Post: #51

(08-03-2015 09:37 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 09:02 AM)Peregrine Wrote:  While the Bible may predate economic systems such as capitalism or socialism, it doesn't predate virtues such as hard work, self reliance, personal responsibility, etc. Basically everything socialism pisses all over.

Those are qualities that are nurtured from childhood and have nothing do with economic systems. What do you imagine, that people in the Soviet Union sat on their asses all day and collected benefits? No, people worked and raised families. Not to mention the fact that the Soviets had one of the best education systems in the modern era, producing countless mathematicians, scientists, engineers etc. Sure it all crumbled in the end, but the fact remains.

So you're saying that socialism encourages hard work, self reliance, and personal responsibility?

*starts scrolling through forum laugh gifs*

Post: #52

(08-03-2015 09:37 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 09:02 AM)Peregrine Wrote:  While the Bible may predate economic systems such as capitalism or socialism, it doesn't predate virtues such as hard work, self reliance, personal responsibility, etc. Basically everything socialism pisses all over.

Those are qualities that are nurtured from childhood and have nothing do with economic systems. What do you imagine, that people in the Soviet Union sat on their asses all day and collected benefits? No, people worked and raised families. Not to mention the fact that the Soviets had one of the best education systems in the modern era, producing countless mathematicians, scientists, engineers etc. Sure it all crumbled in the end, but the fact remains.

Actually, those qualities weren't nurtured in the Soviet Union which is why business formation was zilch in comparison to the USA. It wasn't the fault of the Russians, however, since their shitty socialist system punished hard workers by "collectivizing" everything (i.e. robbing everyone of their creations).

The long term effects of socialism have been hell on Russia's men, which is why so many of them are alcoholics with no future and women are desperate there for any man with money (which is why they all have a rep of being huge gold diggers).

Post: #53

(08-03-2015 09:37 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  Not to mention the fact that the Soviets had one of the best education systems in the modern era, producing countless mathematicians, scientists, engineers etc. Sure it all crumbled in the end, but the fact remains.

Post: #54

Russia has been worse off under capitalism than it was under socialism.

Post: #55

Hasn't the biggest problem with Russia always been corruption?

Post: #56

(08-03-2015 12:45 PM)chagataev Wrote:  Russia has been worse off under capitalism than it was under socialism.

Post: #57

(08-03-2015 12:16 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Actually, those qualities weren't nurtured in the Soviet Union which is why business formation was zilch in comparison to the USA. It wasn't the fault of the Russians, however, since their shitty socialist system punished hard workers by "collectivizing" everything (i.e. robbing everyone of their creations).

The long term effects of socialism have been hell on Russia's men, which is why so many of them are alcoholics with no future and women are desperate there for any man with money (which is why they all have a rep of being huge gold diggers).

A couple of things. Russia was never socialist to begin with. What you had from 1917 onwards was a party dictatorship, which was Lenin's goal anyway.

The 1990s, the period of capitalistic reforms spearheaded by Harvard economists, are actually considered to be one of the worst periods in modern Russian history. You'll often hear Russians opining for the Soviet Union and tell you horror stories about the 90s.

But wait...you're gonna lecture me on a country I was born and grew up in.

@Repo

Yes.

Post: #58

Quote:Russia was never socialist to begin with.

It's a common refrain to say that historical instances/failures of socialism were not "really" socialist and that the world has never seen a true socialist entity. First, if that's not "no true Scotsman" fallacy, it's strikingly similar. Second, the argument ignores the possibility (and probability) that socialism goes against human nature. I've frequently heard that "socialism would be perfect if people just did/didn't do [insert behavior that is inherent to human nature here]". It's a naive view not based in reality whatsoever.

Capitalism has its problems too and they are numerous, but I know which system I prefer if the choice is between a generally capitalist vs a generally socialist system.

Post: #59

Yeah the "no true Scotsman" mentality is rife in the pro-socialist camp. Its basically required: how could anyone possibly be socialist given history unless they denied reality or were actually pro-evil. This is where you get the 'Trotsky versus Stalin' stuff coming in, as though "if Trotsky had just been in power, it would've worked". Of course if Trotsky had gotten into power, they'd have been saying "if only Stalin had been in power, it would've worked". It's the same thing as a religion: it's always right because that belief is set in stone, and no other reason.

Post: #60

No surprises here.

And for the record, what this CEO did this was a form or hybrid of socialism if not outright socialism. We can get technical all we want.

What is income to employees when you think about it?

It's skimming money (capital) from the earnings/profits of the company and using that capital to pay employees for their labor. In other words, employee income comes from company cash flow. Some employees manifestly contribute more to the earnings and growth of a company than others due to their harder work, intelligence, skill level, education level, etc. Therefore, to pay based on performance or level of contribution is capitalistic.

In this scenario with this Seattle company, every employee was essentially being paid the same, regardless of their skill level or contribution.

If this doesn't fit "from each according to his means to each according to his needs" I don't know what does. It went against the laws of human nature, the same as socialism does, hence it didn't work. Capitalism may not be a perfect economic system, but it's the best the world has ever seen so far.

Even the pilgrims figured this out in the early days of the American colonies:

This, from mises.org:

"In his History of Plymouth Plantation, the governor of the colony, William Bradford, reported that the colonists went hungry for years because they refused to work in the field. They preferred instead to steal food. He says the colony was riddled with "corruption," and with "confusion and discontent." The crops were small because "much was stolen both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable."

In the harvest feasts of 1621 and 1622, "all had their hungry bellies filled," but only briefly. The prevailing condition during those years was not the abundance the official story claims, it was famine and death. The first "Thanksgiving" was not so much a celebration as it was the last meal of condemned men.

But in subsequent years something changes. The harvest of 1623 was different. Suddenly, "instead of famine now God gave them plenty," Bradford wrote, "and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God." Thereafter, he wrote, "any general want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day." In fact, in 1624, so much food was produced that the colonists were able to begin exporting corn.

What happened? After the poor harvest of 1622, writes Bradford, "they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop." They began to question their form of economic organization.

This had required that "all profits & benefits that are got by trade, traffic, trucking, working, fishing, or any other means" were to be placed in the common stock of the colony, and that, "all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock." A person was to put into the common stock all he could, and take only what he needed.

This "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was an early form of socialism, and it is why the Pilgrims were starving. Bradford writes that "young men that were most able and fit for labor and service" complained about being forced to "spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children." Also, "the strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes, than he that was weak." So the young and strong refused to work and the total amount of food produced was never adequate.

To rectify this situation, in 1623 Bradford abolished socialism. He gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit. In other words, he replaced socialism with a free market, and that was the end of the famines.

Many early groups of colonists set up socialist states, all with the same terrible results. At Jamestown, established in 1607, out of every shipload of settlers that arrived, less than half would survive their first twelve months in America. Most of the work was being done by only one-fifth of the men, the other four-fifths choosing to be parasites. In the winter of 1609–10, called "The Starving Time," the population fell from five-hundred to sixty. Then the Jamestown colony was converted to a free market, and the results were every bit as dramatic as those at Plymouth. In 1614 Colony Secretary Ralph Hamor wrote that after the switch there was "plenty of food, which every man by his own industry may easily and doth procure." He said that when the socialist system had prevailed, "we reaped not so much corn from the labors of thirty men as three men have done for themselves now."

Before these free markets were established, the colonists had nothing for which to be thankful. They were in the same situation as Ethiopians are today, and for the same reasons. But after free markets were established, the resulting abundance was so dramatic that annual Thanksgiving celebrations became common throughout the colonies, and in 1863 Thanksgiving became a national holiday.

Thus, the real meaning of Thanksgiving, deleted from the official story, is: Socialism does not work; the one and only source of abundance is free markets, and we thank God we live in a country where we can have them."

Post: #61

(08-03-2015 12:57 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 12:16 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Actually, those qualities weren't nurtured in the Soviet Union which is why business formation was zilch in comparison to the USA. It wasn't the fault of the Russians, however, since their shitty socialist system punished hard workers by "collectivizing" everything (i.e. robbing everyone of their creations).

The long term effects of socialism have been hell on Russia's men, which is why so many of them are alcoholics with no future and women are desperate there for any man with money (which is why they all have a rep of being huge gold diggers).

A couple of things. Russia was never socialist to begin with. What you had from 1917 onwards was a party dictatorship, which was Lenin's goal anyway.

Backtracking?

You just said last page:

(08-03-2015 09:37 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 09:02 AM)Peregrine Wrote:  While the Bible may predate economic systems such as capitalism or socialism, it doesn't predate virtues such as hard work, self reliance, personal responsibility, etc. Basically everything socialism pisses all over.

Those are qualities that are nurtured from childhood and have nothing do with economic systems. What do you imagine, that people in the Soviet Union sat on their asses all day and collected benefits? No, people worked and raised families. Not to mention the fact that the Soviets had one of the best education systems in the modern era, producing countless mathematicians, scientists, engineers etc. Sure it all crumbled in the end, but the fact remains.

If the Soviet system wasn't a model of socialism then why mention in it response to people critiquing socialism?

How fast can you contradict yourself? Your thought tends to be extremely inconsistent and contradictory: /thread-49075-...pid1079246

Quote: The 1990s, the period of capitalistic reforms spearheaded by Harvard economists, are actually considered to be one of the worst periods in modern Russian history. You'll often hear Russians opining for the Soviet Union and tell you horror stories about the 90s.

First of all, expecting instant results the moment a different system is tried is pretty absurd. The 90s in Russia were going to be awful no matter what because their entire country was utterly ruined by socialism after 80 years.

Meanwhile, the new capitalist reforms weren't really capitalist at all, and all that happened were the most powerful people left standing in Russia took control of the entire system and buying everything at firesale prices after the local population had no choice but to sell anything they owned at rock bottom prices just to survive. There are a million ways to introduce capitalism to a society what Russia went through was just going cold-turkey from one system to another. It was destined to produce horrible side effects. A much more forgiving system should have been putting down limits to how much any one man could buy, or keep wages above certain (but still low) price points to ease the economic pain for ordinary citizens.

Russia is far better off today, and has far better leadership, than it did during the Soviet era. Russia's stock will rise in the future and the reintroduction to capitalism was pretty corrupted yet capitalism is so amazing even when capitalism is half-assed it still works very well, unlike socialism which must be perfect and have the stars aligned properly for things to turn out even half-decent.

Quote:But wait...you're gonna lecture me on a country I was born and grew up in.

I will, and it seems necessary for someone like me to do so, because you are quite brainwashed.

Post: #62

Since this is a game forum first and foremost, here's what socialism looks like in game terms:

Imagine that Tokyo Joe and Gmac are approaching at a bar after a Roosh lecture stop while 10 other guys drink their beers and watch from the corner. It's a usual night for the two - some sets start well before petering off, some end in 5 seconds like this:



But at the end of the night, their efforts are rewarded and Tokyo Joe/Gmac leave for their respective hotel rooms with a night of debauchery soon to follow. As they drop cash to cover their tabs, all 10 guys emerge from the corner and ask, "Should we play rock paper scissors to see who goes first?"

...



Nothing wrong with drinking beer in a corner, but know that you don't deserve any girls that you didn't put in the work for.

Post: #63

(08-03-2015 02:29 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Russia is far better off today

Which metrics back this up? Not life expectancy, not crime rates, not healthcare (http://www.kon.org/urc/v10/hoeppler.html), certainly not suicide rates! It took Russia 15 years to regain its GDP per capita of 1991. That Russia is better today than it was during the USSR is no simple claim and would need to be backed up with some real metrics. Most metrics put the idea in serious doubt.

Post: #64

(08-03-2015 03:09 PM)chagataev Wrote:  Which metrics back this up? Not life expectancy, not crime rates, not healthcare (http://www.kon.org/urc/v10/hoeppler.html), certainly not suicide rates! It took Russia 15 years to regain its GDP per capita of 1991. That Russia is better today than it was during the USSR is no simple claim and would need to be backed up with some real metrics. Most metrics put the idea in serious doubt.

It should also be factored in how capitalist Russia currently actually is. I'm not well versed in Russian politics, but I'd hardly call Putin's Russia a free-market liberal democracy. The Russians just can't seem to get a break. They had the retarded Czar Nicholas II, then the Bolshevik revolution followed by a succession of commie lunatics, and now they have ex-KGB Putin as borderline dictator.

Post: #65

$70k MINIMUM salary? Holy shit, not sure who figured that was a fair company-wide floor-level wage. Pencil pushers, receptionists, and toilet cleaners making 1.5x's national median income is pretty nice.

Post: #66

Relevant, now and forever:

Post: #67

Great scene.

And for those wondering what you get if you try to enforce fairness and equality at all costs: http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html

Post: #68

(08-03-2015 03:09 PM)chagataev Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 02:29 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Russia is far better off today

Which metrics back this up? Not life expectancy, not crime rates, not healthcare (http://www.kon.org/urc/v10/hoeppler.html), certainly not suicide rates! It took Russia 15 years to regain its GDP per capita of 1991. That Russia is better today than it was during the USSR is no simple claim and would need to be backed up with some real metrics. Most metrics put the idea in serious doubt.

Those metrics which came from the Soviet propaganda machine are not to be trusted. The per capita in 1991 was much lower than reported and the crash just brought the numbers back to reality. That's how bankruptcies work.

When Russia finally reclaimed it's old GDP in 2006, it was in fact much higher in Russia than it had been in 1991 by miles. This is reflected by the fact that in 1992 Russia's GDP was third-world but in 2007 Russia's GDP was higher.

You cannot analyze economics by believing random numbers and snapshots in time. You must evaluate policies over decades and centuries before making conclusions, while being aware of flaws in reporting methods and biases.

Post: #69

Russia being "far better off today" is an extraordinary claim that runs counter to a lot of informed opinion and accepted data. For anyone to take it seriously would require some real evidence. Rather than evidence it sounds like you would rather accept that it must be true because it fits your ideological preferences. What specifically is leading you to believe that not only is Russia better off today than during the Soviet Union but *far* better off.

But this has gotten far off topic and has nothing to do with a CEO giving his employees a raise.

Post: #70

(08-03-2015 04:36 PM)chagataev Wrote:  Russia being "far better off today" is an extraordinary claim that runs counter to a lot of informed opinion and accepted data.

Well then those fools are wrong because it is contradicted directly by reality. Russia was completely impoverished because of communism.

Quote: For anyone to take it seriously would require some real evidence. Rather than evidence it sounds like you would rather accept that it must be true because it fits your ideological preferences. What specifically is leading you to believe that not only is Russia better off today than during the Soviet Union but *far* better off.

Denial is a strong emotion. You may want to check your own ideological biases before calling others out on it.

Post: #71

(08-02-2015 08:30 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(08-01-2015 05:34 PM)SunW Wrote:  There was some parable in the NT where Jesus shows the world how absolutely retarded he was in economics, where a vineyard owner pays all the workers an equal wage regardless of how many hours they worked. In reality, people would have exploited this business owner by only showing up during the last hour and making the same wage as if they had worked all day, which anyone with a brain would realize would result in a reduced output of crops.

Actually the Bible is extremely pro-Capitalist and says anyone who refuses to work for a living when they can is a loser to be avoided:

Quote: 10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

11 For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.

12 Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.

13 But ye, brethren, be not weary in well doing.

14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=KJV

The word of God says: socialists are losers who do not deserve your company.

I fully agree with you that the Bible is pro-capitalist. The entire book of Proverbs refutes basically every tenet of socialism in existence, even making fun of them ("throw you purse in with ours"). However, Jesus fundamentally shows multiple times that he does not understand basic economics or finance. If Solomon had sat down to debate with Jesus, Solomon would have schooled Jesus back to carpentry.

If a person is a Christian, of course, they believe that Jesus is God in the flesh and therefore he is speaking in a different world than we are; his utopian descriptions are reminders of what we aren't and why were are lacking. Also, Jesus could run a business socialist-style as the dude can speak things into existence.

"Oh Jesus, our business ran out of gold."

"Let there be more gold." And 165,000 metric tonnes of gold appeared.

But we aren't God and we can't run businesses that way. I realize my OP didn't specify this as clearly as it should: basically, we should be careful about applying Jesus' teachings to economics and finance because to do so is pretending we have the power he does and we don't.

Post: #72

I lived in eastern Europe. The people prefer capitalism and their system now than under communism. Under communism, there was a lot of horror stories concerning the abuses of the government.

Chagateav, you are absolutely clueless. In communism, if you got in an argument with a commissar, your children would be punished for years to punish you. Communism was a horrible system, and if your argument is that it wasn't "true communism" then why did all communist revolutions end in poverty and death? It must be because "true communism" is fundamentally opposed to human nature and so the perversity of the ideology is inevitably transformed into rule by the government with a comedy of horrors of food shortages and absurdities.

Post: #73

(08-03-2015 06:04 PM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  I lived in eastern Europe. The people prefer capitalism and their system now than under communism. Under communism, there was a lot of horror stories concerning the abuses of the government.

Yeah, like this:

Quote:Juraj Vaculik dreamed of them as a way to escape communism.

Vaculik, CEO and co-founder of AeroMobil, grew up in Czechoslovakia in an area that now is Slovakia. When he was young, he said, he could stand along his country’s heavily guarded border with Austria, “looking out at freedom.”

“I started dreaming about flying cars, and about how I could escape,” Vaculik told an audience Sunday at SXSW.

Gosh, why would anyone ever want to escape communism since it's so "great."

Post: #74

(08-03-2015 04:36 PM)chagataev Wrote:  Russia being "far better off today" is an extraordinary claim that runs counter to a lot of informed opinion and accepted data. For anyone to take it seriously would require some real evidence. Rather than evidence it sounds like you would rather accept that it must be true because it fits your ideological preferences. What specifically is leading you to believe that not only is Russia better off today than during the Soviet Union but *far* better off.

But this has gotten far off topic and has nothing to do with a CEO giving his employees a raise.

Evidence like GDP?



Crime rates, unemployment - even life expectancy, suicide and especially genocide rates can't be trusted from the Soviet era. They never even acknowledged the existence of unemployment until the late 80s.