Liberty in Socialism?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
321

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
So you your perspective is that Stalin wasn’t evil?[/quote]

Of course not. How old are we? What does that even mean? When you get down to it, “evil” is a pretty meaningless term. There’s no such thing as evil, and calling someone “evil” accomplishes nothing, and is in fact harmful. For one, if we accept that conclusion, “he was evil,” then that’s all there is to it, case closed, and we never learn anything about the situation or what the underlying causes were. Just “he was evil.” Comfortable, sure, because you don’t have to think about it, but it impairs our ability to understand history.

Furthermore, calling someone or something evil, implies that it is something foreign, an alien presence of a fundamentally different constitution. As a result, it generates the feeling that “that could never happen here.” Because it’s evil, and we’re certainly not evil, right? This is a harmful process because, since we never feel like we’re evil, it desensitizes us to occurrences right under our noses that we might think of as evil had they occurred somewhere else. Look at this Arizona immigration law. Glenn Beck and the rest of those right-wing clowns are constantly comparing Obama to Hitler, but when Arizona passes a law that actually resembles something that happened in Nazi Germany, Glenn Beck defends it! “It can’t happen here!” But, we don’t recognize it, because we haven’t learned from history, since we’ve written off such acts as “evil,” and thus implicitly denied their possibility in our country.

322

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
all bluff and no proof again[/quote]

Well, it’s good enough for you. Why shouldn’t I be able to do it, too? More double standards…

323

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
all bluff and no proof again[/quote]

Well, it’s good enough for you. Why shouldn’t I be able to do it, too? More double standards…[/quote]

LMAO - you’re so ridiculous. I have posted pages of data on PWI. You make statements but never provide any proof - world of difference there.

Just because you may not approve of 1 source out of 20 doesn’t substitute for proving your own contentions and statements.

EPIC FAIL

324

But even though I shouldn’t have to do this, here you go:

“The country began its transition with extensive hidden unemployment and at least one-tenth of its population below the then subsistence level (based on a ‘social minimum’ consumption basket). Since then, however, the number of poor households has risen, and by 1993 some 32 percent of the population was living below the revised official poverty line.”

http://www.worldbank.org/html/prddr/trans/so95/oct-ar2.htm

From the World Bank, no less. Not quite a hotbed of communism.

"RIOR TO THE DISSOLUTION of the Soviet Union in 1991, that countrys economic and social system worked in a practical sense meaning most people had a place to live and food to eat. Although standards of living were below those in the West, particularly in housing, daily life was predictable. The Soviet leadership was legitimately able to say that their form of socialism had succeeded in virtually eliminating the kind of poverty that existed in Czarist Russia. Russian citizens now live in different times. The countrys transformation to a more open economic system has created, temporarily at least, a large, new group of people in poverty.

http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/cenbr985.pdf

From the Department of Commerce. Again, a less-than-revolutionary body.

By the way, nice life expectancy increases thanks to the transition:

http://www.developmentandtransition.net/img/Slay%20graph31.jpg

You were saying…?

325

Certainly I was saying that you need to prove the transition increased the levels of poverty, not global economic recession which would have affected any form of government:

here’s comparative data for you

In 1989 17% of the population (45 million people) lived at the Official Poverty level ($7.50 per month) and another 100 million (approx 40%) lived at between $7.50 and $9.50 per month - Nearly 50% of the population lived on less than $10 per month.

Just an interesting side not, another set of records from the 1990 Soviet State Committee reported that 19% of Soviets hospitals had no central heating, 45% had no bathrooms or showers and 49% had no hot water.

Per the kommersant new site as off Spring 2008 (prior to the global economic recession - especially affecting oil prices - still the basis for the Russian economy) the official poverty rate was 13.5%

Current poverty rate in Russia as of Spring 2010 per bearr.org is listed at 17.5%

So, worst economic decline in 70 years and we just now surpassed the Soviet poverty levels.

that was what i was saying.

Did you even bother to research the mid-90’s period your sources documents (notice how I used end of Soviet era and current stats and you used mid-90’s?) to find out what was going on at the time in Russia?

326

anyway - off to watch some old Gene Autry movies . . . can’t wait to see what you post now

327

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Certainly I was saying that you need to prove the transition increased the levels of poverty, not global economic recession which would have affected any form of government:[/quote]

The Great Depression didn’t affect Soviet Russia.

[quote]here’s comparative data for you

In 1989 17% of the population (45 million people) lived at the Official Poverty level ($7.50 per month) and another 100 million (approx 40%) lived at between $7.50 and $9.50 per month - Nearly 50% of the population lived on less than $10 per month.[/quote]

Well then how embarrassing that life expectancy dropped by about six years after the introduction of capitalism.

[quote]Per the kommersant new site as off Spring 2008 (prior to the global economic recession - especially affecting oil prices - still the basis for the Russian economy) the official poverty rate was 13.5%

Current poverty rate in Russia as of Spring 2010 per bearr.org is listed at 17.5%

So, worst economic decline in 70 years and we just now surpassed the Soviet poverty levels.

that was what i was saying.[/quote]

I fail to see your point. They are not that far behind the US, which in 2006 had a poverty rate of 12.3% (which was lower than it was through most of the 1990s, by the way;http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html). But at any rate, you can only reach your conclusion: that most Russians are better off now than they were under the Soviets, by ignoring all the available evidence. For instance:

“Proportion of salaries considered to be below the minimum needed to live: 30%”

“It was much better during Soviet times,” Tonya Fominyh, 79, says. “Pensions were small but equal. We lived well. Now our pensions are nothing.”

Russian per capita GDP in 1991 was $3,427. It plummeted after capitalism was introduced, and didn’t catch back up until 2004, when it was $4,113. Shortly after came the recession. Not a very impressive performance for capitalism, especially in light of the greatly increased investment in Russia after the opening of its economy. The capitalists did less with more.

Please don’t pretend to care about details. Russia went through a civil war and two world wars, yet you readily attribute every bad thing that happened during these times to the Soviet government and socialism more generally. But, during the transition to capitalism, all of a sudden you want to make lots of distinctions and exceptions. Please, drop the double standard. The (thinly-veiled) purpose of your argument is to attempt to discredit socialism via a condemnation of the Soviet Union. Now, there’s nothing wrong opposing socialism or denouncing the Soviet Union, but say so. Don’t pretend to be so compassionate, and to harbor such moral outrage for the atrocities committed by the Soviet government, when you turn a blind eye to similar atrocities committed by capitalist states. Don’t pretend to oppose socialism on the grounds of its supposed inefficiencies, when formerly “socialist” countries are worse off since their transition to capitalism.

Just admit that you have no idea what you’re talking about, and quit the charade.

328

Why? You don’t my posts to continue to ignore facts and simply assert things with no evidence.

329

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
The Great Depression didn’t affect Soviet Russia.

Well then how embarrassing that life expectancy dropped by about six years after the introduction of capitalism.

Now, there’s nothing wrong opposing socialism or denouncing the Soviet Union, but say so. Don’t pretend to be so compassionate, and to harbor such moral outrage for the atrocities committed by the Soviet government, when you turn a blind eye to similar atrocities committed by capitalist states. Don’t pretend to oppose socialism on the grounds of its supposed inefficiencies, when formerly “socialist” countries are worse off since their transition to capitalism. [quote]

We weren’t talking about the Great Depression, we were talking about the 1990’s and the 21st century

Oh, that life expectancy chart that proves that life expectancy for the Soviets was far less than the rest of the Baltic states or the west? The one that proves the falsehood of the great quality of life under the USSR? The one that shows the lasting legacy of socialism in underdeveloped medical care, preventive care and nutrition? The one that shows a global correlation between the rise and fall trends, a trend that Russia coming off 70 years of socialism was even worse prepared to handle? That chart? thanks!

Yes, I oppose socialism and the Soviet mentality. Who says I turn a blind eye to any atrocity? Have we been discussing something else? I thought we were talking about the wonders of the Soviet Union

Have we even discussed the proper transition method that Russia should have followed? have we even talked about the realities of economic conversion, worker education, government reform, realities of changing from redistribution to private property and individual responsibility? Have we explored the difficulties of transitioning Russia from a commodity based economy to a production based economy? Have we opened a dialogue on tourism, military exports, food production, land reform or any of the myriad of components involved in an economic system re-creation?

You can’t help but resort to ad homen insults instead of raising a point, providing data and discussing it. The classic art of personal attack instead of meaningful dialogue . . .

330

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

Why? You don’t my posts to continue to ignore facts and simply assert things with no evidence.
[/quote]

LMAO - sad, so sad . . .

331

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
True, but that kind of contract can’t be enforced, it goes off the honor system.[/quote]

True, they cannot be enforced but imagine what happens when word gets out about such a “dishonorable” person. That is the market at work.

332

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

No one said it wasn’t human action. However, a slightly more sophisticated theory than yours was set forth.

Originally, it was the utopian desire to subject society to regulation via natural forces. However, I did not call the market “a result of human nature.” I said it was the result of human nature within a certain predetermined framework, which allows for economies to take different forms, as they obviously do. Otherwise, if they were simply the result of an abstract human nature, then only one form of economy would be possible, which is observably wrong. In fact, I have taken the time to show repeatedly on this forum how the market did not exist in its regulatory role under very recently in human history, i.e., it is not natural in the sense that, left alone, people will form a self-regulating market.
[/quote]

Your theory is incomplete. Markets are not the result of a particular framework. They exist because human beings are always in the process of perfecting their imperfect world and the market is an attempt to satisfy that “incompleteness”. It does not require a framework to be brought about.

Markets have always existed so long as humans have been able exchanged their talents and ideas with each other. That is all the market is.

A “free market” does require an ethical framework. It requires a state of complete nonaggression – including nonaggression by the state.

333

You talked about a “global economic recession that would have affected any form of government,” and I pointed out that you were wrong. Get over it.

Regardless of how the Soviets compared to other countries, capitalism reduced their life expectancy. Regardless of Soviet ineptitude, capitalism couldn’t do any better, and actually did much worse. Stop equivocating.

Oh yeah, about the “underdevloped medical care” of socialism, “Life expectancy among Russian males fell from 64 years in the last year of socialism to 58 years in 2003 ( Wall Street Journal, 2/4/2004), below the level of Bangladesh and 16 years below Cuba’s 74 years (Cuban National Statistics 2002).”

Actually, if you had any idea what you were talking about, you’d know that socialism actually had an excellent record of improving the quality of health care a population receives. But again, you just shoot your mouth off with no evidence to back you up.

I have mentioned this now about three different times, and every time you ignore it. Let’s see if you can get it this time:

the whole point of talking about the Soviet Union, for you, is to try to make a point about socialism. Now, the Soviet Union was not socialism, but you refuse to drop it, because if you can’t criticize the Soviet Union, then you have nothing to say against socialism since, as I said earlier, and as you’ve demonstrated quite ably, you know nothing about socialism. Your whole case is built on phony moral outrage and sweeping conclusions based on their experiences. But in reality, they are irrelevant in a theoretical discussion about socialism, at least the way you’re trying to use them. I’ll repost something I wrote earlier, which you of course ignored:

"To illustrate the impropriety of your statements, let me set up a scenario for you: imagine that I made the claim that capitalism leads to genocide, and gave Nazi Germany as an example. You would immediately fly of the handle and rebuke me for my ignorance, and rightly so. You would likely make the claim that Nazi Germany was not a capitalist economy, and thus my criticism was unfounded.

Now, let’s turn things around. Here, you are associating socialism with famine, purges, etc., using the example of the Soviet Union. Now, we can see by the aid of this example the fallacy you have engaged in, but how much more dubious does your claim look when we observe that Nazi Germany was much closer to capitalism than Soviet Russia was to socialism?"

No, we have not, and we won’t if you do not wish to be a hypocrite, because this is the exact double standard I was talking about. How clueless are you? Are you even reading? You refused to to take any of these factors into consideration before assuming that “Communism killed 50 million people!1” and pronouncing the Soviets a failure. But all of a sudden, when we are talking about the far easier task of transitioning to capitalism, you want take all kinds of details into consideration, and not jump to any conclusions, even though you were all too ready to when talking about socialism. Despite the fact that capitalism in Russia has been an abject failure, unable to equal Soviet living conditions of some two decades ago, you attach all kinds of qualifiers to any pronouncements you make, whereas the Soviets, who faced the task of essentially rebuilding the country from scratch into a new form of economy after a civil war and a world war, and doing it without foreign assistance, you condemn not only without acknowledging any of the difficulties they faced, but without acknowledging any of their impressive achievements.

Does that about sum up your dishonesty and quackery, or do I need to elaborate further?

And again, you have no idea what you’re talking about. Russia is a commodity based economy now. They were an industrial economy under the Soviets.

He says, after I’ve thoroughly debunked him and provided sources for my facts. In reality, you leaped into this argument before you looked, were destroyed, and you’re just pissed off that real-life communists aren’t as stupid and easy to refute as Rush Limbaugh says. You’re pouting.

334

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

Why? You don’t my posts to continue to ignore facts and simply assert things with no evidence.
[/quote]

LMAO - sad, so sad . . . [/quote]

Again, quite ironic after posting 0 sources, and refuting 0 claims. You’re programmed quite well.

335

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:Your theory is incomplete. Markets are not the result of a particular framework. They exist because human beings are always in the process of perfecting their imperfect world and the market is an attempt to satisfy that “incompleteness”. It does not require a framework to be brought about.

Markets have always existed so long as humans have been able exchanged their talents and ideas with each other. That is all the market is.

A “free market” does require an ethical framework. It requires a state of complete nonaggression – including nonaggression by the state.[/quote]

Of course you’re right if you use some trivial definition of “the market.” But The Market, i.e., the pervasive, self-regulating market-as-the-director-of-society, has not existed until the past few centuries. It does not arise spontaneously.

336

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Of course you’re right if you use some trivial definition of “the market.” But The Market, i.e., the pervasive, self-regulating market-as-the-director-of-society, has not existed until the past few centuries. It does not arise spontaneously.
[/quote]

It is not a trivial definition. It is THE definition.

You try and complicate meaning and it just confuses your thought processes.

Logic rests on simplicity.

337

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

You talked about a “global economic recession that would have affected any form of government,” and I pointed out that you were wrong. Get over it.

Regardless of how the Soviets compared to other countries, capitalism reduced their life expectancy. Regardless of Soviet ineptitude, capitalism couldn’t do any better, and actually did much worse. Stop equivocating.

Oh yeah, about the “underdevloped medical care” of socialism, “Life expectancy among Russian males fell from 64 years in the last year of socialism to 58 years in 2003 ( Wall Street Journal, 2/4/2004), below the level of Bangladesh and 16 years below Cuba’s 74 years (Cuban National Statistics 2002).”

Actually, if you had any idea what you were talking about, you’d know that socialism actually had an excellent record of improving the quality of health care a population receives. But again, you just shoot your mouth off with no evidence to back you up.

I have mentioned this now about three different times, and every time you ignore it. Let’s see if you can get it this time:

the whole point of talking about the Soviet Union, for you, is to try to make a point about socialism. Now, the Soviet Union was not socialism, but you refuse to drop it, because if you can’t criticize the Soviet Union, then you have nothing to say against socialism since, as I said earlier, and as you’ve demonstrated quite ably, you know nothing about socialism. Your whole case is built on phony moral outrage and sweeping conclusions based on their experiences. But in reality, they are irrelevant in a theoretical discussion about socialism, at least the way you’re trying to use them. I’ll repost something I wrote earlier, which you of course ignored:

"To illustrate the impropriety of your statements, let me set up a scenario for you: imagine that I made the claim that capitalism leads to genocide, and gave Nazi Germany as an example. You would immediately fly of the handle and rebuke me for my ignorance, and rightly so. You would likely make the claim that Nazi Germany was not a capitalist economy, and thus my criticism was unfounded.

Now, let’s turn things around. Here, you are associating socialism with famine, purges, etc., using the example of the Soviet Union. Now, we can see by the aid of this example the fallacy you have engaged in, but how much more dubious does your claim look when we observe that Nazi Germany was much closer to capitalism than Soviet Russia was to socialism?"

No, we have not, and we won’t if you do not wish to be a hypocrite, because this is the exact double standard I was talking about. How clueless are you? Are you even reading? You refused to to take any of these factors into consideration before assuming that “Communism killed 50 million people!1” and pronouncing the Soviets a failure. But all of a sudden, when we are talking about the far easier task of transitioning to capitalism, you want take all kinds of details into consideration, and not jump to any conclusions, even though you were all too ready to when talking about socialism. Despite the fact that capitalism in Russia has been an abject failure, unable to equal Soviet living conditions of some two decades ago, you attach all kinds of qualifiers to any pronouncements you make, whereas the Soviets, who faced the task of essentially rebuilding the country from scratch into a new form of economy after a civil war and a world war, and doing it without foreign assistance, you condemn not only without acknowledging any of the difficulties they faced, but without acknowledging any of their impressive achievements.

Does that about sum up your dishonesty and quackery, or do I need to elaborate further?

And again, you have no idea what you’re talking about. Russia is a commodity based economy now. They were an industrial economy under the Soviets.

He says, after I’ve thoroughly debunked him and provided sources for my facts. In reality, you leaped into this argument before you looked, were destroyed, and you’re just pissed off that real-life communists aren’t as stupid and easy to refute as Rush Limbaugh says. You’re pouting.

[/quote]

(inside Ryan’s head the crowds are cheering, the masses call his name in adoration - he hath destroyed the evil Capitalist . . .yeeaaahhh) - in the real world . . . the audience blinks, stares at Ryan as he hugs himself and whispers quiet reassurring comments to himself. . . .

I’ll start labeling things to make it easier for you

Oh poor Ryan, if only verbosity were wisdom, you’d be a genius . . . (see, that is an ad homen attack)

You jump topics and emphasis like a hyperactive cricket on speed. (observation)

We were talking about the genocide of the late '20’s and early 30’s, then about the transition, then the Evil nature of Stalin, and now you want to talk about the Great Depression and also healthcare and whatever else sizzles through your overstimulated neurons. (observation) suffering from any ADHD lately? (another ad homen)

you’re so right capitalism had ruined the Russian people, how could I have been so blind (this is sarcasm)

No, I keep talking the Soviet Union, because you keep making assinine comments about the actual history and reality of life under Soviet rule. (statement of opinion) LOL - you’re very entertaining by the way (this is facetiousness)

I am more than glad to talk about the details of the purges, the gulags, the economic policies of the Soviet Politburo, the forced participation in socialism, the components required for successful tranisitioning between economic systems and even the poor pitiful existence of the Siberian Musk Ox if you like. (statement)

But you seem pathologically incapable of staying on point and very capable of just spouting your opinions. (observation mixed with sarcasm)

In addition, the sources I have provided you with are Soviet and Russian sources. The conclusions I have stated are based on the reality of that evidence, and there’s plenty more.

Tell you what, if you are so smart and so right about socialism, here’s your chance to prove it and show what a moron I am: You pick the topic, state your position, provide your proof and I’ll respond - any topic at all that proves the superiority of socialism - historical, theoretical, whatever you like. . . you so smart, let’s have your best argument

338

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Of course you’re right if you use some trivial definition of “the market.” But The Market, i.e., the pervasive, self-regulating market-as-the-director-of-society, has not existed until the past few centuries. It does not arise spontaneously.
[/quote]

It is not a trivial definition. It is THE definition.

You try and complicate meaning and it just confuses your thought processes.[/quote]

You’re the one who is confused, as you fail to make the important distinction between a market, defined trivially as exchange among individuals (or groups), and a market, which regulates societal activity. For instance. In an ancient economy, in which redistribution or reciprocity was the mechanism which controlled production and distribution, there were of course small-scale exchanges between individuals. But the economy was still regulated by redistribution and reciprocity. Whereas a market, in the modern sense, is not merely an accessory, as in this example, but coordinates production and distribution via market prices.

339

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:(inside Ryan’s head the crowds are cheering, the masses call his name in adoration - he hath destroyed the evil Capitalist . . .yeeaaahhh) - in the real world . . . the audience blinks, stares at Ryan as he hugs himself and whispers quiet reassurring comments to himself. . . .

I’ll start labeling things to make it easier for you[/quote]

Please do, but only so you can keep up, as you ignore the majority of my posts.

If you can’t keep up, just say so. If you need to me to clarify, just ask.

In your simple world, I’m sure all these rest neatly inside their own boxes, but in the real world, these issues are complicated and frequently interconnected. You cannot talk about Russia’s transition to a centrally-planned, industrial economy without talking about global conditions. You cannot talk about Soviet authoritarianism and the terrorization of the peasants without talking about the transition and global conditions.

The simple fact is, living standards have deteriorated under capitalism. Spin it however you want, tell yourself whatever you need to to get through the day, but maybe you could think about it a little bit and modify your opinions ever-so-slightly so as better to conform to reality.

It’s clear that you’re irritated about being so frequently corrected. However, there is an easy solution–simply acknowledge that you were in error before. Or, you could be a total wuss and make up some excuse to yourself so you can go on believing what’s comfortable. I wonder which you’ll do…?

[quote]I am more than glad to talk about the details of the purges, the gulags, the economic policies of the Soviet Politburo, the forced participation in socialism, the components required for successful tranisitioning between economic systems and even the poor pitiful existence of the Siberian Musk Ox if you like. (statement)

But you seem pathologically incapable of staying on point and very capable of just spouting your opinions. (observation mixed with sarcasm)[/quote]

I have been quite patient with your inanities, whereas you have ignored most of what I have posted. The reality is, you’ve dug yourself into a pretty deep hole, and you’re looking for excuses not to have to answer hard questions. And you seem to be confused yet again: I have documented my facts–I’ve given you the links, for crying out loud. That means they’re not opinions–they’re facts.

By the way, I can’t help but notice that, again, you don’t actually make any points, you just state your opinion that I am wrong (while accusing me of the same thing!).

Oh, so now the Soviets are trustworthy? If you’ll remember, your excuse for the utter failure of capitalism in Russia (which you initially denied, and I suppose you’ve now come to terms with) was “those lying Soviets made up all the numbers! We had no idea how bad it was!” But now that you wish to pass off your numbers, they are reliable again! Despite this mystery, in some cases, it’s not your numbers themselves that are incorrect, but rather, the conclusions you draw from them. Your story, if taken at face value, makes absolutely zero sense and plainly contradicts observed history. This should not be surprising when we realize that you have already reached your conclusion, and you simply use numbers in whatever manner is convenient to support that conclusion.

I have already detailed many ways in which you are in error. How long do you think I want to do this?

Sorry chum, you’ve already demonstrated quite satisfactorily that you are unable to have a serious discussion about this matter, as your emotions and your programming always get the better of you. If you’re really interested, there’s quite a lot of reading you could, and should, do. First though, you’ll have to deprogram yourself, and learn to be honest.

340

Well this thread has grown. (Take a few days off…)

I can see the BS blowing out of Ryan here. I am still seeing nothing but propaganda, and misinformation, as well as disinformation, yet tries to turn it around, and act like anyone who disagrees with him has been afflicted as such. {Start the line by line comments}

I usually do not try to let myself get so personal in these discussions. But it is so blatantly obvious. How words are turned around. How any substance is either ignored, belittled, or even dismissed out of hand, and that is considered a valid argument.

I have been accused of being brainwashed by Capitalists all my life, and that is why I believe what I believe. But that is not true. I have had teachers tell me about how bad America was, and was told how wonderful Russia was. And I actually believed them.

It was my own research, and studying, and compulsive reading, along with getting bitch slapped by the school of hard knocks that led me to believe in Capitalism. (Interestingly it also turned me into an atheist. But not one of those annoying, proselytizing ones.)

Ryan, you were the one who tried to say my idea was a CO-OP, but it wasn’t. When I tried to make sure I knew what you were talking about, you never actually tried to answer me until you somewhat answered me in the last response, where you said I was only trying to extract an apology out of you. (Where the fuck you got that… oh yeah, your propaganda BS.) I never once wanted any sort of apology, I wanted facts you were unwilling to provide.

You said that 150 years ago, Capitalists â??CRUSHEDâ?? the CO-OP’s, yet I grew up around CO-OP’s., and they didn’t seem crushed, and in fact were thriving.

I wanted to know exactly how they were crushed. You gave the impression the Capitalists did something illegal, or violent. Instead it turns out it was simply business competitive practice. They apparently failed. Although they must not have because they are still around. (My research did show a revival in the 60’s, but I never once found anything about it being crushed.)

Anyway a CO-OP is not the socialist idea I was proposing. In fact they are not really a socialist organization, instead simply a business structure, and one that I support. Small businesses working together to compete with the big guys.

My idea had nothing to do with this. It actually had nothing to do with the source of income. The idea was for people to pool their income, regardless of where it came from, (jobs, business, savings, investments, inheritance,) then they as a group would decide how to spend that money for their members. There would be no reason for Capitalists to want to crush such an organization because they are not really in competition with them. In fact the members could work for the Capitalists, and funnel that income into their organization.

I would think you would want to jump on an idea like this.

Now you called my stating that there are Mom and Pop operations out there that mare making the business owners wealthy, ludicrous. Problem is my first job was at one of these family businesses. The owner was there serving the customers, which due to the area had a large number of lower income customers. And yet he treated each one as his boss.

I knew enough that this guy had plenty of money. I knew he could have hired somebody to take over for him, but he was there most days serving the customers. He worked for the poor people.

Say it is ludicrous all you want, it is a true story. It qualifies as a Mom and Pop operation. The guy was very well off. (And wore a pinky ring worth more then my annual salary. Though admittedly I was a kid working part time.)

You have repeatedly commented about Capitalists, but any time I bring something up that qualifies under your definition, you seem to disqualify it for some reason, seeming to change the meaning as it seems fit. Not always explaining why. For example how come my friend who had half a mil in stocks is not a Capitalist? His stocks bring in the passive income from the work of others you said makes a person a Capitalist.

Does the major stockholders of WalMart qualify? If so then why? What makes them different then my friend?

Is it because they inherited it? What about the 80% of millionaires who are first generation rich? Only one out of five millionaires is actually retired. 66% work 45-55 hours a week.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/stanley-millionaire.html

And again the antagonism issue. One item you never understood my comments about. I say the antagonism is created by you, and the people like you whop incite this antagonism, and you simply give me charts. You seem to assume if one person makes more then another, this is antagonism. But antagonism is an emotional response, not a financial one, and one that is incited by people with ulterior political motives.

There are tons of people who make a lot more then me. Is there antagonism between me and them? Hell no. Part of the reason I don’t make more then I do is because I have refused to accept positions that I know I wouldn’t enjoy. Who do I blame for that? I can’t be upset that others make more then me when I specifically avoided those sources of income.

Also I do look at the people who make a lot more then me, and instead of spending my time envying them, I attempt to learn from them, and figure out how to apply what they know to my life. That is about as intelligent as a fat person hating the former fat person who became lean. Or the skinny guy hating the guy who worked his ass off in the gym to build some muscle.

These people do exist. But there are not people like you telling them they need to hate those people because they have more muscle and less fat.

And yes people today do in fact live better then they did in the 70’s. I know you have your little chart, but it only lists a portion of the workforce, and nowhere does it say what numbers they used to come up with their chart. But I am supposed to just accept it without any question because it supposedly uses â??thousandsâ?? of pieces of data, even though it didn’t state that anywhere.

But regardless, they need to use some sort of index to measure the rate of inflation, and that is almost always the CPI. The consumer price index was never created to judge inflation, but that is what it is used for. And it has some inherent flaws in that respect.

For example there is the substitution bias, which means if one item, such as apples increase in price, while oranges increase at a lower rate, or even decrease, people will cut their purchases of apples, and increase their purchase of oranges. They are still buying fruit, but not in the same quantity as before.

Then we have new items replacing old items. Have typewriters gone up in price? Nobody makes typewriters any more, so how do you judge the price change? VCR’s are replaced with DVD players, then recorders, and now DVR’s are all over the place. How do you compare that?

And then there is the quality of a device. How do you compare the old lead lined cathode ray tube television to the flat screen LCD, or plasma screen? Rabbit ears with HDMI cables?

The federal government is fully aware of these problems, and in fact there was a big discussion going on in the late 90’s. It was known that it overestimated inflation by 1.1% a year, but because it affected things like Socialist Security checks, there was a big backlash against changing it.

From 1973 to 1995 income was shown to drop by 13% due to inflation, but after adjusting for the faulty nature of the CPI they found that it actually increased by 13%. That is almost a 30% difference. (87% to 113%)

Now it also help that I was a child in the 70’s. And yes, things are a hell of a lot better. (Fewer smelly Hippies.)

And this post has reached 2.5 pages, so I will stop here so you can misinterpret everything I have said.