~10% of bailout ($70 bn) going to payout bankers

[Kar Kar]

Unlike anarchy, you can actually have a communist government. It will work poorly, but it can actually exist.

Please don't tell me I'll need to wrap sarcasm tags around everything when I'm not serious.

The vague point that I was making is that communism might as well be a magical system because it's broken, unworkable, unrealistic and pants on head retarded. Communist governments invariably become totalitarian states that fall absurdly short of communist ideals.

And there are cases were command economies are better than free market. Like when you are just above starving to death or mobilizing for war.

So wheres the classless, no government, or smile on your brother everybody get together try to love one another right now society in a command economy?

The tiny list of countries that run on command economies should also be an indicator of how well they work. Those countries Cuba, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, and Burma.

But of course your point was that planned economies are just above absolute shit so it's hard to argue against the high standard you set for them.

[Darth Wong]

There will be hell to pay.

Not to sound apocalyptic, but that might be a contender for understatement of the decade. From my own experiences, there are few things that will infuriate people and lead to mob mentality faster than the belief that someone is stealing their hard earned money.

No, there won't. The American people are sheep, willingly led along by the media and by their government, and easily confused by pro-business right-wing propaganda.

You will take this without serious protest.

[Samuel]

Please don't tell me I'll need to wrap sarcasm tags around everything when I'm not serious.

'nods'

The vague point that I was making is that communism might as well be a magical system because it's broken, unworkable, unrealistic and pants on head retarded. Communist governments invariably become totalitarian states that fall absurdly short of communist ideals.

I know that- however, that is a LONG way from how much anarchy fails.

So wheres the classless, no government, or smile on your brother everybody get together try to love one another right now society in a command economy?

I think communes pull that of until they fall apart. I'm pretty sure the army gets close to it. Of course, they are just sectors in the bigger economy.

The tiny list of countries that run on command economies should also be an indicator of how well they work. Those countries Cuba, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, and Burma.

? I thought Cuba and North Korea were command economies- how did the other ones fit in the category?

But of course your point was that planned economies are just above absolute shit so it's hard to argue against the high standard you set for them.

Setting low expectations will prevent you from being disappointed. As it is, command economics work well for certain sectors of the economy and in certain cases. Unlike anarchy which NEVER works, much less exists.

Besides, shoting bankers doesn't mean you are going communist- it just means you have a revolution going on. Of course, given the current political leanings of the American people, I think a revolution would be even more repressive and conservative than the current government.

[Kar Kar]

[sarcasm]

Please don't tell me I'll need to wrap sarcasm tags around everything when I'm not serious.

'nods'

Damn as if I don't play with the coding enough on this board.

I know that- however, that is a LONG way from how much anarchy fails.

I wasn't serious about the anarchy thing, although punk music and less homework make for a very logical and thought out argument.

I think communes pull that of until they fall apart.

A self defeating example? Although few people would be more likely to work in such a society than an entire country.

I'm pretty sure the army gets close to it. Of course, they are just sectors in the bigger economy.

The army's strict hierarchical structure run counter to the base ideals of communism.

? I thought Cuba and North Korea were command economies- how did the other ones fit in the category?

Those countries control all the major sectors of their economy such as production, distribution, and price controls. Planned economies are not part of the communist system but a fact of reality forces them to adopt it.

Setting low expectations will prevent you from being disappointed. As it is, command economics work well for certain sectors of the economy and in certain cases. Unlike anarchy which NEVER works, much less exists.

You're voting Republican aren't you?

Are you still talking about a command economy or just regulation now?

Besides, shoting bankers doesn't mean you are going communist- it just means you have a revolution going on. Of course, given the current political leanings of the American people, I think a revolution would be even more repressive and conservative than the current government.

What?

[/sarcasm]

[Samuel]

I rub everyone the wrong way, don't I? Opps.

Anyway, my point is that anarchy is like absolute zero- it cannot physically exist because it always desends into warlordism.

The army's strict hierarchical structure run counter to the base ideals of communism.

That is Marxism. Communism just means the government runs everything.

Those countries control all the major sectors of their economy such as production, distribution, and price controls. Planned economies are not part of the communist system but a fact of reality forces them to adopt it.

Can you give examples? I honestly didn't know they were planned economies.

You're voting Republican aren't you?

No- Obama. I don't know if he can fix the whole economic down turn, but he won't have the US invade Iran, will fix... you know all this. Sorry- little dense.

Are you still talking about a command economy or just regulation now?

Command economy. Talking about regulation is pointless because EVERYTHING is regulated to a degree.

What?

This started because you were mocking people for wanting to have a revolution, line up the bankers and shot them and you mocked them for following communism. I am pointing out that an actual revolution would probably trend towards the extremes with the largest numbers. Which would be the theocrats.

Combining seriousness and sarcasm doesn't work very well

[Kar Kar]

[sarcasm]

I rub everyone the wrong way, don't I? Opps.

I thought I rubbed everyone the wrong way, and maybe a select few the right way.

Anyway, my point is that anarchy is like absolute zero- it cannot physically exist because it always desends into warlordism.

It also ignores the basic concepts of social interaction and society at large.

Just a reminder that I still wasn't serious about preferring anarchism over communism.

That is Marxism. Communism just means the government runs everything.

Aw crap now we're going to have to dive into the dozen or so branches of communism.

OK since the military has no economy itself other than the funds allotted to it by it's respective government it doesn't work as an example to the discussion at hand.

Can you give examples? I honestly didn't know they were planned economies.

Well Libya and Saudi Arabia's economies are driven by state owned oil companies responsible for +90% of GDP.

Iran's state sector, as mandated by their constitution, is responsible for foreign trade, major minerals, banking, insurance, power generation, dams and large-scale irrigation networks, radio and television, post, telegraph and telephone services, aviation, shipping, roads, and railroads.

Burma... well Burma is a mess.

No- Obama. I don't know if he can fix the whole economic down turn, but he won't have the US invade Iran, will fix... you know all this. Sorry- little dense.

That was a joke too.

Command economy. Talking about regulation is pointless because EVERYTHING is regulated to a degree.

Alright. Lets see some examples where government controlled industry would perform better than private industry.

This started because you were mocking people for wanting to have a revolution, line up the bankers and shot them and you mocked them for following communism. I am pointing out that an actual revolution would probably trend towards the extremes with the largest numbers. Which would be the theocrats.

So how does this run counter to my communism is for sillypants claim?

Combining seriousness and sarcasm doesn't work very well

No it doesn't but I'll keep trying anyway.

[/sarcasm]

[K. A. Pital]

Lets see some examples where government controlled industry would perform better than private industry.

Aren't we, kind of, seeing that now with the crisis? There are countless industries in all spheres of economic activity, and countless circumstances where the government performs better than private industry.

The tiny list of countries that run on command economies should also be an indicator of how well they work.

This list is actually far larger and at some points in history included very well-off nations (depending on how you define a command economy, of course). You listed autarky economies. That's not the same as "command economy" - and frankly, autarky can ruin any type of economy.

Anyway, the idea to "shoot the bankers" seems silly only until people start going hungry in an economic crisis. In this case, if no legal action would bring the responsible party to justice for the suffering of people, surprise, the people will do it themselves. This retribution only seems excessive while the suffering of people due to the crisis is minor in both numbers and quality.

Same with command economy, it only seems "excessive" when there's a lot of resource to boot, lots of slack in economy still to cut - like now. When you are one step away from anarchy, any person would embrace command economy since it will at the very least save the resources at hand and re-distribute them between people under it's command. Unlike an anarchy.

[Darth Wong]

Alright. Lets see some examples where government controlled industry would perform better than private industry.

Health-care. The Canadian socialized health-care system has a small fraction of the per-capita administrative overhead of the US privatized health-care system, lower costs overall per capita, and yet covers 100% of citizens.

[Kar Kar]

Aren't we, kind of, seeing that now with the crisis?

Would a nationalized western bank be performing better than the private banks right now?

Are there even any western government run banks that have existed throughout the current economic troubles? If so it'd make for an interesting comparison.

There are countless industries in all spheres of economic activity, and countless circumstances where the government performs better than private industry.

And not one example from you?

This list is actually far larger and at some points in history included very well-off nations (depending on how you define a command economy, of course). You listed autarky economies. That's not the same as "command economy" - and frankly, autarky can ruin any type of economy.

The basic definition of an autarky economy is one that doesn't trade outside of it's boarders. Only North Korea fits the shoe for that one, other than it's trade with China.

The others are are by definition command or planned economies.

I also only listed modern examples since it'd be easy to rattle off reasons why previous examples failed horribly, such as your stagnation union of failed socialist economics.

Anyway, the idea to "shoot the bankers" seems silly only until people start going hungry in an economic crisis. In this case, if no legal action would bring the responsible party to justice for the suffering of people, surprise, the people will do it themselves. This retribution only seems excessive while the suffering of people due to the crisis is minor in both numbers and quality.

I guess I just don't make for a very good violent revolutionary.

Same with command economy, it only seems "excessive" when there's a lot of resource to boot, lots of slack in economy still to cut - like now. When you are one step away from anarchy, any person would embrace command economy since it will at the very least save the resources at hand and re-distribute them between people under it's command. Unlike an anarchy.

So it still boils down to just slightly better than absolute shit then.

Health-care. The Canadian socialized health-care system has a small fraction of the per-capita administrative overhead of the US privatized health-care system, lower costs overall per capita, and yet covers 100% of citizens.

You know I didn't even consider it since I'm so used to free health care being an inherent right to all citizens.

[Stark]

It's a very American attitude to point out that governments are inefficient things that waste time and money; they just forget that governments serve the people (generally indirectly through politics, but still) while corps serve shareholders. The Australian health system (which is broadly similar to the Canadian system) is extraordinarily poorly run by incompetent idiots and has had systemic problems for more than a decade, but it still covers everyone (and I'd be interested to see how it compares to American expenditure). Being 'not very efficient' doesn't automatically mean something is worse than 'really efficient at making profit'.

[Surlethe]

Alright. Lets see some examples where government controlled industry would perform better than private industry.

Have you ever wondered how the US managed to bring its economic might to bear in WWII? It was because Roosevelt's administration nationalized the economy and geared it toward the single end of producing weapons and munitions. US success during World War II was exactly because the government controlled the entire US economy; there's no way a private industry could have performed on that level.

[Knife]

Alright. Lets see some examples where government controlled industry would perform better than private industry.

Health-care. The Canadian socialized health-care system has a small fraction of the per-capita administrative overhead of the US privatized health-care system, lower costs overall per capita, and yet covers 100% of citizens.

Same with the VA in good old America too. Better care than the 'greatest healthcare you can afford' in the US with less overhead and it operates in the *gasp* US under government control.

[Darth Wong]

It's a very American attitude to point out that governments are inefficient things that waste time and money; they just forget that governments serve the people (generally indirectly through politics, but still) while corps serve shareholders. The Australian health system (which is broadly similar to the Canadian system) is extraordinarily poorly run by incompetent idiots and has had systemic problems for more than a decade, but it still covers everyone (and I'd be interested to see how it compares to American expenditure). Being 'not very efficient' doesn't automatically mean something is worse than 'really efficient at making profit'.

It's also worth pointing out that the achievement of maximum efficiency only occurs in a free market given numerous conditions which do not necessarily apply to all markets (health-care being a good example).

The consumer must have total freedom to choose between providers. The consumer must have accurate information on the quality of care provided by different providers. The consumer must be capable of making a rational decision at the moment of choice, without penalty.

There are a lot of situations in which these conditions do not hold.

[Ekiqa]

It's also worth pointing out that the achievement of maximum efficiency only occurs in a free market given numerous conditions which do not necessarily apply to all markets (health-care being a good example).

The consumer must have total freedom to choose between providers. The consumer must have accurate information on the quality of care provided by different providers. The consumer must be capable of making a rational decision at the moment of choice, without penalty.

There are a lot of situations in which these conditions do not hold.

There also must be actual competition between companies. Otherwise, you end up with the companies colluding on prices, and making everyone pay the maximum possible. Much like the oil companies.

[Surlethe]

While we're talking about markets, it's also worth noting that even if a market achieves maximum efficiency, that might not be best for society. For example, say lolbertarian schmucks get their claws into the US healthcare system and entirely deregulate it. Even if the American consumer steps up to the plate and gets his total freedom to choose between providers, gets accurate information, can make rational choices without penalty, etc., and even if the markets can maintain actual competition, you'll have a classic market equilibrium. But guess what: there will be people too poor to afford this health care (remember, free markets triage by ability to pay), which means that they'll either be too sick to contribute or just out-and-out die. The money they could have made and the goods and services they could have produced, had they health care, are lost to society.

This is called a negative externality: when aggregate wealth is not maximized even if the markets are perfectly free and efficient. The classic example is pollution, but health care's been on my mind lately.

[K. A. Pital]

Would a nationalized western bank be performing better than the private banks right now?

Yes, a nationalized bank is not collapsing, you moron. Not to mention that a nationalized bank would be subject to greater scrutiny of operations, disallowing to accumulate shit-debt and worthless derivatives, which your "efficient" private banks did wholeheartedly and with joy. It baffled even the most staunch Randians like Greenspan, but apparently not you, moron boy.

If so it'd make for an interesting comparison.

Between what, deader than dodo Lehman Brothers and a living government bank? You bet.

And not one example from you?

What's the point of giving "examples"? Only to illustrate a general principle. But perhaps you heard about, um, "public transportation". Or, "public transport infrastructure"? A sector which requires a lot of heavy industrial production, incidentally.

The basic definition of an autarky economy is one that doesn't trade outside of it's boarders. Only North Korea fits the shoe for that one, other than it's trade with China.

What a fucking moron. The volume of trade for all those nations is so small that it's neglible. Incidentally, even capitalist nations which do not trade between each other, aren't well off. At all.

I also only listed modern examples since it'd be easy to rattle off reasons why previous examples failed horribly, such as your stagnation union of failed socialist economics.

Failed horribly? The very fact that I am alive now is no mere coincidence, but the consequence of the existence of my "failed socialist" economics. But don't let that small issue bug you. Relish in ignorance. If you consider reaching an industrial economy and life quality indicators just somewhat below first world and several times surpassing the Third World, maybe you should travel to the Third World and see how much good their 'non-command' economies brought them.

I guess I just don't make for a very good violent revolutionary.

You're right, because you are a moron and a hypocrite as well if you reject violence in case when people get that dire.

So it still boils down to just slightly better than absolute shit then.

Ah right, I just forgot that it's the capitalist economy which went to absolute shit and had to be rescued by command economy metods in the first place. Pardon moi.

You know I didn't even consider it since I'm so used to free health care being an inherent right to all citizens.

Well, if there was any question whether you are total moron, here's the proof. "Inherent right"? Maybe it's a right that was granted by society utilizing command economy methods, and which took a lot of social action from people to attain? Essentially the nationalized healthcare industry is a huge command economy in and of itself. But of course, don't pull your head out of your ass.