Socialism.. does anyone have a clue.

I guess that you got me there, since I don' t know what that is.  

Dean wrote: Economic as a science is on par with astrology and crystal healing

Syzygy wrote: rushfan4 wrote: True, but it was still a big factor and one reason why the Soviet Union was so far behind the rest of the world technologically.  Although the biggest factor might be another famous saying.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely, which unfortunately seems to be another unfortunate human nature trait.   Except in the case of financiers, bankers, CEOs and those other masters of the universe who are regulated by the unseen hand of the market and therefore can be trusted implicitly to act for the greater good, right?

rushfan4 wrote: Aye, but then who is regulating the regulators?

Er, the politicians, who are regulated , or rather held to account by the voters , who , in the U.S. , apart from a small minority of 10%, will vote the same party line their entire lives.
So, by a twisted socialistic bent, these loyal registered voters, Republican & Democrat, ensure that the cream is replaced by mindless froth.
Don't blame the system for not working when you can't be bothered to work at looking past "your' party's platform and question the true merit of any policy proposal.

And for those GOPers here, if any of you can still keep a straight face while claiming your party to be the fiscally responsible one ... well ... you probably believe that it was proven that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that Saddam was allied with Al-Quaeda, and that Mr Hussein was brought down because he was a dictator ( no reference as to why Somoza, Pinochet, any of the Chinese leaders are not).

Swift Boaters for truth, alert ... there is another threat to GOP hegemony ... we must sink reality once more.

crimson87 wrote: Syzygy wrote: rushfan4 wrote: True, but it was still a big factor and one reason why the Soviet Union was so far behind the rest of the world technologically.  Although the biggest factor might be another famous saying.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely, which unfortunately seems to be another unfortunate human nature trait.   Except in the case of financiers, bankers, CEOs and those other masters of the universe who are regulated by the unseen hand of the market and therefore can be trusted implicitly to act for the greater good, right?   The unseen hand... You wouldn't believe how many times that hand failed in South America. Still that concept is taken as the Holy Grail of microeconomics.

Even Keynes agreed that the concept of supply and demand was true. The only difference was Adam Smith saying the supplier is the most important aspect of an economy, whereas Keynes said it was the demander.

And then of course there was Marx who said it was the laborer. But in truth, you need all 3 to maintain a successful economy.

Also, that hand often failed in South America because of corrupt governments making bad economic decisions.

Syzygy wrote: rushfan4 wrote: True, but it was still a big factor and one reason why the Soviet Union was so far behind the rest of the world technologically.  Although the biggest factor might be another famous saying.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely, which unfortunately seems to be another unfortunate human nature trait.   Except in the case of financiers, bankers, CEOs and those other masters of the universe who are regulated by the unseen hand of the market and therefore can be trusted implicitly to act for the greater good, right?

Actually, your average Joe is regulated by the "invisible hand" that Smith talked about. In fact, you're influenced by it every day when you decide to go and buy something.

To give you an example: say you walk into a bakery and want to buy a loaf of bread. Right now, you're the demander because you are demanding a product. The supplier, the guy behind the cash register or the owner of the bakery, has a product that has been created by the laborer, the baker, who creates a product that the supplier will eventually sell and hope to make a profit off of it. As the demander, you want to buy that loaf of bread at the lowest possible market price, and the supplier wants to sell that bread so as to make the highest profit possible. He will probably base how much to charge people for a loaf of bread based on certain market conditions (labor, the price of wheat and flour, etc etc) and sell it to you at a price that both earns him maximum profit and yet still not be too high for you to be willing/able to buy it. If you decide that the price is indeed reasonable and you require a loaf of bread, chances are you're going to buy it. So from the time you walk into the bakery until the time you walk out of it with that loaf of bread, you're entering into the market system that Adam Smith often spoke of (see, the guy wasn't as crazy as so many think he turned out to be).

I'd give you an example of a larger-ticket item (buying a house, a car, or something similar) but it will have to wait until tomorrow because I'm dog tired right now. Plus I proved my original point of how you yourself are regulated by an invisible hand, not just people who are bankers, CEOs, and other financial hotshots. And besides, a business isn't started because someone is "trying to do the right thing". People start businesses because 1) they believe there to be a market for what goods/services their business will provide and 2) they'll be able to make a profit off of it. In an ideal world, businesses would be willing to do the right thing and government wouldn't interfere unnecessarily in the private sector. But as it is we have incompetent CEOs who run companies into the ground and hurt thousands upon thousands of their employees and a government that's like a five year old who couldn't tie his own shoelaces if he was offered ice cream.

I'll stop there before I start going off on tangents and forget who I am and why I'm typing such a long response.

birdwithteeth11 wrote: To give you an example: say you walk into a bakery and want to buy a loaf of bread. Right now, you're the demander because you are demanding a product. The supplier, the guy behind the cash register or the owner of the bakery, has a product that has been created by the laborer, the baker, who creates a product that the supplier will eventually sell and hope to make a profit off of it. As the demander, you want to buy that loaf of bread at the lowest possible market price, and the supplier wants to sell that bread so as to make the highest profit possible. He will probably base how much to charge people for a loaf of bread based on certain market conditions (labor, the price of wheat and flour, etc etc) and sell it to you at a price that both earns him maximum profit and yet still not be too high for you to be willing/able to buy it. If you decide that the price is indeed reasonable and you require a loaf of bread, chances are you're going to buy it. So from the time you walk into the bakery until the time you walk out of it with that loaf of bread, you're entering into the market system that Adam Smith often spoke of (see, the guy wasn't as crazy as so many think he turned out to be).

Edited by Dean - March 29 2009 at 04:44

Can we say socialism for capitalists?

birdwithteeth11 wrote: Again, go take this to the political discussion thread. It doesn't belong here.

[/QUOTE]
Perhaps I have underestimated your capacity for humor.


By the way, I might mention that the GI bill is considered socialism in some cirlces:
http://mises.org/story/2318


Edited by Slartibartfast - March 29 2009 at 08:51

[/QUOTE] Also, that hand often failed in South America because of corrupt governments making bad economic decisions.
[/QUOTE]

Garion81 wrote: debrew guy wrote: rush fan 4 wrote: Aye, but then who is regulating the regulators? Er, the politicians, who are regulated , or rather held to account by the voters , who , in the U.S. , apart from a small minority of 10%, will vote the same party line their entire lives. So, by a twisted socialistic bent, these loyal registered voters, Republican & Democrat, ensure that the cream is replaced by mindless froth. Don't blame the system for not working when you can't be bothered to work at looking past "your' party's platform and question the true merit of any policy proposal. And for those GOPHers here, if any of you can still keep a straight face while claiming your party to be the fiscally responsible one ... well ... you probably believe that it was proven that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that Saddam was allied with Al-Qaeda, and that Mr Hussein was brought down because he was a dictator ( no reference as to why Somoza, Pinochet, any of the Chinese leaders are not). Swift Boaters for truth, alert ... there is another threat to GOP hegemony ... we must sink reality once more.   and it was the Democrats that mired us in Vietnam.   Both parties have long records of bad decisions.  Don't be taking a high road for the Dems here. This is the biggest problem that the citizens who vote can't get past party lines and rhetoric that not surprisingly falls by the wayside when a politician is elected.  The pork barrel expenditures that Obama signed without a bat of an eye is true to form for all politicians no matter what lable they put to themselves. So where is the change he promised?  What happened to the line by line budget scrutiny he promised.  This wasn't the "stimulus" package so why the rush and how easily he dismissed the pork barrel provisions. We as citizens are to blame for what we get. BTW I am not a registered republican nor democrat.

I don't think I could have said it better myself.

And I happen to be registered as an Independent. Since bipartisanship sucks.