Kleptocracy = The people in power steal from everyone else. Robert Mugabe wrote the book on it.
Well as far as I know South Africa is set up with self policing city state type places.
Clearly the description doesn't apply to EVERY Sub-Saharan African nation.
Although become a police state *doesn't* mean it can't also be communist, although so far typically it has. Cuba worked out *very* well though. Not only that, but even if you're right currently doesn't mean communism isn't a goal we can't work towards, slowing grower more community conscious until one day it's feasible.whittsend wrote:
Communism is a system doomed to failure, and here is why: It is human nature to desire sole posession of property. Communism is at odds with this. For communism to work, everyone within the system must rise above the base desire to have sole posession of anything. This will never occur, but the communist system requires it, so the communist system MUST compel its citizens to comply. This compulsion is where the system fails. Essentially, to have a successful communist state, the state must be a police state, but in becoming one, the communist goals of the proletarian utopia are lost. That is why every communist state has ended up as a police state, and why every future communist state will end up as a police state.
Third world nations put the lie to capitalism: no matter how hard you work, if you're constantly on the verge of death from starvation, you ain't gonna get too far.whittsend wrote:
Moving on, how DOES any of this apply to Sub-Saharan Africa (where most governments would best be described as 'Kleptocracies')?
Other such nations include South Vietnam pre-War and Iraq, where top jobs were chosen not based on merit but based on who you are related to.
His statement that an extra $200 million is an extra $200 million is blatantly wrong, otherwise there wouldn't have been a depression due to companies being worth more than they are. Not only that, but the fact is all the money in the world has no value without goods to back it up.whittsend wrote:
You are wrong, and =JoD=Corithus is closer to the truth. Monetary supply is governed by credit extended by private banks, which is in turn governed by the interest rate set by Central banks. There has been no X amount of money backed up by Y goods since we went off the gold standard in the 70's. Currently, monetary supply fluctuates based on the needs of the economy, and the cost (i.e. interest rate) of that money charged by the banks (Think along the lines of: "Is my need for this money worth the 'cost' being charged by the bank?" If the interest rate is too high, you won't bother, and that is how monetary supply is controlled). As noted previously, the cost of money (and thus the amount available to be 'bought') is governed by the Central Banks (in the US by the FED). If the balance of money in the economy, or the interest rate set by the Central Banks, get out of alignment, you get inflation or deflation depending on the direction of the misalignment.
How has Cuba worked “very” well? What is the basis for your value-judgment?Bubbalo wrote:
Although become a police state *doesn't* mean it can't also be communist, although so far typically it has. Cuba worked out *very* well though. Not only that, but even if you're right currently doesn't mean communism isn't a goal we can't work towards, slowing grower more community conscious until one day it's feasible.
And communism is utterly unnecessary as a system - why would we need to work towards it? Social reform is one-thing, but a playing field where the exceptional is not self-separated based upon personal-achievement is a forced system, that can only work by brute & total force. And being that “rank & order” are natural systems found in nature everywhere we turn, even in ourselves. . . it is contrary to FACT & HISTORY to assume that “rank & order” will not still exists; and in this system (a communist one). It will produce a harder-stronger more corrupt form of “rank & order.” The difference being political (& personal) power will equal your rank within the political system - & nothing more is necessary. And if you don’t think that within this type of bleak, bland, uniform-base, system that a redistribution of wealth happens based upon political “rank,” you cannot possibly know much about the system, history, or human nature.
I think you are both right in a sense. . . there is no intrinsic value to a piece of paper - no matter how much you make. Unless. . .whittsend wrote:
You are wrong, and =JoD=Corithus is closer to the truth. Monetary supply is governed by credit extended by private banks, which is in turn governed by the interest rate set by Central banks. There has been no X amount of money backed up by Y goods since we went off the gold standard in the 70's. Currently, monetary supply fluctuates based on the needs of the economy, and the cost (i.e. interest rate) of that money charged by the banks (Think along the lines of: "Is my need for this money worth the 'cost' being charged by the bank?" If the interest rate is too high, you won't bother, and that is how monetary supply is controlled). As noted previously, the cost of money (and thus the amount available to be 'bought') is governed by the Central Banks (in the US by the FED). If the balance of money in the economy, or the interest rate set by the Central Banks, get out of alignment, you get inflation or deflation depending on the direction of the misalignment.Bubbalo wrote:
Actually, no. Money only has value so long as it is backed up. It is backed up by goods.
It had to historically at one time be backed up by some commodity; of some type. After that the objectification of money can happen; as representing the value of the commodity. Then the commodity could be transferred based solely on the value now intrinsic to the objectified-part (money) and should the commodity even be destroyed, doesn't matter if it is; or isn’t (as long as it is part of a larger system, and it is); the value remains roughly even (in a larger system); whether or not the commodity; or the real part; is destroyed.
So while Whittsend, has a point in terms of modern-systems, your inference is utterly justified, as productivity, property, property devoloped, infrastructure, goods produced sold or exported, services exported, effect the tangible value of a money-system; or the amount of money that - should be; or could be; produced.
Now take an exception event, and blow away major parts of the real, like the majority of England’s buildings - make no mistake the value of the pound would tumble - as it; the money; is not utterly disconnected from the real part it objectifies.
Last edited by topal63 (2006-05-18 16:17:39)
Compare their health/education systems to the rest of South America/pre-Castro Cuba.topal63 wrote:
How has Cuba worked “very” well? What is the basis for your value-judgment?
Unnecessary in what sense? Capitalism is unnecessary, ultimately.topal63 wrote:
And communism is utterly unnecessary as a system - why would we need to work towards it?
But my point is that if people were more socially minded the system *wouldn't* need to be forced. You are right, in that people today are to greedy for it to work. But is this impossible to change?topal63 wrote:
Social reform is one-thing, but a playing field where the exceptional is not self-separated based upon personal-achievement is a forced system, that can only work by brute & total force. And being that “rank & order” are natural systems found in nature everywhere we turn, even in ourselves. . . it is contrary to FACT & HISTORY to assume that “rank & order” will not still exists; and in this system (a communist one). It will produce a harder-stronger more corrupt form of “rank & order.” The difference being political (& personal) power will equal your rank within the political system - & nothing more is necessary. And if you don’t think that within this type of bleak, bland, uniform-base, system that a redistribution of wealth happens based upon political “rank,” you cannot possibly know much about the system, history, or human nature.
Amen!!Erkut.hv wrote:
How about no. I hear Cuba is nice this time of year.... you should move there.Xietsu wrote:
...and use all proceeds from the cap for redistribution towards all domestic needs of the government at all levels.
(Come on, does Bill Gates really need his house to be the size of a museum? Okay, so maybe we up the cap to 100 million so that Bill Gates can still support his property value of 113 million.)
If I make 100 mil a year, I'll be damned if I am supporting a bunch of lazy bastards, junkies, and other types looking for a handout.
Can you explain why capitalism is unnecessary? It is a much more practical solution than communism - and all the world's most powerful/rich/high-standard-of-living nations are all either capitalistic or shifting to capitalism.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
There are other options besides capitalism and communism. That being said, the mixed market economy that most industrialized countries have is the best type of system so far. As with anything, there are problems with any type of economy, the questioon is whether we can correct the non-working parts before they send the system out of control.Spark wrote:
Can you explain why capitalism is unnecessary? It is a much more practical solution than communism - and all the world's most powerful/rich/high-standard-of-living nations are all either capitalistic or shifting to capitalism.
Ah! But it is not *necessary*!Spark wrote:
Can you explain why capitalism is unnecessary? It is a much more practical solution than communism - and all the world's most powerful/rich/high-standard-of-living nations are all either capitalistic or shifting to capitalism.
But...Bubbalo wrote:
Although become a police state *doesn't* mean it can't also be communist, although so far typically it has. Cuba worked out *very* well though. Not only that, but even if you're right currently doesn't mean communism isn't a goal we can't work towards, slowing grower more community conscious until one day it's feasible.
Why would we want to work towards communism? By the time the human race is "mature" enough, that system of government would be redundant, as people would be better able to govern themselves.
I'm not looking at 50 years from now. Call it 5000.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-05-19 01:45:37)
But if we are to move in that direction, it could be argued we need a goal. Not only that, but I didn't specify a system of government.
I think it's wishful thinking to expect the abolishment of currency anytime in the next thousand or so years.Bubbalo wrote:
But if we are to move in that direction, it could be argued we need a goal. Not only that, but I didn't specify a system of government.
But in working towards the ideal we become better. Just because a goal is unattainable doesn't mean we can't aim for it. I believe the saying goes "Aim for the moon, even if you miss, you shall land among the stars".
Yes, but there are vast gulfs of nothing between the stars.Bubbalo wrote:
But in working towards the ideal we become better. Just because a goal is unattainable doesn't mean we can't aim for it. I believe the saying goes "Aim for the moon, even if you miss, you shall land among the stars".
And there's a whole lot of muck on Earth. Your point?
Yes it does. The dialectic says nothing about the proletarian utopia being a police state. This is a perversion of Communism, not true Communism (which as I noted, is impossible).Bubbalo wrote:
Although become a police state *doesn't* mean it can't also be communist, although so far typically it has.
To say this is debatable is a giant understatement.Bubbalo wrote:
Cuba worked out *very* well though.
So you are saying we should work toward an unworkable goal which is contrary to human nature, and would require the forceful intervention of the government? I disagree.Bubbalo wrote:
Not only that, but even if you're right currently doesn't mean communism isn't a goal we can't work towards, slowing grower more community conscious until one day it's feasible.
That's because they aren't capitalist.Bubbalo wrote:
Third world nations put the lie to capitalism: no matter how hard you work, if you're constantly on the verge of death from starvation, you ain't gonna get too far.whittsend wrote:
Moving on, how DOES any of this apply to Sub-Saharan Africa (where most governments would best be described as 'Kleptocracies')?
Again, not capitalism.Bubbalo wrote:
Other such nations include South Vietnam pre-War and Iraq, where top jobs were chosen not based on merit but based on who you are related to.
You are right, insofar as it is not that cut and dry. Credit must be involved somewhere. BUT he is right insofar as the economy does, actually, create money. You are dead wrong about goods. Services, labor and futures are all worth money and create wealth (Topals point? Not sure). Sorry, but our money is backed up by an idea, not by anything tangible.Bubbalo wrote:
His statement that an extra $200 million is an extra $200 million is blatantly wrong, otherwise there wouldn't have been a depression due to companies being worth more than they are. Not only that, but the fact is all the money in the world has no value without goods to back it up.
People AREN'T more socially concious, this is a lesson of history. Wanting them to be so will not change that.Bubbalo wrote:
But my point is that if people were more socially minded the system *wouldn't* need to be forced. You are right, in that people today are to greedy for it to work. But is this impossible to change?
This is YOUR ideal. Most people don't view it as ideal, and that is why it won't work.Bubbalo wrote:
But in working towards the ideal we become better. Just because a goal is unattainable doesn't mean we can't aim for it.
There is not as muck as you like to think, Bubbalo. Since you didn't get the point, I'll make it more plain. While your little saying sounds nice, missing the moon and ending up between the stars is more likely to get you nowhere. Let me remind you sir, that this system that you seem to despise so much as made us the most successful wealthy nation on the planet. Promoting Cuba as a model to strive for is laughable at best. We as capitalists are are considering building walls and fences to keep people out, where your *model* Cuba seeks to keep people in.
Uh-huh. Have I once said "Communism is better than Capitalism"? No. Not once. Not only that, but surely if capitalism works so well for everyone, you could afford to let them in? Right?
Certainly, let them in to capitalism. I personally agree to allow them to change their economic policy. What can I say, I'm a giver.
Actually, Mexico *is* capitalist.
Yes yes, and China is supposedly communist. No nation in exsistence has, as of yet, implemented a economic or governmental plan in the actual description of that plan. As example, the US is not a Democracy, or Republic, but a hybrid of the two.
Calling them a Hybrid of the two doesn't make sense. Democracy and Republic aren't mutually exclusive. And how exactly is Mexico not capitalist?
I didn't say they were mutually exclusive, I was using that, as I clearly posted, as an example than no policy is implimented in it's pure form. Mexico, like the US, is NOT pure capitalist, but a hybridization of capitalism and other economic policies.
But no, you don't understand, you cannot create a hybrid of Republican and Democracy. It's like saying the USSR was a hybrid of Communism and Totalitarianism.