POLL: Does the federal government care about the economy?

[k-onmmunist]

I sure wish the federal government didn't care about the economy.

Well what the hell kinda game would that be?

"Quick, let's get elected!"

"Ok, we're elected, now let's just sit here for 4 months and pretend the rest of the game is for the nonexistant private sector!"

how do you have an economy without a private sector? or is Atlasia completely socialist now?

Plenty of economies have operated with no private sector

[k-onmmunist]

I sure wish the federal government didn't care about the economy.

Well what the hell kinda game would that be?

"Quick, let's get elected!"

"Ok, we're elected, now let's just sit here for 4 months and pretend the rest of the game is for the non existant private sector!"

how do you have an economy without a private sector? or is Atlasia completely socialist now?

Plenty of economies have operated with no private sector

And did not most of these so-called "economies" also include the mass murder and famine reaching into the tens of millions? Of course with 100% state planning, deciding whether to supply grain to the Ukraine or to export it, becomes a political decision. When you already have so little value for human life, the result is an ocean of blood.

The private sector is naturally occurring and impossible to suppress without the chains of the state. A country that isn't engaged in state planning has a private sector by definition. Countries where the private sector is primitive or inferior is due to problems in that country such as political instability, violence, disease, famine, hyperinflation etc.

We bitch about companies and corporations all the time, yet they still exist because we want what they sell. Now you can use nonprofits and coops and such but then without the profit motive there is no drive towards innovation and you are driving model T for 100 years. That's if your are lucky to get the car invented in the first place.

1. The 'Holodomor' didn't just happen in the Ukraine, it affected Kazakhstan as well, and some areas of Russia, but most anti-Soviets ignore that because it doesn't suit their theory of communism being evil - the whole 'genocide' thing was circulated by William Randolph Hearst, a pro-Nazi (at the time) and anti-Soviet US newspaper mogul. What's more, plenty of central economies have ran without famines.

2. The private sector is unnecessary and will probably be made completely obsolescent at some point in the future. We've been born into a culture which regards capitalism as 'the End of History' and that's the key problem. Most people aren't willing to think beyond that and look at alternatives to what we have now - for millenia prior to now, capitalism would be regarded as an oddity and it will probably be regarded the same way in the future. Or maybe the way we see feudalism now - as a brutal, unfair and flawed system. Whichever way, you have to view politics from across all history, not just the recent past.

3. People wanting to be able to eat, drink and live isn't an argument for capitalism, it's an argument for allowing people to live that way. If the government provided those resources, or if they were simply shared equally in a stateless society, that eliminates your point entirely. As for no innovation because of lack of profit, I cite the creation of the internet and large parts of NASA as proof that governments can innovate with little or no help from the private sector. Sorry to put a dampener on your little theory and all.

[k-onmmunist]

I sure wish the federal government didn't care about the economy.

Well what the hell kinda game would that be?

"Quick, let's get elected!"

"Ok, we're elected, now let's just sit here for 4 months and pretend the rest of the game is for the non existant private sector!"

how do you have an economy without a private sector? or is Atlasia completely socialist now?

Plenty of economies have operated with no private sector

And did not most of these so-called "economies" also include the mass murder and famine reaching into the tens of millions? Of course with 100% state planning, deciding whether to supply grain to the Ukraine or to export it, becomes a political decision. When you already have so little value for human life, the result is an ocean of blood.

The private sector is naturally occurring and impossible to suppress without the chains of the state. A country that isn't engaged in state planning has a private sector by definition. Countries where the private sector is primitive or inferior is due to problems in that country such as political instability, violence, disease, famine, hyperinflation etc.

We bitch about companies and corporations all the time, yet they still exist because we want what they sell. Now you can use nonprofits and coops and such but then without the profit motive there is no drive towards innovation and you are driving model T for 100 years. That's if your are lucky to get the car invented in the first place.

1. The 'Holodomor' didn't just happen in the Ukraine, it affected Kazakhstan as well, and some areas of Russia, but most anti-Soviets ignore that because it doesn't suit their theory of communism being evil - the whole 'genocide' thing was circulated by William Randolph Hearst, a pro-Nazi (at the time) and anti-Soviet US newspaper mogul. What's more, plenty of central economies have ran without famines.

2. The private sector is unnecessary and will probably be made completely obsolescent at some point in the future. We've been born into a culture which regards capitalism as 'the End of History' and that's the key problem. Most people aren't willing to think beyond that and look at alternatives to what we have now - for millenia prior to now, capitalism would be regarded as an oddity and it will probably be regarded the same way in the future. Or maybe the way we see feudalism now - as a brutal, unfair and flawed system. Whichever way, you have to view politics from across all history, not just the recent past.

3. People wanting to be able to eat, drink and live isn't an argument for capitalism, it's an argument for allowing people to live that way. If the government provided those resources, or if they were simply shared equally in a stateless society, that eliminates your point entirely. As for no innovation because of lack of profit, I cite the creation of the internet and large parts of NASA as proof that governments can innovate with little or no help from the private sector. Sorry to put a dampener on your little theory and all.

1. So, it was widespread thoughout the USSR. I never said that it was only located in the Ukraine. Was Stalin not as iron fistedly in power in Kazakhstan?  And I also never said famine hadn't occured before in Russia. The question, if Communism is so wonderfull, why did the worst one occur under their watch, while the farming was being collectivised? Shouldn't conditions have been improving? Why did Russia struggle to maintain production levels in agriculture into the 1980's? 

2. Notice I didn't say "Capitalism". I said "private market". The private market has existed in some form going back to ancient Sumer (SP?). I think if we were to move beyond it, it would have happened by now. Who knows in 5,000 years you might be right.   Why don't you go hold your breath till it happens. When your little life is saved with inventions made by big pharma here in the private sector dominated US health care system, maybe then you will see my point. The british gov't can bankrupt itself into eternity with gov't run health care system but were it not for the private sector innovations by evil big pharma, they might as well be paying for the use of bleeding and leeches.

3. Oh Winston, you insult me. I never said the gov't didn't innovate, it innovates when the politics wants it to. The internet was invented by gov't but it was basically nothing when it was invented by the gov't. However its use, and development has exploded in the 1980's 1990's and 2000's precisely because the private sector made good use of it. Where would the internet be without the home computer developed by Apple and Microsoft. I don't recall the original 1940's computer being developed without materials and input from private sector companies. And there was significant private sector involvement in the inventions that went into NASA from materials invented by chemical giant DuPont, to developements in electronics by GE And others.

You see you are trying to set me up as anti-gov't strawman. I am not your former friends Libertas and company. I think gov't has a role to play at times. You are the one who thinks the gov't can and must do everything.

Don't put words in my mouth. Don't insult my intelligence. AND DON'T PATRONIZE ME!!!!!

1. Several reasons. For a start, Russia was a poor country when the Bolsheviks took over due to the semi-feudal Tsarist system being such a disaster and WWI followed by a bloody civil war didn't exactly help production. The famines happened when Stalin had to collectivize the farms, because the kulaks threatened to starve out the cities due to them hating communism basically. As for why Russian agriculture failed in the long term, there was far too much bureaucracy allowed to grow in the system after Stalin died, which led to stagnant growth under Brezhnev - the USSR after 1953 was basically the worst aspects of both capitalism and socialism.

2. I don't owe U.S. health companies anything - I live in the UK where we have universal health care. And seeing as you decided to launch a ridiculous argument against the NHS, why does the US spend more money on healthcare than any other country when it's supposedly meant to be a private concern? The NHS was a very efficient organization until the Tories started to put the boot into it, and even now, it's still nothing to scoff at.

3. If the government was responsible for computer development, I'm sure they could succeed at it in the same way. As for NASA using private chemicals etc., the chemicals industry in the US is private so I don't really think they could have used government resources in that respect anyway.

I'm not patronizing you or insulting your intelligence. I'm just pointing out a few things I see that I think are skewed with your analysis.

[k-onmmunist]

@NCYank

1. There is no way Tsarism could have survived. And the October Revolution was a step forward considering economic growth, womens equality etc.
2. Just sayin, your healthcare system isn't that efficient
3. How do you know?

[k-onmmunist]

@NCYank

1. There is no way Tsarism could have survived. And the October Revolution was a step forward considering economic growth, womens equality etc.
2. Just sayin, your healthcare system isn't that efficient
3. How do you know?

1. I didn't say Tsarism would have survived.
2. Maybe so, but we also have doctors and nurses that actually care about their patients too.
3. I have ways of knowing these things.


And for the record, I did save Tsarism till 1936 in Vicky Revolution.

Umm, so do our doctors and nurses. Just because we have UHC, doesn't mean people don't care.

And gratz