|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
 Posted - 03/23/2002 : 16:10:29 [Permalink]
|
[quote]
That means that what gets produced, and made available, isn't decided by *you* alone, but by you and the rest of your community. Sometimes this might be at a local level, sometimes at a regional or national level. Sometimes even at an international level. And of course material constraints would impose limits as well.[/quote]
I know it's difficult to separate the two at times but now you are talking politics. Not the same as the topic -Capitalism-.
* * * * * * *
If you take an Oriental person and spin him around several times, does he become disoriented?
George Carlin
* * * * * * *
I'd do that at home with the one I live with to see what happens but he's too confussed already.
Snake
|
 |
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2002 : 16:17:07 [Permalink]
|
[quote]
I put forward Bill Gates, George Soros, and Ted Turner as philanthropic capitalists for your consideration.
It is also easier to be altruistic when your belly is full. The advertising world that attempts to convince people that they don't have enough is partly to blame for a lack of altruism as it implies that if we aren't eating double big mac's, with supersize fries and a biggie drink, while we go through the drive through in our brand new car, wearing the latest fashions, on our way to the trendy gym, we are incomplete.
A false sense of being under threat is pervaded, and so people are less likely to share.
My thoughts, my 2 cents.
[/quote]
I'm glad you mentioned that. I was going to say something about advertizing but thought it would get too complicated.
I agree with everything you said Badger.
That's why I 'jokingly' said I wanted all that stuff and more.
Two reasons, 1st...everyone has a different idea of what he wants (that's important to him) and commericals on TV, etc., make us want or think we must have more then we need.
But you see the problem by bringing that up is, it's business....Captialism!!!
* * * * * * *
If you take an Oriental person and spin him around several times, does he become disoriented?
George Carlin
* * * * * * *
I'd do that at home with the one I live with to see what happens but he's too confussed already.
Snake
|
|
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2002 : 03:59:40 [Permalink]
|
"I know it's difficult to separate the two at times but now you are talking politics. Not the same as the topic -Capitalism-."
Well, it *is* hard to separate them, but I was trying to answer your question. Actually, I don't think you can really talk economics without talking politics, but what do I know?
"Be realistic, demand the impossible" - graffiti from Paris, May 1968. |
|
|
|
Mespo_man
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2002 : 07:12:43 [Permalink]
|
[quote]Well, it *is* hard to separate them, but I was trying to answer your question. Actually, I don't think you can really talk economics without talking politics, but what do I know?[NottyImp] [/quote]
More than you realize, NottyImp. I'm sure you are aware of the ritual we Yanks have when Allen Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, gets together with the board to decide what to do about interest rates. Of course, there is a lot of number crunching, but there is also the political side of the equation that may not be so obvious. His decisions can and do have a ripple effect on economies around the world.
IMHO, Allen Greenspan is the second most powerful man behind the U.S. President, and in many ways is THE most powerful man on Earth. A man with that kind of power has politics written into his job description by default.
(:raig |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2002 : 13:19:41 [Permalink]
|
[quote]
More than you realize, NottyImp. I'm sure you are aware of the ritual we Yanks have when Allen Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, gets together with the board to decide what to do about interest rates. Of course, there is a lot of number crunching, but there is also the political side of the equation that may not be so obvious. His decisions can and do have a ripple effect on economies around the world.
IMHO, Allen Greenspan is the second most powerful man behind the U.S. President, and in many ways is THE most powerful man on Earth. A man with that kind of power has politics written into his job description by default.
(:raig
[/quote]
I think Mr. Greenspan is a jerk. I wish he'd keep his fucking mouth shut. We are the ones who give him the power when he is listened to and his words are acted upon.
As an investor in the stock market I like to make up my own mind about what will be a good sector to buy but because all those fools listen to him they don't follow the right path and mess everything up.
What I am saying is people are sheep and ruin everything for the rational others. One man shouldn't have that given power.
* * * * * * *
If you take an Oriental person and spin him around several times, does he become disoriented?
George Carlin
* * * * * * *
I'd do that at home with the one I live with to see what happens but he's too confussed already.
Snake
|
|
|
|
Omega
Skeptic Friend
Denmark
164 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2002 : 18:47:40 [Permalink]
|
NottyImp> Why was Stalin an inevitable consequence of Lenin? Because of an inherent failure in socialism as a political system or because of the problems facing Russia after the revolution?
Revolutions have succeed. The American war of Independence and the French revolution after that. They were of course “bourgoisie” insurrections, but they succeeded.
“I can envision huge problems with large-scale decision making under public ownership of manufacturing."
Such as? The point of worker-control to the best of my knowledge is, that those who produce the goods know most about it. Decision-making may take a little longer, but what's the rush?
And I agree whole-heartedly with NottyImp that society would benefit from more direct democracy. Again, yes, it might take a little longer, but it would be… democracy.
Acceptable and unacceptable “wants.” We have an extremely polarised society. Doesn't that create most of the unacceptable wants?
I don't want people eating the same, wearing the same clothes and thinking the same. As it is today. Fashion dictates what hair is en-vogue and what clothes is “in”. I can choose from five different colas, but as there are 5 million people in Denmark, I'm not really special if I choose from those.
And it is impossible to separate economics from politics. You can't discuss capitalism and not discuss politics. Look at the world today and tell me the two are separate.
"All it takes to fly is to fling yourself at the ground... and miss."
- Douglas Adams |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2002 : 21:45:21 [Permalink]
|
[quote]
And it is impossible to separate economics from politics. You can't discuss capitalism and not discuss politics. Look at the world today and tell me the two are separate.
[/quote]
Well, let's not be THAT skeptical Omega.
IMO, the government should stay out of it as much as possible.
[quote]
"All it takes to fly is to fling yourself at the ground... and miss."
- Douglas Adams
[/quote]
LOL. Cute!
* * * * * * *
If you take an Oriental person and spin him around several times, does he become disoriented?
George Carlin
* * * * * * *
I'd do that at home with the one I live with to see what happens but he's too confussed already.
Snake
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 08:40:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
And I agree whole-heartedly with NottyImp that society would benefit from more direct democracy. Again, yes, it might take a little longer, but it would be… democracy.
Does Tyranny of the Majority not generate concern?
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 09:03:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
And I agree whole-heartedly with NottyImp that society would benefit from more direct democracy. Again, yes, it might take a little longer, but it would be… democracy.
Does Tyranny of the Majority not generate concern?
Not to mention the horrifying logistics of calling a full population vote every time any decision has to be made.
An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made in a very narrow field.
-Niels Bohr
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 09:07:26 [Permalink]
|
What also bothers me is that it often seems that many voters have little grasp of the issues they are voting on. if a referrendum comes around to cut taxes it almost always passes regardless of the consequences. Then the voters bitch that traffic is bad and why isn't the government working on the roads etc. LOL Like the Governor will just reach into his or her pockets and pull out some light rail.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 09:17:30 [Permalink]
|
Voting has little to do with democracy.
Let's not forget that they vote in Cuba.
Democracy is more about organizing things so that people get what they need and want in a reasonable fashion. This could happen in a dictatorship I suppose if the dictator rules as a representative of the people in the same way that representatives in the U.S. are supposedto rule.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 10:07:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Voting has little to do with democracy.
Let's not forget that they vote in Cuba.
Democracy is more about organizing things so that people get what they need and want in a reasonable fashion. This could happen in a dictatorship I suppose if the dictator rules as a representative of the people in the same way that representatives in the U.S. are supposedto rule.
Gorgo, I gotta love the way you redefine terms to suit youself... 
Democracy is not defined synonymously with voting - absolutely so. But Cuba is a terrible counter-example, as it is not a democracy and makes no pretense of being one.
In your next sentence, I would agree with you completely if you replace the word "Democracy" with "Good government". While I'd like to think that a democracy could be a good government, in the real world things are always less than ideal, so no democratic government is perfect. And democracy as a theory has its critics, too - notably the "tyranny of the majority" problem.
Of course, you are correct that a benevolent dictator could run a good government. Indeed, there have been such systems, but they have a tendency to break down over time. The dictator's successors are rarely so benevolent.
What democracy does offer is a level of checks and balances arising from collective decision-making. It can be shown that "many heads are better than one" in specific contexts, and this is the hope of democracy (which simply means "rule of the people"). However, in other contexts, many heads comprise a mob.
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 11:59:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Democracy is more about organizing things so that people get what they need and want in a reasonable fashion. This could happen in a dictatorship I suppose if the dictator rules as a representative of the people in the same way that representatives in the U.S. are supposedto rule.
Gorgo, I gotta love the way you redefine terms to suit youself...
Democracy is not defined synonymously with voting - absolutely so. But Cuba is a terrible counter-example, as it is not a democracy and makes no pretense of being one.
Sorry, but they do make that pretense. As did the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.
quote:
In your next sentence, I would agree with you completely if you replace the word "Democracy" with "Good government". While I'd like to think that a democracy could be a good government, in the real world things are always less than ideal, so no democratic government is perfect. And democracy as a theory has its critics, too - notably the "tyranny of the majority" problem.
My dictionary defines democracy as one where the power resides with the people. That is possible with a direct democracy, a representative democracy or a dictatorship.
quote:
Of course, you are correct that a benevolent dictator could run a good government.
Some would say that "good" and "government" don't belong in the same sentence. I'm not one of them, but some would.
quote:
Indeed, there have been such systems, but they have a tendency to break down over time. The dictator's successors are rarely so benevolent.
True. And oligarchies such as exist in the U.S. sometimes are benevolent. Not usually, but sometimes.
quote:
What democracy does offer is a level of checks and balances arising from collective decision-making. It can be shown that "many heads are better than one" in specific contexts, and this is the hope of democracy (which simply means "rule of the people"). However, in other contexts, many heads comprise a mob.
[/quote]
Here you seem to be talking about the supposed "checks and balances" of the U.S. which may or may not exist in a real democracy.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 12:41:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
My dictionary defines democracy as one where the power resides with the people. That is possible with a direct democracy, a representative democracy or a dictatorship.
By definition, a dictorship is a system of government where the power resides in only one person, and not the people.
Could you explain your reasoning?
Dictatorship:
1 : the office of dictator
2 : autocratic rule, control, or leadership
3 a : a form of government in which absolute power is concentrated in a dictator or a small clique b : a government organization or group in which absolute power is so concentrated c : a despotic state
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 03/29/2002 12:42:09 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 13:20:40 [Permalink]
|
In the sense that a dictator is usually associated with negative connotations you may have me there. However, in an earlier post I think I was careful to use the term "benevolent." A benevolent dictator may in fact be more responsive to the people than a republic. Certainly the U.S. is an example of an oligarchy with a democratic facade. It is equally possible for a monarch (the U.K. for example?) to be a representative of the people. I'm not encouraging that, I'm just saying that such a thing is possible.
quote:
Could you explain your reasoning?
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
