20 Hour Work Week

[Lief]

blah blah blah

You said:

An experiment for all of you socialists/communists: Name a great invention that came out of the Soviet Union.

So I did. Also 2 of those four links are from periods when the Soviet Union didn't even exist (and one is 1890-1945 so only about two decades of that...), so of course there would be more United States inventions links.

[Politico]

blah blah blah

25-62 million killings is "blah, blah, blah"?

So I did. Also 2 of those four links are from periods when the Soviet Union didn't even exist (and one is 1890-1945 so only about two decades of that...), so of course there would be more United States inventions links.

Are you a defender of the mass execution of millions in the name of "fairness"? It is a fair question given your above quote.

If you are such a fan of Soviet-style government, why are you in Washington instead of Pyongyang?

[Lief]

you're clearly either a dumb or a drug-addled so I'm going to reply to you with pictures of hamsters

[Politico]

You did the experiment, so you will have to excuse me for concluding that you are a socialist or a communist. If you are neither, please say so. In that case, the paragraphs below are for those who do believe in widespread government intervention in the economy.

If you are a communist, can you explain why the adoption of communism has always led to widespread killings such as the aforementioned figures in Russia?

If you are a socialist, can you explain why all historical examples of moving from free enterprise to widespread nationalization have been met with declines in overall GDP growth in the long-run? Can you also explain why you think South Korea is so different from North Korea?

Whether you are only in favor of nationalization of most industries or favor government planning of all economic activity, why in the world do you think the results of socialism or communism will be any different the next time it is tried?

[Politico]

And here is some food for thought to chew on in the meantime:

Source: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?oe=UTF-8&hl=en&q=cache:8yoxqaDI2PUJ:www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2301525/posts

"An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had once failed an entire class.

That class had insisted that socialism worked and that if enacted, no one would be poor and no one would be rich. It would be a great equalizer.

The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism."

The Professor decided that all grades would be averaged together and everyone would receive the same grade. No one would fail, but no one would receive an A either.

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone received a B.

The students who studied hard were upset, but the students who studied little were happy.

As a result of the averaged grade, both the students who studied hard as well as the students who studied little decided to study even less for the second exam.

The average score this time was a D and no one was happy.

When the 3rd exam rolled around, the average score was an F.

The scores never increased and students blamed each other for the overall poor performance of the class. No one wanted to study hard for the benefit of another student.

To their great surprise, all students failed the course. The professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when the government takes all of the reward away, no one will try hard or want to succeed.

[Joe Republic]

Did you seriously just link to and quote from freerepublic.com?  You do know that's an infractable offense, right?  Or if I'm mistaken, it's at least worthy of severe ridicule, and also whatever the internet equivalent of a swift kick to the nuts is.

[Lief]

You did the experiment, so you will have to excuse me for concluding that you are a socialist or a communist. If you are neither, please say so.

Well my ideal form of government (ignoring a good enlightened monarch) is anarcho-syndicalism, but otherwise social democracy is fine by me.

[Beet]

Politico, the problem is that all the stuff you've been spouting off on this thread was known for the past 20 years. You say you're closer to Friedman than Keynes... Bernanke apologized to Friedman with Friedman in the audience in 2002 and said because of Friedman, the the Fed would never screw up again. Friedman's great accomplishment was inflation targeting and that is still the regime being followed today.

Besides that, you asked a question, had it answered, dismissed the answer, had it answered again, and then accused the person who answered you of supporting genocide. You're clearly off your rocker.

[Gustaf]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_inventions#.C2.A0Soviet_Union

Not to mention Soviet visual art and film which were largely terrific and couldn't have existed if their creators had been thrown to the wolves of the free market.

It is really sad that there have been no great films produced in the Western world. Ever.

I was going to come into the thread and tell Politco he's being stupid because no one in their right mind would disagree with him and claim that dictatorships slaughtering millions of people are superior to capitalist democracies. Then I saw Lief decided to chime in, so I'm not going to make that post.

[Lief]

Aw, you and politico can be buddies and build strawmen together! Hooray!

[Beet]

Is Lief actually pro-Soviet or did he just post that article in response to Politico's query? I thought the later.

I really wonder if this Politico guy came out of a 1991 time warp. The ironic thing is that the Cold War arguably helped capitalism be extra careful and avoid a major depression because if one had happened, it could have been exploited by the communists. Once that spectre was gone, capitalism went crazy.

[Politico]

Did you seriously just link to and quote from freerepublic.com?  You do know that's an infractable offense, right?  

No, I did not or I would not have done so. I actually linked a Google cache. I did not even check the source before doing so (I was on a portable device at the time). I simply wanted to find a brief version of the story. It is a legend that has been passed along through e-mails and such for a long time. Snopes is unable to verify the author. Of course, it is not copyrighted.

Source: http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/socialism.asp

Or if I'm mistaken, it's at least worthy of severe ridicule, and also whatever the internet equivalent of a swift kick to the nuts is.

Shall we discuss the story or not? Do you think it has no point, or is unrealistic? Do you think if a professor had such a grading scale that the results would be any different than described?

[Politico]

Bernanke apologized to Friedman with Friedman in the audience in 2002 and said because of Friedman, the the Fed would never screw up again. Friedman's great accomplishment was inflation targeting and that is still the regime being followed today.

What does the contraction of the money supply by the Fed in the early 1930s have to do with any part of this thread? I have tried to stir discussion about fiscal policy, not monetary policy. Considering the widespread support for socialism on this forum, I think it would be good to have an exchange of ideas about free enterprise compared to socialism. Nothing is really accomplished when we resort to name calling, or try to divert attention away from inconvenient truths that do not support a viewpoint that favors socialism/communism.

Besides that, you asked a question, had it answered, dismissed the answer, had it answered again, and then accused the person who answered you of supporting genocide.

I have done no such thing. I simply pointed out that mass genocide was committed in the Soviet Union in order to create the inventions listed. I followed that up with questions after the killing of 25-62 million people was brushed aside, as if those deaths were no big deal because they gave us the great achievements of Soviet film and visual art.

[Gustaf]

Is Lief actually pro-Soviet or did he just post that article in response to Politico's query? I thought the later.

I really wonder if this Politico guy came out of a 1991 time warp. The ironic thing is that the Cold War arguably helped capitalism be extra careful and avoid a major depression because if one had happened, it could have been exploited by the communists. Once that spectre was gone, capitalism went crazy.

Lief is on record as pro-dictatorship in general and also in favour of killing innocent civilians if they're on the wrong side. If one thinks Cuba and Venezuela are awesome it seems like the step to the Soviet Union would hardly be that big.

I was merely noting the bizarre claim that the good movies produced in the Soviet Union could not have been made in the West. I wasn't implying I know Lief is pro-Soviet, just that I don't feel safe making my original post without letting him post first. I suspect he might prove me wrong and argue that Russians, like Chinese, aren't cut out for democracy, freedom of enterprise and other such oppressive mechanisms of the capitalist society.

[Politico]

Well my ideal form of government (ignoring a good enlightened monarch) is anarcho-syndicalism,

And how do you suppose you achieve the aim of full ownership of the means of production by the public at large? Do you think it just happens by itself? Of course it does not. It requires a level of command by an authoritative body (i.e., the government). Otherwise, it cannot work. In other words, you are supporting massive government intervention in the economy. So you are now more than welcome to answer the questions posted at the top of this page, prior to the College Professor story.

[Politico]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_inventions#.C2.A0Soviet_Union

Not to mention Soviet visual art and film which were largely terrific and couldn't have existed if their creators had been thrown to the wolves of the free market.

It is really sad that there have been no great films produced in the Western world. Ever.

Including The Godfather Parts I and II? Wow...

I was going to come into the thread and tell Politco he's being stupid because no one in their right mind would disagree with him and claim that dictatorships slaughtering millions of people are superior to capitalist democracies.

I would love to agree, but you would be surprised. All empirical evidence shows that mass genocide is what happens every time that communism is attempted yet people still continue to support communist ideas and believe that the next time it is attempted the results will be different.

[Politico]

Is Lief actually pro-Soviet or did he just post that article in response to Politico's query? I thought the later.

I did start my query with "an experiment for all of the socialists/communists." In other words, the experiment was a challenge for socialists/communists. Couple that with the fact he did not respond to the query with a disclaimer of something along the lines of, "well, I am not a socialist/communist, but here:" and I had no choice but to conclude he lumps himself in with socialists/communists when it comes to economics.

I really wonder if this Politico guy came out of a 1991 time warp.

It is the other way around: I am shocked that people continue to support socialist ideas that I thought were thrown into the dustbin of history altogether by 1991. Apparently I was wrong. Those people really ought to check out North Korea if they really do believe everything would be better if only the government ran everything, or at least most things, in the economy. If you compare North Korea to South Korea, you have evidence that putting the government in charge of everything is NOT necessarily going to lead to better results than free enterprise. Unfortunately for those who cling to the idea of government running everything, there is not a single real-life example like North Korea/South Korea or West Germany/East Germany that supports their argument with real, tangible evidence.

The ironic thing is that the Cold War arguably helped capitalism be extra careful and avoid a major depression because if one had happened, it could have been exploited by the communists. Once that spectre was gone, capitalism went crazy.

Well put.

[Politico]

Lief is on record as pro-dictatorship in general and also in favour of killing innocent civilians if they're on the wrong side.

I sincerely hope this is sarcasm.

If one thinks Cuba and Venezuela are awesome it seems like the step to the Soviet Union would hardly be that big.

Absolutely, and I cannot even count how many people I have encountered over the past decade who believe that "Cuba and Venezuela are awesome," as you put it. Hence my provocative approaches in this thread. I am really just being provocative to stir a greater exchange of ideas.

[Joe Republic]

Guys, you're not meant to actually take Lief seriously.  He's just here for the "lulz" as he would say.  The half-baked 'middle class white kid'-style Marxism is just a phase, and I'm sure he knows that too.  A few other posters went through it as well, and they usually soon get bored and try a new hobby instead.  Or they just leave.  Not everyone is able to mimic the 'Opebo' cartoon character that effectively.

[Politico]

Guys, you're not meant to actually take Lief seriously. 

His post count sent the exact opposite signal to me. I mean, the dude has nearly 20,000 posts.

Thanks!

[Gustaf]

Guys, you're not meant to actually take Lief seriously.  He's just here for the "lulz" as he would say.  The half-baked 'middle class white kid'-style Marxism is just a phase, and I'm sure he knows that too.  A few other posters went through it as well, and they usually soon get bored and try a new hobby instead.  Or they just leave.  Not everyone is able to mimic the 'Opebo' cartoon character that effectively.

I've met my fair share of "Liefs" in real life, so I'm well aware. The problem is that they're not non-serious in the right way. The entire thing is, inevitably, based on not caring about the plight of oppressed people (be they Jews, Chinese farmers, poor Cubans, etc) and instead exploiting them for the purpose of building a personal image. I can't respect that, even if it's done for that abominable word that I won't repeat.

[opebo]

...I can't respect that, even if it's done for that abominable word that I won't repeat.

Pussy?

To Politico - the point isn't whether or not 'socialism works', the point is that capitalism doesn't work as evidenced by our current depression.  (and even if it did there is no reason for most people to accept it).

For myself I've always proposed moderate Keynesian solutions, however much more satisfying and appealing simply slaughtering the oppressors would be.

[Gustaf]

...I can't respect that, even if it's done for that abominable word that I won't repeat.

Pussy?

To Politico - the point isn't whether or not 'socialism works', the point is that capitalism doesn't work as evidenced by our current depression.  (and even if it did there is no reason for most people to accept it).

For myself I've always proposed moderate Keynesian solutions, however much more satisfying and appealing simply slaughtering the oppressors would be.

Nope, I'm not a prude.

[Sibboleth]

Or, perhaps even more likely, the estimates of reserves were blown out of proportion in the 1980s in a desperate attempt to continue pushing for the policy of mass subsidization of an industry that should have never been subsidized to begin with?

That, I'm afraid, is the logic of the conspiracy theorist. The estimates were reached at by standard scientific means and were universally accepted at the time. It is quite possible that the figures were an overestimate (especially as many of the 'reserves' were extremely deep) and they certainly don't count as 'reserves' now, but that's not really the point. Coal was not running out in the 1980s; the industry was shut down for other reasons.

Let's stick to the 2010s, not the early 1990s.

Well that can't be done because it was in the 1990s that the bulk of what was left of the coal industry was destroyed.

Demand for coal is on the rise. Why are we not seeing the type of investment in coal mining in Britain as we are seeing elsewhere in the world, including the USA? Could it be that there is not much coal left in Britain, and has not been for a long time?

In the first place it must be pointed out that while demand for coal has been rising of late generally, domestic demand for coal in Britain is still a small fraction of what it was before the 'dash for gas'. There are relatively few coal fired power stations in Britain these days (nothing compared to what there used to be) and other industries use coal less than was once the case.

Secondly, I have already pointed out to you that there are now a large number of opencast works in Britain, many of which are very new and very large. A new drift mine was also opened near Neath recently and its owners reckon it should last for about twenty years. There are proposals to open a new deep pit at Margam to supply the Port Talbot steelworks (whether it'll actually get off the ground isn't the point; the point is that the coal is certainly there). There are also issues with cheaper imports, often from coal industries that are often (if not always directly) heavily subsidised. And then there's also the fact that much of the coal in Britain is far harder to access now (after the pit closures and the inevitable flooding and other issues underground) than it was during the 1980s - and that's actually a hilarious understatement.

Efficient and productive yet not profitable? Do you not realize what you are saying?

Yes, but I don't think you are listening. It was one of the most efficient and productive coal industries in Europe but, of course, it wasn't really profitable overall. Because that wasn't the point. I don't have the figures in front of me at the moment, but some areas certainly were consistently profitable (the ones with newer reserves, newer pits and modern machinery; Nottinghamshire for one).

Look: The British mines, or at least most of them, had reached the end of their useful life by the end of the 1970s.

Untrue, as the case of the Tower Colliery at Hirwaun proves. Almost all collieries were closed long before they had to be, because hardly any collieries were closed because they had reached the end of their useful life. They were closed for other reasons; political in some cases (if we're being absolutely honest), economic in others.

In the late 1970s, there was a policy in place of subsidizing hundreds of thousands of miners to basically do work that could have been done by ten thousand miners.

That is a really remarkable thing for someone to write. Do you want people to take you at all seriously?

In other words, the policy can be best summed up as: tax productive activities to subsidize a pointless activity. Your failure to appreciate this fact is mind-boggling.

How is keeping the lights on a pointless activity? I hate to have to keep repeating myself, but... in Britain in the 1970s almost all electricity was produced at coal-fired power stations and they were dependent on the nationalised British coal industry. The coal industry was an essential part of the economy because of what it produced, not because of the amount of money that it made (or, rather, lost). It was only possible to destroy the coal industry - as the Thatcher and Major governments did - after setting up alternatives to coal (and alternatives to British coal at that). Why do you think that miners strikes were always so important back then? Because if there was no coal mined, then the lights would go out: which is what happened when Heath took on the NUM in the early 1970s.

And how do you explain the shape of coal mining in West Virginia during the same time period?

I'm not sure how that's relevant as almost all British coal was consumed domestically. Although the structure of the coal industry in WV changed a great deal during the same period, actually. Most of the big underground mines were shut and were replaced by opencast works, resulting in similar social catastrophe in parts of WV as in the British coalfields during the same period.

There were more than just one or two strikes, right? Hence numerous.

Numerous implies that strikes were a regular occurrence. They weren't.

Even you have to admit, or should learn, that Scargill and the union's inept leadership ought to give you pause when considering whether or not to espouse central control of an entire industry, let alone an entire economy.

What? Sorry, but that makes no sense whatsoever. In any case, I don't actually support central control of the economy. I merely pretended to in order to mock thee.

Let me rephrase: Wherever the socialist way is implemented, it leads to North Korea eventually if, despite all continued failures, the state continues to push the socialist agenda with greater and greater degrees of coercion. History has displayed this time and time again. The socialist way will either lead that way, or eventually lead to a situation such as the "Winter of Discontent" and what ensued following that calamity. In either case, it is a road I would rather not see America ever go down.

You really are a prize buffoon.

[Sibboleth]

My God, but there's a lot of Fail in this thread. Not had a chance to read through the rest of the recent developments 'till now. Lord.