Socialism

You said that "like most socialists, believe only my strain is socialism." That's wrong, as I demonstrated, because there are seven variants I hate that I still consider socialism.

 

I don't want to play these economit quiz games of yours that you use to avoid addressing the topic, you yourself chose, why do people oppose socialism. In the Marxist tradition you only have criticism of capitalism and an aversion to any detail as to what you want to put in it's place. You avoid details because you might have to actually defend them.

 

You fibbed again! You don't know. Didn't expect that! Oh no

 

Mistakenly referring to the singular, when it was instead plural is not a lie.

 

??? No, I can assure you I don't want to play your silly games. I have a master in economics. It's from the late 80s so I wasn't up to speed on Burczak, but that was easily resolved. Other than his ideas of labor hiring capital owned by capitalist, I didn't se much that hadn't been advocated before. I know enough about economics to know that you favorite tactic in thes debates is for you to parrot some obscure economic jargon with little or no relevance to the topic of discussion, when you can't formulate a rational response.

 

You're the one that made the claim. When you're asked for details you go for the childish dodge.

This is arguably the funniest thing I've read on this forum. You don't even understand supply and demand!

I do believe they understood supply and demand in the 80s. Did you miss the 'lectures'? Chortle, chortle!

You have no understanding of economics. I don't mind laughing more though. Give me an example of 'obscure economic jargon' that I've used?

 

Seriously? That's the best you could come up with? I'm almost insulted. At least try to do better.

Even if that was plural, it doesn't change the meaning of the sentence - only my preferred strains of socialism are socialism, vs. only my preferred strain of socialism is socialism. Either way, you're still saying that I think only the variants of socialism I like (prefer) are socialism, when I named seven that I hate but still consider socialism.

Again, this would all be much easier if you just owned your mistake instead of trying to defend it. I won't bite.

 

Well "Reiver" I do not like the base concept of Socialism as I feel it lowers the individual creative drive or some people who see no gain. Sadly it is a natural evolution of a society that will stagnates and collapse in the near future without some form of it.

 

Maybe, maybe not. Luckily for you, no libertarian/anarcho-socialist will force you to try it.

 

This is just a standard misrepresentation of socialism. Its alienation and hierarchy that kicks creativity in the teeth. It is true that any feasible socialist paradigm will harness entrepreneurial spirit. Indeed, given the impact on equality of opportunity, firm creation can run amok

 

Notice no matter how many people or how many times we try to steer our parrot back to the topic of discussion in his thread, he can only respond with generic claims of ignorance of the other poster. I think the purpose of this thread is obvious. To constantly massage you own ego. Does it work for you parrot?

 

These bland tactics won't work sonny jim. You've been caught out fibbing again! As I said, you're a "poster child" for the anti-socialists as your position is so integrally based on economics ignorance

 

The issue is growing debt and population. The human race in many parts of the world is on life support. By this I mean artificial. Lots of places in Africa (Some in Central/South America, SE Asia and some islands) can get along fine without even having a government but the developed world needs it. As populations grow resources will become more limited and to prevent what is seen in many societally advanced yet peer areas of the third world where warlords or the taliban rule developed countries will have to accept and even embrace more government control in their lives and over business.

I do not like it but I feel that is the only real solution other than a plague wiping out half of the world population.

 

A strange comment given the problem is a lack of economic development. And how do we generate the results consistent with development? Through economic planning. You're tacitly supporting old-hatted socialism

 

I see you are more optimistic in your views than I. I look at the variable that can not be accounted for. People. I have no faith in all the retards of this world.

 

I'm merely able to entertain economic reality

 

Reiver have you read life without work? I suggest you do. It is really the increased efficiency that is the issue not economic development. What do you produce when everyone already has everything they need or can afford? Well perhaps efficiency can be increased in a mature market allowing a business to take hold... A 200 person company put the 300 person company out of business...

 

Anything other than your personal declarations that it would be so? Sure creativity could run amok. Not necessarily creation of profitable enterprises . Especially when providing the idiot and the genius with the same opportunity

 

The two cannot be separated. EConomic development, by allowing dynamic comparative advantage, leads to efficiency gain.

That will never be achieved.

 

Sorry, no longer interested in you. You've more than achieved what I wanted from you. Thanks and all that. In future though, try not to be so obvious in the fibbing!

 

But any business needs to start with a SWOT analysis. We will have a non working class by necessity not by choice.

 

Businesses will start because of the nature of uncertainty, where the entrepreneur's tacit knowledge removes ignorance and generates economic opportunities.

 

Which goes back to my other post about efficiency.

This is not a moot argument but here I just see things going circular.

 

No it doesn't. It merely describes the link between efficiency and equity, something you haven't appreciated at all

 

You are a joke. The point remains. You only accept economic systems as socialist when they fit YOUR definition of what socialism is. The fact that you have 20 versions that fit that definition is irrelevant to my point.