a whole and help advance our species).

In today's society that makes me a socalist. I find that kind of sad as everyone should want this.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Mon May 9 20:15:53 2011 No.3027296

>>3027271

I dont think the problems with health care are about putting a dollar value on a persons life. The problems are the allocation of healthcare, and the relationship between the patient, doctor, and insurer.

If we could keep your grandmother alive, and she'd otherwise die, and it would cost $20,000 a day, do you pay? At what point do you stop paying? 14 trillion dollars? How long?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 20:27:53 2011 No.3027356 >>3024571 I'm 28, married and have a career (in science in the private sector) and I'm an environment focused socialist. Because apparently unlike you I hope my descendants will have a world left to enjoy one day.

Anonymous Mon May 9 20:31:53 2011 No.3027374

i'd say most in this board (without having read any replies so far) are either socialist or support a shit ton of government subsidies and controls.

why? because without the government holding guns to people's heads, how would certain sciences receive funding (eg. some physics is useful, but most is garbage)?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 20:32:53 2011 No.3027381 >>3027356 treat pollution (in rivers and the air) as a property violation in courts. there, your stupid government regulations are needed any more.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Mon May 9 20:36:53 2011 No.3027402

>>3027381

This implies that all environmental damage can be measured, and can be taken to court with no cost.

If there has been a $100 damage to my back yard in environmental damage, and all my neighbors. None of us individually will likely take it to court, as that costs thousands of dollars in time and money, but that doesnt mean the damage to society isnt immense.

It would be a better idea to inflict the costs on companies before they choose to pollute.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 20:37:53 2011 No.3027407 >>3027381 If we declare the earth to be public property owned by no man or government, so that those extracting resources from it must pay all (mining, drilling), then I think justice will be done.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Mon May 9 20:40:53 2011 No.3027419

>>3027407

How would you regulate this? So if I found a hunk of Gold, I now owe .00000023 cents to everyone on earth?

What if I had a house, Is the exact square footage of the house still public property? What if I own a house and it gets destroyed by a land slide as the result of deforestation? Everyone got paid for the trees, but now everyone is debt for my house?

I dont know, just thinking out loud.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Mon May 9 20:45:53 2011 No.3027436

>>3027407

What if, on one side of the earth, there is a massive oil drilling operation, and on the opposite end of the earth, is a group of environmentally pristine people. These two people occupy the whole population of the earth, and that population is 100,000 people. 50,000 in each population. The oil drilling group makes 1 billion dollars. Do they owe $500,000,000 to the other population, which has had nothing to do with the other activity?

What if, my grandfather owned a ton of gold, and then he died, and I inherited it, and decided to give it back to the earth. So I dig a big whole and bury it. Does the world owe me money now?

:stopmusic: Mon May 9 20:50:53 2011 No.3027451

Read half the thread; brief observation:

Phrases like "working class" are used to invoke the sense of a man tirelessly working his ass off 70 hours a week in a coal mine, or a steel worker who's worked so long his skin becomes tanned from leaning over the forge.

The socialists use this to stir up sympathy for their cause. But it's such an ancient sentiment, comes from the time of Marx.

We live in the 21st century and we have a 21st century economy. Men no longer use their muscle's to produce goods, they use their MINDS.

Start with the premise that there is A LOT of inequality in intelligence and MUCH LESS in physical strength and everything else follows.

P.S.

A libertarian socialist is a contradiction in terms, helluva nice case of doublethink there.

Anonymous Mon May 9 20:52:53 2011 No.3027459

>>3027419
>>3027436
Yes. Estimated gold on Earth times estimated worth of gold, divided by estimated population on Earth.

Yes.

Yes.

Not the guy who suggested it, but if it were declared so, with no other elaboration or system of rules, this is how it is implied to work.

By the way, your "what if" questions are getting annoying as hell.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 20:54:53 2011 No.3027471 Man does not belong to the Earth, the Earth belongs to man. Just imagine how much we've benefited from using it's bountiful resources. Think of how the standard of living across the world has stratospherically risen because of it.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Mon May 9 20:55:53 2011 No.3027474

>>3027451

>not sure if serious.

I cant comprehend these sentences. Do you believe unskilled labor exists? And that there are factories with men standing around building stuff? Do you believe these jobs exist?

Libertarian socialist is a real group, and its not inherently a contradiction. It just means we should have government look out for people's welfare, and that government should exist to the most minimal extent possible.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 20:56:53 2011 No.3027483 >>3027459 how would you determine worth without a price system (if everything's owned by everyone i'm assuming there's no currency/price).

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 20:56:53 2011 No.3027485 >>3027474 But that's social liberalism.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 20:57:53 2011 No.3027490 >>3027483 Cost estimation is still needed. It's a measure of "how important is this to us". Without it, you can't make judgments about any human endeavor.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Mon May 9 20:57:53 2011 No.3027492

>>3027459

I have a series of follow up questions. Would you like to read them? If you think reading them will be annoying. Do not read beyond this sentence.

How are you going to establish a system that manages the debt and credit of everyone on earth, and how you are going to know how much each person or group pulls from the earth?

With that said, how are you going to determine the value of Gold or wood? What are you going to charge people? Is it a market price?

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Mon May 9 20:58:53 2011 No.3027498 >>3027485 Im a libertarian socialist (well maybe I am? I dont know I never thought about it), but thats just the idea. If there is overlap I cant excuse that.

Anonymous Mon May 9 20:59:53 2011 No.3027499

>>3027474

We can talk about philosophical abstractions and debate socialism/capitalism all day and only frustrate ourselves.

But make no mistake about it. "Libertarian socialist" is, by definition, a contradiction in terms. On this matter there can be no dispute.

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Mon May 9 21:01:53 2011 No.3027512 >>3027499 I dont think its a contradiction, but I believe the terms could be interpreted in multiple ways, and some of combinations of definitions could be considered a contradiction

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 21:02:53 2011 No.3027514 >>3027498 A libertarian socialist doesn't want a state at all http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Mon May 9 21:02:53 2011 No.3027515 >>3027498 I meant to say "I am not"

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Mon May 9 21:04:53 2011 No.3027521

>>3027514

I used to be an anarchist, I understand it is associated with anarchist and governmentless ideas. But its considered a pretty mild and weak form of anarchism, so I think the attitude is more like "Eh, lets get rid of government, but if there is a little bit, thats okay"

It would be inappropriate to put libertarian socialist on the same level as any other kind of anarchist.

Anonymous Mon May 9 21:04:53 2011 No.3027527

Capitalism is the most perfect form of social co-operations because one may not fulfill the wants and needs of himself without fulfilling the wants and needs of others.

Non-aggression principle. Peace. Entrepreneurship. Risk. Choice. Creativity. Reason. Individualism.

^ Just some of the words that come to mind when I think of a truly free market. Does anyone else want to add?

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Mon May 9 21:06:53 2011 No.3027533

>>3027527

What if I told you that no market can ever be perfectly free?

What if I told you that in a certain free market, the effects of each transaction effect more than the buyer and seller and can bring extreme loss to some uninvolved third party that doesnt have a say?

Anonymous Mon May 9 21:06:53 2011 No.3027534

If the world were declared public property, then, logically, all materials and resources found belong to the government and are distributed by the government. Everything would be based on need, not want, and nothing would have any monetary value. And everyone would pay for their needs with their work.

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Mon May 9 21:07:53 2011 No.3027540 >>3027534 Whats the difference between need and want? How do you know nothing would have monetary value?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 21:07:53 2011 No.3027541 >>3027533 you'd be wrong, since the entire system itself is voluntary and you can choose not to work at some factory. of course, you'd starve.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 21:08:53 2011 No.3027548 >>3027534 >declared Massive government genocide

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Mon May 9 21:08:53 2011 No.3027552 >>3027541 Okay good. I agree that a market can be perfectly free.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 21:09:53 2011 No.3027556 >>3027534 yea, no. no way of knowing which resource should be developed to meet those "needs". you need a price system. you don't have price if everything is public.

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Mon May 9 21:09:53 2011 No.3027557 >>3027541 Do you feel a free market is always the best market?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 21:10:53 2011 No.3027559 >>3027534 Sounds awesome. The government will ration out just enough to keep us alive. Ahh, so much fulfillment to be had in that lifestyle!

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 21:12:53 2011 No.3027575 >>3027557 since governments do not act on actual demand and have no competitors there's no way to determine the cost of any service it provides. it will always be more inefficient than the free market. so yes.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 21:12:53 2011 No.3027578 >>3027557 Yes because it is by far the best and most efficient mechanism for the allocation of goods and resources. See Invisible Hand.

Anonymous Mon May 9 21:13:53 2011 No.3027583

>>3027541
This.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#Criticism
>In mainstream economic philosophy, wage labor is seen as the voluntary sale of one's own time and efforts, just like a carpenter would sell a chair, or a farmer would sell wheat. It is considered neither an antagonistic nor abusive relationship, and carries no particular moral implications. From this perspective, the problem of poverty comes from an unequal distribution of income and can be addressed by government programs like social security and progressive taxation, and does not reflect a fundamental flaw in the capitalist system.

>Frederick Douglass described his elation when he took a paying job, declaring that "Now I am my own master." According to Douglass, wage labor did not represent oppression but fair exchange and former slaves for the first time receiving the fruits of their labor.

Anonymous Mon May 9 21:16:53 2011 No.3027594

>>3027578
... except when consumer choice is inevitably removed in natural monopolies. People voting with their wallets is the source of the Invisible Hand. But if there's only one option on the ballot...

And I'm talking about natural monopolies here. Not accidental ones, or ones created by government mandate. Natural monopolies form where barriers to entry are high and redundant services are difficult or impossible due to limited space, resources, etc.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Mon May 9 21:16:53 2011 No.3027599

>>3027575
>>3027578

What about negative externalities? Like pollution. Where everyone agrees on a certain price, but the transaction results in a cost to human health that no one wanted, and affects everyone, even someone who wasnt a part of the transaction?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 21:17:53 2011 No.3027603 >>3027583 what's the problem? i agree.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 21:19:53 2011 No.3027610 >>3027594 sooooo where are these hypothetical magical situations you described?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 21:20:53 2011 No.3027617 >>3027599 That can be handled by courts, where pollution is treated as property violation.

Anonymous Mon May 9 21:20:53 2011 No.3027620

>>3027594

It's true that in certain circumstances a, as you say, "natural monopoly" can exist.

The man who invented the wheel had a monopoly, because he was it's inventor. No one else knew how and he most likely profited tremendously from his discovery.

Henry Ford did the same thing with the automobile and for a short time he had a monopoly on the manufacturing of automobiles.

My question for you is this: Did these individuals harm or benefit society?

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Mon May 9 21:24:53 2011 No.3027639

>>3027617

But there are costs to going to court. And the damages are a vague amount. Its not like "you broke this, and it was worth $40, pay me $40" the reality is the damages are vague, and their impacts are vague.

I mentioned earlier that the costs to society can be great, and minimal to each individual. Couldnt there be a circumstance where the costs to society are like, 4 billion dollars, but each individual is suffering a cost of 80, which doesnt make going to court worth it?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 21:25:53 2011 No.3027651 >>3027639 class action lawsuit

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Mon May 9 21:26:53 2011 No.3027652

>>3027620

I dont think thats how a natural monopoly works.

A natural monopoly means, Henry Ford can build a car and sell it for $20,000 because it costs him $20,000 or less to make each car. For me however, it would cost me like, a billion dollars to build car, and thus Henry Ford has a natural monopoly because anyone who would compete would go out of business.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 21:28:53 2011 No.3027665 >>3027652 No. That's called the division of labor and it's one of the greatest of all benefits of free trade and capitalism. PLEASE briefly check it out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_labor

>>	Grothendieck !Topos4qCwc Mon May 9 21:28:53 2011 No.3027670 File: 21 KB, 400x288, Ted7.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3027639 Let's not start talking about asymmetries in the system, that will merely dull the incredible enthusiasm for totally unfettered markets.

Anonymous Mon May 9 21:30:53 2011 No.3027689

>>3027652

There is nobody who is not surprised of the small price of pins; but we shall be even more surprised, when we know how many different operations, most of them very delicate, are mandatory to make a good pin. We are going to go through these operations in a few words to stimulate the curiosity to know their detail; this enumeration will supply as many articles which will make the division of this work. The first operation is to have brass go through the drawing plate to calibrate it.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Mon May 9 21:31:53 2011 No.3027692

>>3027651

Okay, thats a good point. But Im not convinced.

Think about this.

Assuming global warming is true, its been building up since 1920 (lets say), and it will accumulate into a world wide catastrophe.

How do you fix this circumstance in courts? Who do you sue? And how could any amount of money replace the damage to happen to begin with?

Im inclined to say, 'we shouldnt be causing damage, and then trying to fix it by throwing money at it' but I know what your answer would be. Firms would take the costs of lawsuits into account. The problem is the damage is irreplaceable, and unpredictable.

Like fracking, that natural gas method that poisons the water supply. How do you compensate the victims? The company just has to pay for their water bill?

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Mon May 9 21:31:53 2011 No.3027701 >>3027665 When I said "Henry Ford" I didnt literally mean Henry Ford. I meant "Henry Ford, and the ford company which he owns and operates"

Anonymous Mon May 9 21:32:53 2011 No.3027705

http://www.youtube.com/user/fringeelements

visit this channel. basically, he annihilates most arguments against the free market.

>monopolies
>cartels
>robber barons
>democracy
>currency
>voluntarism
>wage slavery
>profit
>exploitation
>social contract

deals with issues like these and more.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 21:33:53 2011 No.3027715 >>3027670 Political asymmetries are orders of magnitude more severe.

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Mon May 9 21:34:53 2011 No.3027730 >>3027689 See >>3027701

Anonymous Mon May 9 21:35:53 2011 No.3027734

>>3027701

The fact that there is today, and has been for nearly a century now, 2 other auto companies (GM, Chrysler) competing against Ford Motors IN THE SAME TOWN (Detroit) is proof that his monopoly didn't last for long.

There's no law against you rolling up your sleeves, taking a risk and going into business yourself.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 21:36:53 2011 No.3027742 >>3027692 but you're assuming issues like that would become so large in a free market. profit loss would be a disincentive from polluting, for example, a local river.

Anonymous Mon May 9 21:39:53 2011 No.3027765

I'd also point out to liberals is how the monopolies they cause through advocacy of greater regulations only further guarantee that "taxes on the rich" are passed on to the poor. The rich will simply raise prices to compensate, and if there is no competition, the poor will have no choice but to pay those higher prices. Ironically the record profits of the rich often cause liberals to advocate greater regulation to protect the poor. It's sooooooo gross.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Mon May 9 21:40:53 2011 No.3027775

>>3027734

Its true, that this isnt an example of a monopoly, but it is an example of increasing returns to scale, which is how you illustrate a natural monopoly.

We dont have a car factory at the end of every block. We have like (I dont know) like 5 car companies in the united states. Its because its hard to make a car. Even if I roll up my sleeves and get to work, there is no amount of sleeve rolling that can compete with ford.

If this was another market, in which there was similar returns to scale, but not as much demand to support the 5 car companies, there could definitely be a natural monopoly.

Also, I thought that notion that it just takes "rolling up your sleeves, taking a risk, and going into business" to solve this problem. As if, all economic problems are because there are some pinko pussy faggots out there not living life to the max.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 21:41:53 2011 No.3027783 >>3027765 no different than trickle down Reganomics it's all a power-play on the part of the power-elite (and I use that term in the most academic, non-conspiratorial way possible)

Anonymous Mon May 9 21:45:53 2011 No.3027813

>>3027775

>As if, all economic problems are because there are some pinko pussy faggots out there not living life to the max.

But the economic SOLUTIONS come from those that do roll up their sleeves. Apathy does not create wealth. Only risk-taking and entrepreneurship can make goods less scarce.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Mon May 9 21:46:53 2011 No.3027816

>>3027742

I do think its a large issue. I am assuming that. The reality is the amount of people who die from pollution related death is in the tens of thousands in America. The costs of medical car are significantly higher due to pollution.

But even if it wasnt a large issue. Lets just pretend its a tiny tiny issue. That would imply the free market is not perfect (even if it is the most perfect market we can attain).

>profit loss would be a disincentive from polluting, for example, a local river

In reality I think this is partially true. Companies can forsee environmental damage not being in their favor. Even if it doesnt affect them. BUT, it isnt because of court fees. Its because of the threat of an upset government and people. Sometimes companies can respond to the needs of the people and the government. Sometimes it cant.

In the example of pollution companies will naturally become greener in the long run. But thats not true for all negative externalities. Like the health care system sucks, and it is very stable, and not likely to change without government intervention.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Mon May 9 21:50:53 2011 No.3027837

>>3027813

What about the problems that come from those that "roll up their sleeves"? Do you think raw motivation can never ever cause a problem?

>Only risk-taking and entrepreneurship can make goods less scarce.

Scarcity is a constant, I dont think any amount of anything changes this. You can become more efficient in the usage of a scarce good, but you cant make it less scarce. Scarce is a Yes or No kind of thing. There are no degrees of scarcity.

Anonymous Mon May 9 21:50:53 2011 No.3027843

>>3027610
Water supply. Sewage. Power. Most basic utilities. Basic information infrastructure shows signs of being a natural monopoly, though not as severe.

Can you imagine two fully independent water mains going up to your house? Three seperate, totally redundant power grids? Sewage systems?

Anonymous Mon May 9 21:55:53 2011 No.3027874

>>3027837

>What about the problems that come from those that "roll up their sleeves"?

No harm no foul. Liquidation through bankruptcy. Next entrepreneur gets his chance.

If I try to make a better mouse trap and fail at it, no one is worse off. If I succeed, I profit and millions benefit.

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Mon May 9 21:59:53 2011 No.3027900 >>3027874 Thats not a economic problem. Thats a personal problem. I meant like, market failures that come about of people putting in the effort and doing a good job at what they do.

Anonymous Mon May 9 22:01:53 2011 No.3027918
File: 81 KB, 683x476, 1262729775014.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3024504
Locally contracted voluntary socialism organized by a limited central governing body.

Decentralized socialism brought about by Internet communications will essentially be government 2.0

Allocation of resources based on market forces through the aggregation of information by the state owned producers. You can think of it as the state being a single vertically integrated corporation whose management team and production goals are continuously updated through consumer feedback.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Mon May 9 22:03:53 2011 No.3027927

>>3027918

>You can think of it as the state being a single vertically integrated corporation whose management team and production goals are continuously updated through consumer feedback.

It seems like reality is becoming more and more like this. Although I wouldnt call it socialism.

>>	Walkman, Texas Ranger !!O49/3FjwZo5 Mon May 9 22:07:53 2011 No.3027944 >>3027918 How are capital goods priced? You can't even approximate demand for these the way you desire to do with consumer goods, because all transfers of capital goods are internal transfers within the state.

>>	Grothendieck !Topos4qCwc Mon May 9 22:09:53 2011 No.3027952 >>3027918 Yes, infinite resources will solve all of our problems. Let's all stop what we're doing and wait for that to happen.

Anonymous Mon May 9 22:13:53 2011 No.3027976
File: 33 KB, 302x300, opinion.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

That's my favorite thing about /sci/.

I go watch a hockey match, play 3 games of chess, get drunk gamble the night away and you fags are still here on the same thread banging on about SOME FUCKING UNSCIENTIFIC THING.

Congratulations.

pic related. it's an image... for an internet imageboard.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 22:16:53 2011 No.3028002 >>3027944 How would it be different from any other organization valuing their internal costs? >>3027952 I can't see how you're implying this without greentext

>>	Walkman, Texas Ranger !!O49/3FjwZo5 Mon May 9 22:20:53 2011 No.3028029 >>3028002 >How would it be different from any other organization valuing their internal costs? Because they've monopolised the entire economy and don't have any external market through which to value goods.

Anonymous Mon May 9 22:29:53 2011 No.3028105

>>3028029
Comparative value, just like anything else. Monopolies are not above the principles of supply and demand in a world were substitute goods exist. The state, having a monopoly on everything, will thus need to choose how to best maximize the value of their total monopolies, not just any single industry.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 22:31:53 2011 No.3028117 Glorious Liberal Socialist masterrace reporting in.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 22:31:53 2011 No.3028123 >>3028105 When EVERYTHING is internal, you have lost the internal metric. All that matters at that point is the goals of those with decision-making power (their personal values). No one else any longer has input.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 22:32:53 2011 No.3028128 >>3028123 > the external metric.

>>	Walkman, Texas Ranger !!O49/3FjwZo5 Mon May 9 22:33:53 2011 No.3028137 >>3028105 >Comparative value, just like anything else. >They will value goods using comparitive value Nice circular reasoning you got there.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 22:34:53 2011 No.3028141 >>3024563 +1 on demo socialist

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Mon May 9 22:35:53 2011 No.3028152

>>3028105

I think the real problem is there is no amount of "customer feedback" that can give you a good idea of demand.

With that said there are obvious problems about the incentive structure in a monopolized economy.

Also in reality, there can be multiple equilibriums within one market, and couples with the substitution effect you can make stuff really messy. I cant even imagine a government, or any organization capable of being able to do those kinds of calculations to figure out how to reach just one equilibrium.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 22:36:53 2011 No.3028160 >>3024628 Fuck you. I not only work two jobs: one of them is manual labor at a low-end position and my family is 'lower middle class'.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 22:39:53 2011 No.3028183 >>3024667 Again fuck you. I (and many others on /sci/) break your pathetic generalization and stereotype. Dad was a cop and mom was a nurse.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 22:39:53 2011 No.3028185 File: 41 KB, 398x400, 4325345.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] yeah I pretty much like socialism AND capitalism what do you think?!

>>	Anonymous Mon May 9 22:51:53 2011 No.3028261 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JlmIeEPFik

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math