If the USA went commie we wouldn’t be able to afford Alpha Male. That would suck!!!
“Percieved rights to excess”?
I want a lot of things that I assume you’d find excessive, but it’s got nothing to do with my neighbor having it and me being jealous.
I want to live in a luxurious home, I want to eat nutritious and delicious food, use life-enhancing supplements, travel to exotic locations and do so with ease and comfort. And donate large amounts of money to charities that I believe deserve it most.
All of the above requires a lot of money. Thank God I live in a society where I can provide a service to other people. And if these other people want my service they will give me their money in exchange for it.
And the better I serve them, the more money I get.
To grow rich is glorious.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I understand that this would not be very plausable given our society’s percieved rights to excess. We all want what our neighbor has and won’t stop until we have it too. I won’t get into what I beleive to be excess–nor will I ever agree that what I believe to be excessive is what others deem excessive.
[/quote]
[quote]Natural Nate wrote:
To grow rich is glorious.
[/quote]
This is the current maxim of Communist China. Go figure.
[quote]pookie wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The military pay scale would work too. Same principle. Doctors get paid the same as pilots.
Only works if no other country offers better. Quebec has lost dozens, if not hundreds, of doctors to Ontario and New England. I can drive down to Plattsburgh and pay to get treatment. In French.
…[/quote]
One of my kids friends fathers is a neuro-surgeon from Quebec. They live in a freaking castle. The wife wants to go home because she misses the family but it would be a HUGE drop in standard of living.
This would not work. You need to work hard and accomplish something for yourself. Once you have, then tell me that you should not reap your due compensation. That this wealth should be distributed “fairly”. People who think communist ideals are good econimically for the lazy. Alternately, they make hard workers lazy workers because there is nothing to achieve if your salary is capped.
China adopted the capitalist MO for thier economy because it works. They were poor and useless prior to doing so. Now they are an economic powerhouse. It’s just mathematical. Instead of riding bikes they are driving their Cherry’s around now. They are still oppressed but they don’t care because they have money.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
pookie wrote:
Utopia. Never could find it on a map.
Always glad to help. And wouldn’t you know, it’s in Texas.
Only a few hours south of Eden too.
Why bother with those, when you can live in Paradise?
[/quote]
Or Intercourse.
[quote]pookie wrote:
40yarddash wrote:
So what are you saying? You support this guy? You want America to be communist? I’m sorry I don’t understand your point.
I don’t think there is one. ssno appears to be going through his teenage rebellion phase where any idea that goes against our current modern society is automatically valid and better.
It’ll pass.
[/quote]
Yeah, I saw we all pitch in and buy him one of those neat little Che Guevara shirts. Then again I could just rip one off of 50% of the students here at the University.
mike
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
pookie wrote:
40yarddash wrote:
So what are you saying? You support this guy? You want America to be communist? I’m sorry I don’t understand your point.
I don’t think there is one. ssno appears to be going through his teenage rebellion phase where any idea that goes against our current modern society is automatically valid and better.
It’ll pass.
Yeah, I saw we all pitch in and buy him one of those neat little Che Guevara shirts. Then again I could just rip one off of 50% of the students here at the University.
mike[/quote]
Why steal? I’m sure that if you would just explain that you need the shirt, they’d understand.
This is often done by keeping resources unavailable so as to drive out competition thereby creating an imaginary demand which reates inflated costs.
Often done? I don’t think so. It does happen in some particular sector when the only players are gigantic corporations, but most enterprises in a modern capitalist society do not wield that much power.
(Like, the diamond market for instance? lol)
Money is the way we measure productivity. Making more money than a competitor means that you’re better at doing whatever it is you’re doing than he is. More productive = more products, or same amount of products at reduced costs.
This is a generalization. Doing something better isn’t always a function of money amassed. In other words, quality is different from quantity. It is purely an elitist belief that more money equals better.
I can come up with a good example where quality earns less money. I work in a sales environment. A coworker of mine, makes far more presentations than myself, and for this, ends up making more money.
Now myself, I ‘burn’ less leads, make fewer presentations, but my sales ratio is far higher. I make 10 presentations and sell 7, by probing and taking more time with customers. She makes 20 hastier presentations and sells perhaps 9. At the end of the month, sheer numberwise she seems more successful. However, when you break the numbers down and realise it took her twice the presentations to earn drastically less than twice the sales (roughly 20 more), to me that is less successful. Luckily my manager has been looking closely at the breakdown of numbers, because we are now in a unique situation where our ‘leads’ are more scarce, and as a result she will be limited to the amount she can take. How many we are converting is being focused on a bit more heavily.
So, ultimately I’d say I was much more quality of a salesperson, yet my quantity earned by comparison does not reflect as such.
[quote]Molotov_Coktease wrote:
I make 10 presentations and sell 7, by probing and taking more time with customers. She makes 20 hastier presentations and sells perhaps 9.
[/quote]
Maybe if your co-worker were did her presentations dressed as Sailor Moon as well, she would be as effective at closing the deals as you are. 
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Molotov_Coktease wrote:
I make 10 presentations and sell 7, by probing and taking more time with customers. She makes 20 hastier presentations and sells perhaps 9.
Maybe if your co-worker were did her presentations dressed as Sailor Moon as well, she would be as effective at closing the deals as you are.
[/quote]
It’s true.
Heh…I wore my Sailor Moon costume to work for the contest, and nobody knew who I was. I didn’t win and I cried little sparkly tears shaped like moons. Then I went and got my 12 gauge and killed them. Bastard commies.
The end.
[quote]grew7 wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
pookie wrote:
40yarddash wrote:
So what are you saying? You support this guy? You want America to be communist? I’m sorry I don’t understand your point.
I don’t think there is one. ssno appears to be going through his teenage rebellion phase where any idea that goes against our current modern society is automatically valid and better.
It’ll pass.
Yeah, I saw we all pitch in and buy him one of those neat little Che Guevara shirts. Then again I could just rip one off of 50% of the students here at the University.
mike
Why steal? I’m sure that if you would just explain that you need the shirt, they’d understand.[/quote]
No!
You must get the government to steal it for you, or else it`s illegal!
[quote]pat36 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The military pay scale would work too. Same principle. Doctors get paid the same as pilots.
This would not work. You need to work hard and accomplish something for yourself. Once you have, then tell me that you should not reap your due compensation. That this wealth should be distributed “fairly”. People who think communist ideals are good econimically for the lazy. Alternately, they make hard workers lazy workers because there is nothing to achieve if your salary is capped.
[/quote]
The military pay scale isn’t capped, per se. It rises with the cost of living and it still allows for competition within the rank structure. Work hard–get promoted. This is the way it is now only not regulated; meaning, there is no reason for your company to promote you if the market can bear it. Also, I wouldn’t be averse to a bonus system that recognizes individual achievement. The one thing I am against is making millionaires at the expense of all that is right and good.
Millionaires are unnecessary. The whole of life does not fluctuate around an inflated economy. In fact, it is the constant threat of our economic bubble being burst wide open that enslaves us. I am not against wealth that is achieved thru hard work and savings; what I am against–and this may be viewed as “un-American”–is the disparity between the poorest populations and the wealthiest populations. Why should economic privilege entitle one to health, security, and over consumption over someone without privilege? A capitalist system only benefits the ones with the most capital. We eliminate the ones with the most capital–thus eliminating the disparity–and we all benefit.
BTW, China’s economy is still Communist with a capitalistic model in place. This is all I am referring to for us. How many millionaires are being made in China every day verses how many newly poor? They are more prosperous now because they can compete with world markets–especially with respect to cheap labor. As soon as their living standards rise higher than the world is willing to pay they will no longer be able to compete. This will be disastrous for them–as it has been for us.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
… As soon as their living standards rise higher than the world is willing to pay they will no longer be able to compete. This will be disastrous for them–as it has been for us.[/quote]
It has been a disaster to have a high standard of living?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
… As soon as their living standards rise higher than the world is willing to pay they will no longer be able to compete. This will be disastrous for them–as it has been for us.
It has been a disaster to have a high standard of living?
[/quote]
Only with respect to outsourcing manufacturing jobs overseas. Cost of Living–more colorfully referred to as standard of living–directs the cost of labor. High cost of living drives up the cost of labor thus making poorer nations more viable to take manufacturing jobs, etc.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
It has been a disaster to have a high standard of living?[/quote]
I should clarify: it isn’t disasterous to have a high standard of living–it is disaterous to have such a high standard of living that the rest of the world can underbid the US with cheap labor costs. Nearly all manufactured goods in the US and Europe come from China and the poorer Asian nations. So we either have to replace those lost jobs with something of equal value or quickly raise the standard of living in the nations we compete in labor with. When the rest of the world is on equal footing with the Dollar, Euro, and British Pound then we will all be in a better position to compete equally and fairly. We need a more global approach to acomplish this.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
It has been a disaster to have a high standard of living?
I should clarify: it isn’t disasterous to have a high standard of living–it is disaterous to have such a high standard of living that the rest of the world can underbid the US with cheap labor costs. Nearly all manufactured goods in the US and Europe come from China and the poorer Asian nations. So we either have to replace those lost jobs with something of equal value or quickly raise the standard of living in the nations we compete in labor with. When the rest of the world is on equal footing with the Dollar, Euro, and British Pound then we will all be in a better position to compete equally and fairly. We need a more global approach to acomplish this.[/quote]
These things balance out before they get too far out of whack.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The military pay scale isn’t capped, per se. It rises with the cost of living and it still allows for competition within the rank structure. Work hard–get promoted. This is the way it is now only not regulated; meaning, there is no reason for your company to promote you if the market can bear it. Also, I wouldn’t be averse to a bonus system that recognizes individual achievement. The one thing I am against is making millionaires at the expense of all that is right and good.
[/quote]
What? Huh? The economy is not a zero sum game. If someone makes a bit more than somebody else, it is not at their expense. To have more does not mean someone else will have less.
I am pretty sure there are a few milloinares and employees of companies who make luxury goods that will disagree with that statement.
Uhhhh, what’s all this entitlement crap? Last time I checked most of the money was earned not given as an entitlement. If somebody happens to earn a bunch of money fair and square I do not see how that is unfair. You have the same opportunity as anybody else to earn and become rich if you wanted to. If you take away money from people then all you do is make more poor people. The disparity is everywhere. There will always be rich and there will always be poor people. Socialism just ensures that most people are poor.
[quote]
BTW, China’s economy is still Communist with a capitalistic model in place. This is all I am referring to for us. How many millionaires are being made in China every day verses how many newly poor? They are more prosperous now because they can compete with world markets–especially with respect to cheap labor. As soon as their living standards rise higher than the world is willing to pay they will no longer be able to compete. This will be disastrous for them–as it has been for us.[/quote]
Most of the chinees are still dirt poor. If there living standards exceed their intake, they will just artifically devalue thier currency as they have done before because they don’t give a damn about thier people.
Besides they switched to the capitalistic model for thier economy because the socialistic/communistic model failed miserably.
Yea, it’s a tremendous disaster for the U.S. What are we going to do with our poor pitiful 15 digit GNP.
Giving the government to much power over our personal incomes would be the real disaster. They are into my wallet to much as it is.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The military pay scale isn’t capped, per se. It rises with the cost of living and it still allows for competition within the rank structure. Work hard–get promoted. This is the way it is now only not regulated; meaning, there is no reason for your company to promote you if the market can bear it. Also, I wouldn’t be averse to a bonus system that recognizes individual achievement. The one thing I am against is making millionaires at the expense of all that is right and good.
What? Huh? The economy is not a zero sum game. If someone makes a bit more than somebody else, it is not at their expense. To have more does not mean someone else will have less.
Millionaires are unnecessary. The whole of life does not fluctuate around an inflated economy.
I am pretty sure there are a few milloinares and employees of companies who make luxury goods that will disagree with that statement.
In fact, it is the constant threat of our economic bubble being burst wide open that enslaves us. I am not against wealth that is achieved thru hard work and savings; what I am against–and this may be viewed as “un-American”–is the disparity between the poorest populations and the wealthiest populations. Why should economic privilege entitle one to health, security, and over consumption over someone without privilege? A capitalist system only benefits the ones with the most capital. We eliminate the ones with the most capital–thus eliminating the disparity–and we all benefit.
Uhhhh, what’s all this entitlement crap? Last time I checked most of the money was earned not given as an entitlement. If somebody happens to earn a bunch of money fair and square I do not see how that is unfair. You have the same opportunity as anybody else to earn and become rich if you wanted to. If you take away money from people then all you do is make more poor people. The disparity is everywhere. There will always be rich and there will always be poor people. Socialism just ensures that most people are poor.
BTW, China’s economy is still Communist with a capitalistic model in place. This is all I am referring to for us. How many millionaires are being made in China every day verses how many newly poor? They are more prosperous now because they can compete with world markets–especially with respect to cheap labor. As soon as their living standards rise higher than the world is willing to pay they will no longer be able to compete. This will be disastrous for them–as it has been for us.
Most of the chinees are still dirt poor. If there living standards exceed their intake, they will just artifically devalue thier currency as they have done before because they don’t give a damn about thier people.
Besides they switched to the capitalistic model for thier economy because the socialistic/communistic model failed miserably.
Yea, it’s a tremendous disaster for the U.S. What are we going to do with our poor pitiful 15 digit GNP.
[/quote]
Do you understand the concept of trade deficit? Our GNP means nothing considering we export 10% of what we import. Do you think this might have something to do with the collapsing Dollar?
Communism and socialism can prosper if managed properly. Democracy could probably take care of that–of course, we would rely on democracy to establish it to begin with.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:?
Communism and socialism can prosper if managed properly. Democracy could probably take care of that–of course, we would rely on democracy to establish it to begin with.[/quote]
It is an interesting phenomenon, though, that Communism has never taken root in a country having any real history of democracy. Russia, China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba: all of them ruled by despots even before the Revolution. I guess Zimbabwe would be an exception, depending on how democratic you consider Ian Smith’s Rhodesia to have been.
Communism can only ever be established by revolution because most people in a democratic society would probably vote against it.