|
| Thread: Why is socialism so prevalent in online communities? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted December 28, 2008 06:37 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Second, I support capitalism because it provides the highest standard of living, and raises everybody's standard of living.
Except for the huge amount of unemployed people and beggars and those in poverty, but hey you can't please everyone, right? 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted December 28, 2008 06:48 PM |
|
|
Fair socialistic societies don't exist. They are either fair or socialistic. You've never lived in a fair capitalist society.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted December 28, 2008 07:23 PM |
|
|
Neither have you 
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 28, 2008 07:35 PM |
|
|
Okay, okay, that may be true, but unfair capitalist societies are better than unfair socialist ones.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted December 28, 2008 10:30 PM |
|
|
What is the definition of an "unfair socialistic society"?
And secondly....what is a "fair capitalistic society"? Examples?...
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted December 30, 2008 04:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Second, I support capitalism because it provides the highest standard of living, and raises everybody's standard of living. Socialism inhibits it.
What will capitalisme do when you do not earn money on raising the standard or we hit the roof(the default cannot be improved)?
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 30, 2008 08:14 PM |
|
|
Angelito:
Unfair socialistic society - Society in which limits on voluntary exchange prevent people from getting as much utility as possible. Also, the central planners frequently favor themselves. (ex. North Korea)
Fair capitalist society - Society in which there are relatively few costs associated with voluntary exchange, and the ones that exist increase society's utility. (Never existed in full)
del_diablo:
How can there be a roof?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted December 30, 2008 09:18 PM |
|
|
Quote:
How can there be a roof?
Or cap, or similar. The problem about capitalisme is that they never conider the fact there is a roof.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 30, 2008 09:24 PM |
|
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted January 02, 2009 08:35 PM |
|
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted January 02, 2009 09:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Why would there be a cap?
There is only a set amount of material on a planet if you ignore meteorite showers, each material will have a value based on usefullness and amount. Then there is the demand, as an factor.
There can only be a finitiv amount of money in circulation on the planet then, assuming they got money.
For everything that goe up someting goes down.
A stinking rich somebody can only have X amount, it may not go above Y thats the total amount in sirculation.
You can grow and trade and harvest, but the money sirculation will actually remain constant. Even if you got what everbody wants the money you get for selling will have to come from somewhere.
You can say we got X amount of resources, and money with value Y based on how much we have gotten around of X. What is actually dug up of the total is Z. When Z reaches Y it will stop going upwards. Because earth is 1 unit unless you plan to leech of other areas such as the moon.
Meteors is someting that happens, but the amount raining down is not signicant enogh to really affect X here.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 02, 2009 10:00 PM |
|
|
Joonas:
Yeah, that's where I got the inspiration.
del_diablo:
While the amount of actual resources is certainly finite, human ingenuity isn't. First, humans can find ways to drastically reduce the use of a resource. Second, people may find alternative resources.
And who says that the money supply wouldn't increase?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted January 02, 2009 10:07 PM |
|
|
Del_diablo, that argument about finite resources is meaningless. If a cap as you call it can't be reached, then it doesn't exist in any meaningful way, it's only theoretical. If somebody's wealth ever reaches 0.00001% of the earth's resources, then go ahead and present the argument again.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted January 02, 2009 10:13 PM |
|
|
Quote:
First, humans can find ways to drastically reduce the use of a resource.
That would only mean its less used to make, less expenses for the makers. Meaning they could lower the prices or keep em and earn more.
Quote:
Second, people may find alternative resources.
But we only got Y amount of resources? If the resources we have got a collected value of 10.000.000, there exists not another 5.
Think of a sphere with stuff inside, and it got lets say 56053 in resource count. That means there are ONLY 56053 resources using this value, changing the value to another one using a different way of calculating it will also not change the fact.
Unless you got a void somewhere, no resources are lost in any process also. There is no less or gain unless you are only thinking of 1 little part of the sphere because well you can stuck up things pretty much.
Quote:
And who says that the money supply wouldn't increase?
When we reach thrown the total into the sirculation, there cannot be more.
Lets say we use gold to back up our currency, any currency cannot go above a value of X because then its the total of the resource used to measure the currency.
Lets say we also find other bizzare ways to measure it, people. But then again there can be a limited food supply, unless you want some ridiculess famine to show up and a new black death produced by mother earth so she can clean up the system because she got to many of these dam humans going around so its killing her.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 02, 2009 10:21 PM |
|
|
Quote:
That would only mean its less used to make, less expenses for the makers. Meaning they could lower the prices or keep em and earn more.
Because of competition, the costs would be passed down to the consumers.
Quote:
That means there are ONLY 56053 resources using this value, changing the value to another one using a different way of calculating it will also not change the fact.
Except there are different ways to utilize those resources, some ways more productive than others. Thus, if humans become twice as productive, it'd be like having 112106 resources, even though the actual number would not have changed.
Quote:
Lets say we use gold to back up our currency, any currency cannot go above a value of X because then its the total of the resource used to measure the currency.
Why use a commodity currency? Why not fiat money?
Quote:
But then again there can be a limited food supply
False. As farmers become more productive, the food supply increases.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted January 02, 2009 10:40 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Because of competition, the costs would be passed down to the consumers.
Maybe, but who said there was compitition in the first place? And what does marked wars have to do with resources except the fact that reources affect the currency used?
Will the new product have the exact same properties as the former? It will have not, it will have altered properties. Some cases its more effective because it uses 1 instead of 2 to be created, however that also means someting will have to be changed so it can work properly.
And what does the consumers got to do with this? This also assumes conumers exists that is.
Besides, it would still be a value of the total resources in currency. If we got several currencies the money can lose its value, because its in the currency that lost value while another one or everybody else rose in some manner.
Quote:
Except there are different ways to utilize those resources, some ways more productive than others. Thus, if humans become twice as productive, it'd be like having 112106 resources, even though the actual number would not have changed.
It would only mean we use less of the total. We still use of the 112106 resources, the amount is however a completely different matter.
And remember that each material does not have the exact same quality either.
Quote:
Why use a commodity currency? Why not fiat money?
We could also be trading, but that does not change the facts.
Quote:
Quote:
But then again there can be a limited food supply
False. As farmers become more productive, the food supply increases.
Limited a in not infinetiv(unlimited, endless,etc) manner? We can only producer Y amount of food in the maximum way, and if we overdo it completely it will hit how good the earth will be for growth.
I know the farmer could have made more food, but:
*How much do we need?
*And how much do we need to produce to overproduce in comparision to exhausting mother earth?
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 02, 2009 10:44 PM |
|
|
My apologies, but I can't understand what you're trying to say in the first section.
Quote:
It would only mean we use less of the total.
Yes, and using less and less and less is just like making more.
Quote:
We can only producer Y amount of food in the maximum way, and if we overdo it completely it will hit how good the earth will be for growth.
There is no "maximum way".
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted January 02, 2009 10:45 PM |
|
|
Sorry in advance since my post is not really on-topic but I have to point this out:
mvass, do you want to turn this into another socialism VS capitalism debate? I thought that's not what you wanted when making it, there are tons of threads like that. But it's your thread and ultimately you do what you want. 
____________
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted January 02, 2009 10:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yes, and using less and less and less is just like making more.
Actually it would mean "earning more of the amount of money in X circulation(X/Y, Y is the maxuimum there can be in sirculation due resources)". Meaning you coould again use that to acces a bigger part of the total that is possible to have in circulation.
Quote:
There is no "maximum way".
Tell that to overpopulation and black death, along with the poor mother earth. There is a damn cap, accept it. How high it is, are a completely different manner.
Note: If you do not understand, force somebody else to read it and attempt to explain it. Or read it again with a different mindset(if you belive that nonsense that is ).
Or read it again attempting to understand.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 02, 2009 10:57 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
