Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
¡¡¡Tema cerrado!!!
Asunto: »Political & economic ideologies (communism, capitalism et
I didn't understand what you wanted to say here. And I really don't understand why do you consider competitiveness to be bad for the economy? People can be competitive without being greedy. These are not synonyms.
my bad english,
I do not not consider competitivness negative for economy. I consider a competitive world something that is now, but can be changed.
edit:
I want to say the winning of capitalism is due to the strenght of states that use it, in front of weakness of other system's countries!
(editado)
my bad english,
I do not not consider competitivness negative for economy. I consider a competitive world something that is now, but can be changed.
edit:
I want to say the winning of capitalism is due to the strenght of states that use it, in front of weakness of other system's countries!
(editado)
But profit is not something bad. Profit is just a simple positive outcome of a reasonable and well performed investment. Profit is just another form of "interest".
One of the most important aspects of money is the "time preference value of money". Everyone of us values more to have a certain amount of money earlier than later. That value difference is called "interest" that we are prepared to pay for borrowing money. There is always people who need more money than they have and people who have it more than they need. That is why we borrow and why we are prepared to pay the interest and because of interest people are prepared to risk borrowing their surplus to someone.
Now, in order to earn due interest, borrowed money needs to be used directly or indirectly for an economic activity and so when we put our money surplus to the bank or we buy shares or we start a business ourselves, we always choose between different options that we believe will return to us the most interest or profit.
That is why it doesn't make any sense to believe that a business should and even would be made without a profit as a result. Nobody would do business without a profit. We would all just sit on our money and not ever risk losing it in a business activity.
If there is no profit, that only means somebody either started up a lousy investment or they willingly give away their money for a specific cause. So, even if government makes e.g. non-profitable hospitals, that only means that the government used everybody's money in order to give special lower prices only to those that are ill. Also, in that process we lose track of the efficiency of different hospitals.
The right way to that same thing is this. If a government wants to give lower prices of health services to its citizens, the more rational thing to do would be setting up a special government fund from which they will pay the intended percentages of the prices of services in the private hospitals that their citizens choose themselves for a specific service.
Stil, that fund again needs to be filled by the money tax payers made in another economic activity. So, we're back again at the "no free meal" principle. The more you have of the lump sum free meals such as "non-profit health", you only have more of losing track of real economic performance which only stimulates inefficiency. Nothing else.
(editado)
One of the most important aspects of money is the "time preference value of money". Everyone of us values more to have a certain amount of money earlier than later. That value difference is called "interest" that we are prepared to pay for borrowing money. There is always people who need more money than they have and people who have it more than they need. That is why we borrow and why we are prepared to pay the interest and because of interest people are prepared to risk borrowing their surplus to someone.
Now, in order to earn due interest, borrowed money needs to be used directly or indirectly for an economic activity and so when we put our money surplus to the bank or we buy shares or we start a business ourselves, we always choose between different options that we believe will return to us the most interest or profit.
That is why it doesn't make any sense to believe that a business should and even would be made without a profit as a result. Nobody would do business without a profit. We would all just sit on our money and not ever risk losing it in a business activity.
If there is no profit, that only means somebody either started up a lousy investment or they willingly give away their money for a specific cause. So, even if government makes e.g. non-profitable hospitals, that only means that the government used everybody's money in order to give special lower prices only to those that are ill. Also, in that process we lose track of the efficiency of different hospitals.
The right way to that same thing is this. If a government wants to give lower prices of health services to its citizens, the more rational thing to do would be setting up a special government fund from which they will pay the intended percentages of the prices of services in the private hospitals that their citizens choose themselves for a specific service.
Stil, that fund again needs to be filled by the money tax payers made in another economic activity. So, we're back again at the "no free meal" principle. The more you have of the lump sum free meals such as "non-profit health", you only have more of losing track of real economic performance which only stimulates inefficiency. Nothing else.
(editado)
But profit is not something bad. Profit is just a simple positive outcome of a reasonable and well performed investment. Profit is just another form of "interest".
I did not said it's bad..
I said it must be not the only northern star for a mature and democratic economical system.
every economical activity can be done for profict, but almost of them are ruled to avoid damages..
Can the chemical industries destroy wild life on rivers with its enviroment? no. There are rules to avoid it.
Can a financial industry destroy economic life on a country? yes! There are no rule against it!
I did not said it's bad..
I said it must be not the only northern star for a mature and democratic economical system.
every economical activity can be done for profict, but almost of them are ruled to avoid damages..
Can the chemical industries destroy wild life on rivers with its enviroment? no. There are rules to avoid it.
Can a financial industry destroy economic life on a country? yes! There are no rule against it!
Stil, that fund again needs to be filled by the money tax payers made in another economic activity. So, we're back again at the "no free meal" principle. The more you have of the lump sum free meals such as "non-profit health", you only have more of losing track of real economic performance which only stimulates inefficiency. Nothing else.
This is what you think if you do not look at Externality
the economic value of an activity is always to report on the normative system it's done in..
maybe to do T-shirt in Italy is no more profitable..
in China it is still..
Why?
different rules..
Can a financial industry destroy economic life on a country? yes! There are no rule against it!
Exactly! And there should be very strict rules in financial industry. Now we have "financial weapons of mass destruction" which is a term Warren Buffet invented.
This is what you think if you do not look at Externality
Well, we have started to include externalities as well with the Kyoto protocol but unfortunately USA stil remain the only country not signing it. Shame on them for that as well.
(editado)
Exactly! And there should be very strict rules in financial industry. Now we have "financial weapons of mass destruction" which is a term Warren Buffet invented.
This is what you think if you do not look at Externality
Well, we have started to include externalities as well with the Kyoto protocol but unfortunately USA stil remain the only country not signing it. Shame on them for that as well.
(editado)
externalities are not only enviroment.
there are social costs too..
there are social costs too..
I want to go back to some example that was made;
a poor man who worked in a kitchen and a rich intelligent man.
It was said that the poor man should be worse of than in communism where both people would have boring lives in the same flat.
This is not true; why always be so jaelous and greedy? Why this kitchenworker cannot be happy for the rich guy who struck it lucky?
Maybe he works hard in the kitchen so his son can study and get a better job than his....
That is the true reality in life...not that the poor guy will start killing others as they are more " succesfull" ..
Also the thing that the rich guy is not good towards poorer people does not count; all of the worlds financial aids towards the poorest people is paid by the richest 10% of people...not by these major groups of surviving working class people.
No not by Russia Nor China or Brasil or India.....only or just Europe America and Japan/korea.
Yes, all more or less capitalism states.They pay...not those communists.
a poor man who worked in a kitchen and a rich intelligent man.
It was said that the poor man should be worse of than in communism where both people would have boring lives in the same flat.
This is not true; why always be so jaelous and greedy? Why this kitchenworker cannot be happy for the rich guy who struck it lucky?
Maybe he works hard in the kitchen so his son can study and get a better job than his....
That is the true reality in life...not that the poor guy will start killing others as they are more " succesfull" ..
Also the thing that the rich guy is not good towards poorer people does not count; all of the worlds financial aids towards the poorest people is paid by the richest 10% of people...not by these major groups of surviving working class people.
No not by Russia Nor China or Brasil or India.....only or just Europe America and Japan/korea.
Yes, all more or less capitalism states.They pay...not those communists.
no, not same people and not same job. I am talking about poor job and well paid job and about man with high IQ and simple man. Their salary will be too different and it has nothing with hardworking, just one of them was better born.
Again: it is based on both working and both intelligence:
- when two men do the same job, but one works more than the other, he'll get more money
- when two men work an equal amount of time, but one does a job for high-educated people, he'll get more money
So yes, there will be jobs in which you have to work less but get paid more than some other jobs. And yes, in my opinion, this is fair.
I dont think, skilled people with high salary hate taxes ... bad paid job usually pay very small taxes so they dont care. Also well paid people hate state insurance and social benefits for poor and so.
Black, white, try grey. Where does Warren Buffett fit in your story (he asks for more taxes for rich people)?
Again: it is based on both working and both intelligence:
- when two men do the same job, but one works more than the other, he'll get more money
- when two men work an equal amount of time, but one does a job for high-educated people, he'll get more money
So yes, there will be jobs in which you have to work less but get paid more than some other jobs. And yes, in my opinion, this is fair.
I dont think, skilled people with high salary hate taxes ... bad paid job usually pay very small taxes so they dont care. Also well paid people hate state insurance and social benefits for poor and so.
Black, white, try grey. Where does Warren Buffett fit in your story (he asks for more taxes for rich people)?
History does not show us anything about true communism (as in: the most original and pure form.), as it was never used or implemented.
I know, but when communism fails every time to go through the same door as democracy and always ends up with an authoritarian state, then I think I am right to say that in our non-idealized world, communism and democracy are not compatible, due to human nature. You can ignore that human nature, but at the end, you'll end up with an authoritarian state, again. Because ignoring the human nature doesn't make it go away.
I know, but when communism fails every time to go through the same door as democracy and always ends up with an authoritarian state, then I think I am right to say that in our non-idealized world, communism and democracy are not compatible, due to human nature. You can ignore that human nature, but at the end, you'll end up with an authoritarian state, again. Because ignoring the human nature doesn't make it go away.
Yeah, we care about Rubinho.
I like you too, Ton.
I like you too, Ton.
I know, but when communism fails every time to go through the same door as democracy and always ends up with an authoritarian state, then I think I am right to say that in our non-idealized world, communism and democracy are not compatible, due to human nature
I would say that in our non-idealized world the conditions never existed that would allow society to evolve into true communism.
But I agree that every attempt to artificially create these conditions (or even better: skip those steps) to get to communism failed.
For me communism is not an ideology that you can take and chose to implement. In it's purest form it is the result of an evolutionary economic and political process. As such it has conditions that need to occure before this process takes place. If however society evolves in a different way, those conditions would not occure and communism would not have any place in that society.
(editado)
I would say that in our non-idealized world the conditions never existed that would allow society to evolve into true communism.
But I agree that every attempt to artificially create these conditions (or even better: skip those steps) to get to communism failed.
For me communism is not an ideology that you can take and chose to implement. In it's purest form it is the result of an evolutionary economic and political process. As such it has conditions that need to occure before this process takes place. If however society evolves in a different way, those conditions would not occure and communism would not have any place in that society.
(editado)
In an idealized world, anarchism would be the logical system of course.
very true Rubinho...again.
Zwelgjes "thought" are realy ridiculous ad profoundly stupid. nowhere ever on this planet has anyone with any economical sese ever stteduch bullshit. still people like Zwelgje will boost about it and say "it is just my opinion"...
useless when people ignore all the rest of the world and history in their opinion, dangerous actually!
also it is not hard to understand how big a failure communism even would be in the case when the whole world would be one big communist state ! Or think when there would be one small nation that would go for capitalism...and there the people would be richer ,saver,sounder, nicer, more peacefull, more caring....and I could go on and on...as that is how it is in reality...and also in deadstraight theory! If one cannot see that, one is blind; probably willfully blind!
Zwelgjes "thought" are realy ridiculous ad profoundly stupid. nowhere ever on this planet has anyone with any economical sese ever stteduch bullshit. still people like Zwelgje will boost about it and say "it is just my opinion"...
useless when people ignore all the rest of the world and history in their opinion, dangerous actually!
also it is not hard to understand how big a failure communism even would be in the case when the whole world would be one big communist state ! Or think when there would be one small nation that would go for capitalism...and there the people would be richer ,saver,sounder, nicer, more peacefull, more caring....and I could go on and on...as that is how it is in reality...and also in deadstraight theory! If one cannot see that, one is blind; probably willfully blind!
I agree!
Another thing is if it would be desirable to go in this direction.
Another thing is if it would be desirable to go in this direction.
nowhere ever on this planet has anyone with any economical sese ever stteduch bullshit.
Actually most people with economical and historical sense agree that the way how communism evolved, by deviating from the original theory and creating a small elite that would lead and rule society untill true communism can be implemented, is doomed to fail everytime. It will fail politically and economically. There is no doubt from my side that this is the case (i.e. it will fail everytime).
useless when people ignore all the rest of the world and history in their opinion, dangerous actually!
Very true. See above
This is even more dangerous if people do not understand why, how and when ideologies where formed and how they evolved.
The communism you are probably referring to are the forms we know today (and they are all versions of the theories of "small elite" leading society untill society is ready for true communism). That is not the original form of the communist theory that I'm referring to. Whether or not that theory is realistic is a different discussion.
Funny though, that you would call some one's thoughts on history showning that forcing communism on a society never works, profoundly stupid. I guess hell did freeze over. ;)
(editado)
Actually most people with economical and historical sense agree that the way how communism evolved, by deviating from the original theory and creating a small elite that would lead and rule society untill true communism can be implemented, is doomed to fail everytime. It will fail politically and economically. There is no doubt from my side that this is the case (i.e. it will fail everytime).
useless when people ignore all the rest of the world and history in their opinion, dangerous actually!
Very true. See above
This is even more dangerous if people do not understand why, how and when ideologies where formed and how they evolved.
The communism you are probably referring to are the forms we know today (and they are all versions of the theories of "small elite" leading society untill society is ready for true communism). That is not the original form of the communist theory that I'm referring to. Whether or not that theory is realistic is a different discussion.
Funny though, that you would call some one's thoughts on history showning that forcing communism on a society never works, profoundly stupid. I guess hell did freeze over. ;)
(editado)