Communism Fails.

[Alg]

In that sense it seems like the system's a double-edged sword.

[sees_all1]

In that sense it seems like the system's a double-edged sword.

 

That's right, the free market system hates big government interfering with all its dirty workings.

 

We know that both extremes are bad for a nation. Too much deregulation, and you create a permanent underclass that works itself to death. Too much regulation,and you create a permanent underclass that has no freedom.

I'd like to think that the optimal place is somewhere, closer to less government, more freedoms; I see a handful of things a government can do to make its nation/people more prosperous. Simple things like, enforce the established law, protect ones sovereignty, and provide aid and organization to areas that have been devastated.

 

We'll see what happens with Cuba?

[Giordano]

 

We'll see what happens with Cuba?

Swimming will finally be legal?

[magekillr]

socialism can be anywhere from regulated capitalism to authoritarian communism.

 

wouldn't it be much easier to use the term communism when it is communism you mean?

 

social democracy is also socialism. communism failing does not imply that socialism fails one bit.

 

Yeah, this.

 

Oh, you know what else fails?

 

The number of people in the U.S. who are in poverty is on track for a record increase on President Barack Obama's watch, with the ranks of working-age poor approaching 1960s levels that led to the national war on poverty.

 

Interviews with six demographers who closely track poverty trends found wide consensus that 2009 figures are likely to show a significant rate increase to the range of 14.7 percent to 15 percent.

 

Should those estimates hold true, some 45 million people in this country, or more than 1 in 7, were poor last year. It would be the highest single-year increase since the government began calculating poverty figures in 1959. The previous high was in 1980 when the rate jumped 1.3 percentage points to 13 percent during the energy crisis.

 

Among the 18-64 working-age population, the demographers expect a rise beyond 12.4 percent, up from 11.7 percent. That would make it the highest since at least 1965, when another Democratic president, Lyndon B. Johnson, launched the war on poverty that expanded the federal government's role in social welfare programs from education to health care.

US poverty on track to post record gain in 2009

 

That's what happens when the rich-poor gap approaches that of Banana Republics'.

 

[That's why I'm against the extravagant, yes I said extravagant, welfare programs employed by the United States. Minimal food, shelter and clothing are expected to those who are without, but is it an existential necessity to have a government supplied cell phone?]

 

Some Christian you are. Do you even know what you're talking about? You try and get around without a phone in the present day, dude. Let's see how long you last, and I'll even let you live in your current state of luxury (though you can't borrow others' phones). It's so nice that you want to return to the days of the Gilded Age, but those of us who want to move beyond the 19th century are moving forward.

[meol]

I agree with tortillia and magekillr above. The failure of yet another communist state says something about communism, but not about all variations of socialism. You could ensure basic rights like healthcare and education to everyone and advance social equality without having the state run every aspect of the economy, or having to suppress dissidents. The problems of Communism come not only from the controlled economy but also from its authoritarian ways and how often it leads to a cult of personality.

 

But yes, Marxism is just obsolete in the 21st century, and I'm glad to start seeing these changes in their society.

[Omar]

In theory, capitalism is even better than communism. The harder the work the richer you get, right?

If it was that simple, no one would be having this discussion.

That went over your head.

Did it? What did I miss?

[Pirate_Felix]

In theory, capitalism is even better than communism. The harder the work the richer you get, right?

If it was that simple, no one would be having this discussion.

That went over your head.

Did it? What did I miss?

Capitalism, apparently it flew over your head without you knowing.

[sees_all1]

[That's why I'm against the extravagant, yes I said extravagant, welfare programs employed by the United States. Minimal food, shelter and clothing are expected to those who are without, but is it an existential necessity to have a government supplied cell phone?]

 

Some Christian you are. Do you even know what you're talking about? You try and get around without a phone in the present day, dude. Let's see how long you last, and I'll even let you live in your current state of luxury (though you can't borrow others' phones). It's so nice that you want to return to the days of the Gilded Age, but those of us who want to move beyond the 19th century are moving forward.

You have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And heavily subsidized or free shelter, free health-care, free food, free cell-phone. You have a right to remain in "poverty" for the rest of your life (which is better off than 80-90% of the world's population), and be a perpetual bum.

 

Oh, and magekillr - How does not wanting big government make you less of a Christian? Can you back that up with scripture?

[magekillr]

[That's why I'm against the extravagant, yes I said extravagant, welfare programs employed by the United States. Minimal food, shelter and clothing are expected to those who are without, but is it an existential necessity to have a government supplied cell phone?]

 

Some Christian you are. Do you even know what you're talking about? You try and get around without a phone in the present day, dude. Let's see how long you last, and I'll even let you live in your current state of luxury (though you can't borrow others' phones). It's so nice that you want to return to the days of the Gilded Age, but those of us who want to move beyond the 19th century are moving forward.

You have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And heavily subsidized or free shelter, free health-care, free food, free cell-phone. You have a right to remain in "poverty" for the rest of your life (which is better off than 80-90% of the world's population), and be a perpetual bum.

 

Oh, and magekillr - How does not wanting big government make you less of a Christian? Can you back that up with scripture?

 

There's absolutely no way you're a real person. You're an example of Poe's Law. Well, part of me wants to think that, but after seeing this guy tell someone with Parkinson's Disease at a Tea Party rally "no free handouts" and handing him a dollar bill, I think you could be real, and you're a despicable person:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ik4f1dRbP8

 

If you support Republicans, you want big government just as much as I do. Your definition is just different than mine. Mine keeps out of people's private lives; yours invades people's bedrooms, what they want to do to their bodies, suicide, euthanasia, abortion, gay marriage, spying on people, allowing the government to tap your lines, read your emails, imprison you without charge in the name of terrorism, assassinate you without due process and expand the military to levels of Latin America and Africa.

 

In other words, you'd welcome tyranny and a dictatorial government so long as your tax rate was 0%.

 

Your rhetorical tricks are of no use here, friend. Are you going to use more buzz words next time that are spoon-fed to you by Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh? You didn't even mention the Kenyan that's in office!

[sees_all1]

If you support Republicans, you want big government just as much as I do.

I'm a conservative. I want limited federal government. I vote for the individual that most closely aligns with my views. If the government is limited, there's absolutely no way it can abuse its power.

 

And you still have yet to show me how being a Christian means you need to support big government. Spare us the personal attacks and off-topic posts.

[Giordano]

If you support Republicans, you want big government just as much as I do.

I'm a conservative. I want limited federal government. I vote for the individual that most closely aligns with my views. If the government is limited, there's absolutely no way it can abuse its power.

 

And you still have yet to show me how being a Christian means you need to support big government. Spare us the personal attacks and off-topic posts.

Did you just ignore the rest of his post? Its funny how Americans don't like to admit their military is responsible for the cruel oppressive military regimes in Latin America and across the world. Conservative do want low taxes but some how think the military occipations and war against terrorism is free. Plus we love to say our military likes to help the peoples of the world yet the same folks who support the military don't support to help their fellow countryman. The conservatives/Republicans have the biggest and most contradictions I've ever seen since the 19th century.

 

Another contradiction: most conservatives are Christians but they ignore "help thy neighbor", "turn the other cheek", and most especially "God loves everybody.

[Alg]

Spare us the personal attacks and off-topic posts.

This. A thousand times this. Your post was nothing but an attack on him and his beliefs. And once again, you derail a fine thread with your irrelevant attack on the political right. The Tea Party has nothing to do with this topic.

[Giordano]

While it was a personal attack, it still stated some valid stuff.

[Dupin]

I feel like I just stepped into the late 20th century. COMMUNISM IS THE DEVIL. We must destroy this godless nation.

 

First of all, Cuba is not Communist, it's Socialist. Communism doesn't have a government, because everyone is the government.

 

Secondly, laying off a few state workers in the hope that they will move into the private sector doesn't mean the government is suddenly abandoning its evil principles.

 

Lastly, the problems with Communism are the same as those of any other form of market/government: Human nature.

 

Save the anti-Commie hogwash for the next time you see your toothless, shotgun-toting, whiskey-spittin', wrinkled ol' Christian Grandaddy.

[sees_all1]

First of all, Cuba is not Communist, it's Socialist. Communism doesn't have a government, because everyone is the government.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet?

Why is the distinction in name so important? Might as well be the same thing - overbearing government, state controlled everything. Same poo, different flavor.

 

Secondly, laying off a few state workers in the hope that they will move into the private sector doesn't mean the government is suddenly abandoning its evil principles.

Half a million state workers in a country that has a workforce of five million is very significant. Other government estimates earlier said that Cuba had a million in their government that weren't contributing significantly enough to justify employing them.

The government just told everyone that in half a year, their unemployment will be 10%. The awful part about this is that by cutting them loose, they're probably going to take away the jobless' benefits, which includes the "super cheap health-care", food and housing.

[Dupin]

First of all, Cuba is not Communist, it's Socialist. Communism doesn't have a government, because everyone is the government.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet?

Why is the distinction in name so important? Might as well be the same thing - overbearing government, state controlled everything. Same poo, different flavor.

Actually, the two government types are very different. They just both seem radical to you so you pile them in the same wagon. It's like saying "Nazi" when you're trying to insult a Democrat.

 

Secondly, laying off a few state workers in the hope that they will move into the private sector doesn't mean the government is suddenly abandoning its evil principles.

Half a million state workers in a country that has a workforce of five million is very significant. Other government estimates earlier said that Cuba had a million in their government that weren't contributing significantly enough to justify employing them.

The government just told everyone that in half a year, their unemployment will be 10%. The awful part about this is that by cutting them loose, they're probably going to take away the jobless' benefits, which includes the "super cheap health-care", food and housing.

Yes, it's significant layoffs, 450k of these people are supposed to find non-government jobs. That's a 1% projected increase in unemployment, which is much less than what the US has seen recently.

 

I see why you would expect them to take away unemployment benefits, but it's not definite. Whether or not it's probable depends on who you ask. It will probably depend on the success of the layoffs in finding private jobs.

[magekillr]

W/e, sees_all1, your model has proven to be bunk.

 

When I see this:

 

Earlier this year I wrote about the Jefferson County story in a piece called “Looting Main Street” in Rolling Stone. In this tale employees of a group of high-powered Wall Street banks, led in particular by JP Morgan Chase, funneled money to local politicians in Alabama, who in turn signed off on toxic interest-rate swap deals that left the county saddled with monstrous debt for a generation.

Jefferson County is essentially the world’s worst credit card story. The local pols ran up massive bills to build a “Taj Mahal of sewer-treatment plants,” then saddled future voters with a blizzard-worth of rate hikes, punitive fees and late charges. Alabamans who should have paid $250 million for their new sewer system now owe over $3 billion, thanks to their corrupt politicians and the greedy carpetbagger banks who dragged these local hicks into deadly derivative deals.

 

These types of finance scams are the template for a whole new type of symbiotic relationship between politicians and the financial services industry: deals like the JeffCo interest-rate swaps allow politicians to borrow vast sums essentially without immediate consequence, making it possible to green-light politically-popular programs during their terms but leaving future leaders holding the bag when the bills come due. We saw similar stories in Greece and in the Denver school system; hundreds of communities in Italy and other European countries are also experiencing similar debt-blowups thanks to rate swaps and other deadly deals.

 

Anyway, back in the mid-nineties, the average sewer bill for a Jefferson County family of four was only $14.71. By the time I wrote my story earlier this year, most citizens were paying about four times that amount – and as of this summer, the average JeffCo sewer bill was $63. Well, the news now comes out that rates will go up again, and in the best case scenario they will jump 25% a year. The worst case? Jefferson County sewer rates could jump as much as 527%, with some estimates placing the average monthly bill as high as $395 a month.

Wall Street Strikes Again: Sewer Hikes in Alabama

 

At some point, people are going to figure out that our current corrupt capitalist system isn’t about the efficient allocation of capital, but straight up robbery and thieving. Not any time soon, I suspect, but some day.

 

And then this:

 

Give the wealthiest Americans a tax cut and history suggests they will save the money rather than spend it.

 

Tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 under President George W. Bush were followed by increases in the saving rate among the rich, according to data from Moody’s Analytics Inc. When taxes were raised under Bill Clinton, the saving rate fell.

 

The findings may weaken arguments by Republicans and some Democrats in Congress who say allowing the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to lapse will prompt them to reduce their spending, harming the economy. President Barack Obama wants to extend the cuts for individuals earning less than $200,000 and couples earning less than $250,000 while ending them for those who earn more.

 

“I would tend to wonder how much the tax cut actually influences spending behavior,” said Chris Cornell, an economist who mined government reports back to 1989 for West Chester, Pennsylvania-based Moody’s Analytics. “Spending by the top 5 percent of households seems much more closely tied to business- cycle issues than it does to tax-cut issues.”

 

The Moody’s research covering couples earning more than $210,000 found that spending by the wealthy is more likely to be influenced by the ups and downs of the stock market than changes in income-tax rates.

 

Stock-market performance is the “primary factor that is driving the savings of the top 5 percent of households,” said Mustafa Akcay, economist and co-researcher of the savings data.

Rich Americans Save Tax Cuts Instead of Spending, Moody's Says

 

Will Ronald Reagan's [cabbage] ever go away? If you want to have a debate about what tax rate is "fair" then fine, there is room to argue there. But the debate over what tax rates best benefit the economy is over.

[sees_all1]

Rich Americans Save Tax Cuts Instead of Spending, Moody's Says

 

You'll have remembered from macroeconomics that people saving their money is a good thing; it allows banks to lend more. Every dollar saved is ten more banks can lend (see reserve ratio and money multiplier).

But this isn't a discussion about the U.S.'s economy/government/laws, its a discussion about Cuba cutting half a million jobs from its public sector workforce.

[Alg]

This is why we can't have nice things here in in OT...

Make a new thread about tax cuts or whatever [cabbage] it is you're arguing about. This one's for Cuba.

[Giordano]

The title says Communism Fails, not Cuba Fails.

 

Thank you very much.

[sees_all1]

The title says Communism Fails, not Cuba Fails.

 

Thank you very much.

 

subtitle says "Cuba to eliminate state jobs."

Maybe I need to add the word "again" to the title to make it absolutely clear to you that refuse to read the article posted in the OP?

[magekillr]

Rich Americans Save Tax Cuts Instead of Spending, Moody's Says

 

You'll have remembered from macroeconomics that people saving their money is a good thing; it allows banks to lend more. Every dollar saved is ten more banks can lend (see reserve ratio and money multiplier).

But this isn't a discussion about the U.S.'s economy/government/laws, its a discussion about Cuba cutting half a million jobs from its public sector workforce.

 

People saving their money in a recession is a good thing? What school of econ did you go to? Ludwig Von Mises Institute of Google?

 

An economy based on consumption cannot grow with everyone saving their money. The economy grew slower than at any time in US history since the 1940's...this was during Bush's tax cuts that said we'd experience a lot of growth by giving rich people money. That was Reagonomics. It's a failure.

 

I like how you're changing the topic. No, this is very much relevant because you said Communism fails. You say Communism fails, as though to say that government in the economy = communism. That's essentially what you're implying with this post. Thus, I say that American capitalism fails.

 

And about earlier, Christine O'Donnell just won the Delaware Republican primary for Senate. This is your party, dude:

 

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/christine-odonnells-1996-anti-masturbation-campaign-on-mtvs-sex-in-the-90s.php

[Giordano]

The title says Communism Fails, not Cuba Fails.

 

Thank you very much.

 

subtitle says "Cuba to eliminate state jobs."

Maybe I need to add the word "again" to the title to make it absolutely clear to you that refuse to read the article posted in the OP?

The title overpowers the subtitle. Thus the "sub" part of subtitle.

 

Thank you very much.

[sees_all1]

An economy based on consumption cannot grow with everyone saving their money. The economy grew slower than at any time in US history since the 1940's...this was during Bush's tax cuts that said we'd experience a lot of growth by giving rich people money. That was Reagonomics. It's a failure.

You must have missed a few days in macroeconomics 101. Let me fill you in. Banks are required to have cash on hand to back their deposits. They cannot lend more money when their reserves are too low. The United State's required reserve ratio is 10%. That means for every dollar someone deposits in a bank, that bank is allowed to lend $.90 from it. If that person takes that loan and deposits it into a bank, the next bank is able to lend $.81 from the left-over, and so-on. A dollar saved is up to ten dollars lent. If no one saves their money, no one can essentially borrow money from banks.

 

Savings finance the world being built. If the marginal propensity to save decreases, that spells looming disaster for the economy.

Read this so you can catch up.

 

 

 

The United States has 4.5% of the world's population, yet produces 23.9% of the world's GDP. If free market capitalism is a failure, would you care to explain how the United States became so prosperous? Maybe, contrast it with China, which has 19.4% of the world's population, but only produces 4.33% of the world's GDP. Or India, which has 17% of the world's population, but only produces 1.9% of the world's GDP?

And don't talk to me about Luxembourg or any country with a population of less than 30 million people. We need to discuss things that have the same order of magnitude.

 

 

Communism or Super-Socialism in practice has failed quite a few times. Humans are capitalists by nature, so letting them profit from the sweat of their own brow is better motivation than the state taking their effort, and rationing them the same amount as the bum next door.