Dude, you are seriously hilarious.
[quote]
Well actually, there is a vast political difference.[/quote]
[quote]
Think of him what you will, but nothing he has done has been “collectivist,”[/quote]
[quote]
Second, they couldn’t have been real Communists.[/quote]
I’d call you a sophist, but I’d bet you’d just follow up by telling me that I don’t know what a “real” sophist is, either…
I did not know this kind of dudes existed on T-Nation…
Ryan, if you see markets as a phenomenon of the fundamental freedom of man, then obviously they always existed.
The pseudo-scholastic article you are quoting, arguing that in ancient economies everything was fair and equal, is 99% interpretation, 1% fact. Evolution of the human race and human societies is the story of the good sides of unfairness.
[quote]formerfatboy wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Obama is not a socialist, no. That’s obvious. But neither is Bill Wharton. All the Democratic Socialists want is a tightly regulated market and a generous welfare state, ala western Europe.[/quote]
If you want socialism ala western Europe, why don’t you just move there??? That’s what I don’t understand.
Why do you have to impose your beliefs on a country you so clearly disapprove of? Your ideal system is set up for you across the pond. [/quote]
Your problem is that it is pretty evenly devided on what you call SOCIALISM and what you call CONSERVATIVE
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I’m not trying to start a fight, but this is genuine BS. After a “rigorous analysis,” we see that Obama is doing nothing more than attempting (fairly successfully) to maintain the capitalist system.[/quote]
Really, stop it. You betray your ignorance with every post.
There can be no capitalism under any form of government.[/quote]
This is a ploy that discounts your advisary, He is not anything you said , he is entitled to his opinion . I believe the drug trade would be in any form of govern ment , and it is truly capitalism.
You don’t think there’s a huge political difference between merely advocating a tightly regulated economy with a larger public sector and a generous welfare state, and advcating the direct control of industry by workers and the institution of planned production for use? Your problem is most likely that you don’t really know what socialists have historically advocated, today’s “socialists” mainly being left-liberals.
I’m not sure what your problem with this statement is. You seem to be simply taken aback that someone doesn’t agree with your talking points.
A joke, based on the oftentimes sectarian nature of left-wing politics.
[quote]I’d call you a sophist, but I’d bet you’d just follow up by telling me that I don’t know what a “real” sophist is, either…
[/quote]
Better than that, make a substantive critique.
I know, there aren’t many of us, but some people do follow logic to its conclusion, even if it makes us uncomfortable or leads us into “disallowed” areas.
Man, where to begin with this statement? First of all, this has nothing to do with your “interpretation” of markets. They are what they are. Second, my statement had nothing to do with whether or not they always existed.
Again, you’re attacking an argument that no one is making. Nobody is saying that things were “fair” or “equal.” Ethics has nothing to do with this. What the article did state, and which Polanyi details in his book (and which is well-documented besides), is how the market was unimportant until pretty recently in human history. You can almost open an ancient history book to a random page and find a civilization that based their economy on something other than markets. This is well-documented, so I’m sorry, you’re simply wrong. Man up. It doesn’t mean you have to stop supporting capitalism.
I can’t figure out what this sentence is supposed to mean.
[quote]espenl wrote:
Whatever -ism Obama is, he is your president.[/quote]
“Whether it is Hodgkin’s or non-Hodgkin’s, it is still your cancer.”
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]JEATON wrote:
[quote]thefederalist wrote:
People actually misconceive of the incentive structures of socialism; they’re based on readjusting compensation to meet energy actually expended. So, if we’re being rigorous, the reality of socialism doesn’t jive with the narrative of the “welfare queen” so often used to describe it. disclaimer: I’m not a socialist, just contributing.
inb4 bleeding heart, wagon pullers, wagon riders, jam it down our throats, free market, ryan p. mccarter.[/quote]
Another gem. How you are able to distill the very essence of ignorance and stupidity into random word puking. It is either an art or a curse. [/quote]
Actually, despite the awkward wording, he is essentially correct.
[/quote]
Because of the awkward wording, he is only correct if one uses liberal interpretation.
But moving on…
How does one go about adjusting compensation based on actual energy expended in a socialist system?
What metric is used to measure said energy expenditure?
Who gets to decide exactly when the measuring process begins and what it entails?
You being an aspiring physicist, I would gladly defer to you in devising a methodology to measure physical force or exertion. But is this all that is required to measure energy expenditure?
Does the ditch digger’s physical exertion account for more than the mental energy expended by the engineer to devise and plan the levee, lock and canal system that the ditch digger is eventually paid to work on?
Sincere questions. I appreciate any effort given in answering them.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Please explain.[/quote]
I just knew the winking smiley would not be enough, and I would actually have to write “[/sarcasm].”
I’m on your side on this one, lifty. I was parodying McSmarty.[/quote]
My bad. Din’t even notice the winking smiley. :))))))
I think that means laughing…?
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
You don’t think there’s a huge political difference between merely advocating a tightly regulated economy with a larger public sector and a generous welfare state, and advcating the direct control of industry by workers and the institution of planned production for use? Your problem is most likely that you don’t really know what socialists have historically advocated, today’s “socialists” mainly being left-liberals.
I’m not sure what your problem with this statement is. You seem to be simply taken aback that someone doesn’t agree with your talking points.
A joke, based on the oftentimes sectarian nature of left-wing politics.
[quote]I’d call you a sophist, but I’d bet you’d just follow up by telling me that I don’t know what a “real” sophist is, either…
[/quote]
Better than that, make a substantive critique.
[/quote]
I don’t need to. You do a fantastic job of writing my material for me, McLevel 4.
Ryan,
Back to basics: how do you define the term market that you say was inexistent or anecdotical in our history ?
Be kind enough to give a structured answer and not to say the definition is obvious.
I would be surprised if you were to find a definition that does not fit the organization of all the cities that flourished thanks to trade in the history of man.
From my point of view, there is a market when 2 persons are free to exchange something for another. There is an embryo of modern market when people can go to one place to find a certain good, and where it’s value will not be determined by rules, but by supply and demand.
gadrian you say that as long someone trades you have a marked, ok thats not wrong I suppose. still the nature of the marked today and that of the pre-industrial era are different. In the feudal society much of production was for the producer himself, not for sale. Today all production is for the markedplace, so you can say that the marked is everywhere as opposed to the feudal society. That is a big difference.
It is too bad RWM believes the market is a real physical thing that can be pointed to.
He should know better. It is just like trying to point to an electromagnetic field.
Any definition that a physicist could give for an EM field could only be theoretical. It is the same with the market when talking to economists.
The market is nothing more than a field of influence where individuals make exchanges. Just as with an EM field, for example, the market influences people who make exchanges and is also influenced by it.
And theoretically, it is not just physical goods that get exchanged but ideas as well.
I’m not interested in liberal interpretations. Only properly Communist interpretations.
And I’m just kidding, before anyone gets upset.
Firstly, you eliminate all forms of income except for wages. You would probably draw up some minimum wage scale based on costs of living and etc., but beyond that, I imagine supply and demand would be pretty effective at adjusting rates in most instances.
[quote]What metric is used to measure said energy expenditure?
Who gets to decide exactly when the measuring process begins and what it entails?[/quote]
It’s not really “energy” expenditure. It would be basically hours worked, or tasks completed.
That was the awkward part of his post. It implies that physically demanding labor would be remunerated the highest, which is not necessarily the case. A more physically demanding job would be higher compensated than another position which was less demanding, but required no more skill.
I hope I answered this satisfactorily above. In short, no. One still has to take into account differing skill levels, time spent (and thus foregone opportunities) acquiring skills/education, the good or bad working conditions, etc.
That’s what I thought. You have no idea what you’re talking about, so you attempt to conceal it by vaguely hinting that I am wrong.
I’ll let you slink off now.
[quote]Gadrien wrote:
Ryan,
Back to basics: how do you define the term market that you say was inexistent or anecdotical in our history ?
Be kind enough to give a structured answer and not to say the definition is obvious.[/quote]
I would say that it’s probably what you’re thinking. A “group” of suppliers of a certain good, and a group of demanders, each trying to get a good deal, through which the exchange of that good is mediated, and which, importantly, is self-regulating (at least mostly). Also, just to clarify, I didn’t say they didn’t exist, or existed only sporadically. What I am saying is that they were almost never a central, organizing pillar of the economy.
When you read about ancient trade, the temptation is to for your brain to read the word “trade,” and the conjure up the modern idea of trade, which is not correct. Ancient trade was, in general, not very competitive. Also it depends on where you’re talking about and the type of trade: was it local, regional, or long-distance? Most trade was long-distance, as local trade was generally controlled and that important anyhow.
[quote]From my point of view, there is a market when 2 persons are free to exchange something for another. There is an embryo of modern market when people can go to one place to find a certain good, and where it’s value will not be determined by rules, but by supply and demand.
[/quote]
That’s fine, but your definition is inadequate for a study of history. People used to exchange things all the time, but not based on the logic of the market. Reciprocity is an example that was very common. Maybe I give you something today, and you give me something tomorrow. This has been a common organization technique for tribes for a long time. For instance, if I’m a member of a tribe, and I go out to gather nuts and berries, I don’t gather them for myself. I gather them and share them with my family and other nearby individuals. The fisherman, likewise, fish for many people. Everyone did their thing, and gave to the community, and in turn the rest did their thing, and gave to the community. The reason for this is that societal ties were very important, as it was very difficult to survive without the group. Accordingly, everyone did their part to provide for society. You didn’t really think the Egyptians, or the Native Americans had a market economy did you?
This is not necessarily to say there is anything bad about markets, only that they are not “natural,” in the sense that they always, or even usually spring up spontaneously. Just like I’m not trying to say we should return to reciprocity or redistribution.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
It is too bad RWM believes the market is a real physical thing that can be pointed to.
He should know better. It is just like trying to point to an electromagnetic field.
Any definition that a physicist could give for an EM field could only be theoretical. It is the same with the market when talking to economists.
The market is nothing more than a field of influence where individuals make exchanges. Just as with an EM field, for example, the market influences people who make exchanges and is also influenced by it.
And theoretically, it is not just physical goods that get exchanged but ideas as well.[/quote]
If you’re talking about me, I do not believe the market is a physical thing (actually, I have used this fact to chide orion for his mysticism on occasion), and nothing I have written implies that.
But I suspect here that, realizing your historical error, you are trying to expand the concept of the market beyond its actual scope in order to render your statements less silly.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
That’s what I thought. You have no idea what you’re talking about, so you attempt to conceal it by vaguely hinting that I am wrong.
I’ll let you slink off now.
[/quote]
Aww, he has feelings and I hurt them.
I’ll just slink away and reorganize my “talking points” (huh?) and it will free you up to purchase more supps to feed the vast capitalistic entity upon whose advertisement-laden, revenue-generating message board you are posting.
No hurt feelings here, just noting how you continue to try to hide the fact that you have nothing to say with your witticisms, which we all love, by the way.
If you were as correct as you are desperately trying to convince yourself that you are, you could easily make a substantive post, but at present, the task seems beyond you.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
No hurt feelings here, just noting how you contine to try to hide the fact that you have nothing to say with your witticisms, which we all love, by the way.
If you were as correct as you are desperately trying to convince yourself that you are, you could easily make a substantive post, but at present, the task seems beyond you.[/quote]
I didn’t even have a point in this thread other than to goad you, guy. Then all of the sudden you attributed “talking points” and all sorts of other motivations to me that don’t exist. Honestly I have absolutely zero interest in engaging you in one of your silly snipe hunts.
If you’ve got nothing but unhurt feelings and little insulting jibes for me, though, feel free to completely ignore me. We’re both Level 4’s, after all, and have each paid our dues and should have the right to speak as we please. 