[LaurieAG]

Hi A23,

A23 said:

Could we argue that communism put any country to ruins (the belief that something put in common could be shared afterwards, could lead to conflicts and profit of only some people)?

We could also argue that particles and anti particles cancel each other out and only those transactions that occur on the event horizon of black holes have the potential to produce a yield.

A23 said:

So that, in fact nobody will use communist money, it's too dangerous, and hence remains only the other system ?

The communist 'money' is actually US debt, in the context of quantum science/finance (above) you claim that anti particles are too dangerous that nobody will use them. Unfortunately that is not the case because China has sold part of its anti money to Japan so that both countries now hold equal amounts of US debt.

While it looks like even greater amounts of money are being spun out of our quantum/financial/physics system at the moment, they are also operating on the edge of a gigantic Global Financial System wide black hole, I tend to agree with your comment with regards to the scientific and financial aspects, they are too dangerous and we are but pawns to the 'masters of the universe' and the politicians/scientists who fail to regulate their own man-made systems.

Interesting thoughts A23, but will our scientific/financial/political leaders agree before the black hole creates a universal singularity? Bad science/finance/politics has the same result regardless.

'The Grey knights claim'

We hopes your star advisers
are truely opposite southern diviners
lest they all disappear up their conniverses.

[A23]

Yes, I don't know if it has to do with particles, but communism is naive in the human sense that nobody will share money with you.

[LaurieAG]

Hi A23,

A23 said:

Yes, I don't know if it has to do with particles, but communism is naive in the human sense that nobody will share money with you.

Its all politics anyway and if the communists didn't buy the US debt the US would be in even deeper trouble today.

Actually it has been claimed that the dude with initials JC was the first communist.

[lawcat]

It's simple.

In those countries monopolies have not developed fully yet. Once the monopolies of production markets develop in those country, like in USA, those markets will operate on cycles with limited growth--producing and then sucking money out of markets.

[Michaelangelica]

I still do not understand why any reasonable growth in the economies of the 'west' has to be coupled with inflation.
Is there no way of breaking this nexus in a 'free' market?

[A23]

Yes, in some sense communism is the result (debt) of too strong capitalist fight, they never stood up again. Whatever the precaution, some things will breakdown.

[lawcat]

Michaelangelica said:

I still do not understand why any reasonable growth in the economies of the 'west' has to be coupled with inflation.
Is there no way of breaking this nexus in a 'free' market?

In the west, USA and Europe, and Japan, infaltion is not necessarily a result of the markets, but of the policy of monetary authority--Central bank. It comes from "monetary inflation"--pumping of money into economy. The policy is that slight inflation over time makes the downturn cycles easier to correct.

[A23]

I have a general question, since i dont know economics:

let say duty of communism were for the 'community' to spare the biggest possible amount of money, whereas capitalism were for every individual to try to spare the most independently.

Would the sum of all the amount in the latter case be more than the one in the first ? (since nobody give all they have in communism)

[Yoron]

A23 :)
I don't think that's possible. Capitalism builds on consuming. The idea is to consume yourself into wealth. It also builds on infinite resources. If you look at economists worrying they will look at the Gross domestic product (GDP). All countries expect that to grow, every year :) And if it doesn't. Well then there is a downward trend in the 'economy'. As Earth isn't introduced to this kind of thinking it still percieves itself to be a finite planet, with just so much resources like oil, methane (natural gas), gold, fertile land etc. But we all hope our sweet little planet will wake up, any day now, and realize the potential in cloning itself.

As for why China grows? Very cheap labor, no care for the individual (labor force), no care for polluting, lots of investment from Westerners, 'lending' their patents and way of manufacture China fast create 'new sales' increasing their 'growth potential'. As for if that make China a 'rich country' . Nope, lots of people 'fighting for survival' on a limited area with limited resources, and the 'riches' in form of 'paper squares' called money will only be concentrated at a few very rich persons, very like Russia. A lot of countries are increasing their gold reserves recently, even though gold quickly have raised in 'value'. Wanna guess why?

[lawcat]

A23 said:

I have a general question, since i dont know economics:

let say duty of communism were for the 'community' to spare the biggest possible amount of money, whereas capitalism were for every individual to try to spare the most independently.

Would the sum of all the amount in the latter case be more than the one in the first ? (since nobody give all they have in communism)

Money is made in sales. Sales are made to those who demand product. Communist economy can have a product that is in high demand and can make more money than a capitalist economy. To prevent this from happening, there is such thing called embargo.

[Moontanman]

I think that communist countries don't have the bloated bureaucracy that feeds off capitalism like we do. In most capitalist countries you have people who make money off money off money off possible money, and so on. I think that drags down our economy more than it could possibly help

[LaurieAG]

Hi A23,

A23 said:

let say duty of communism were for the 'community' to spare the biggest possible amount of money, whereas capitalism were for every individual to try to spare the most independently.

The recent GFC has seen corporate debt being guaranteed by state debt (the community takes the risk not the capitalists) and some have even described the investments in finance companies by the US government (and other governments around the world) as a form of socialism. In that way modern capitalism is being propped up by the community in a similar way to communism.

A23 said:

Would the sum of all the amount in the latter case be more than the one in the first ? (since nobody give all they have in communism)

It is hard to measure.

In a poorer areas (yes the developed world does have poor people as well as rich people) a small act of kindness might be worth more than all the money in the world to the recipient so the benevolence (either public or private) may not be able to be measured on an economic basis in either case.

[A23]

Quote

Capitalism : The idea is to consume yourself into wealth.

You mean that capitalism is the consommation (usage) of human bodies (head and/or body) ?

Or is it :

Capita-lism (per capita lysis) : keeping every individuals separately, in order to have a better control over the population. (Maybe especially after couple or community fight, when some money was stolen from a common amount ?).

The bureaucracy has maybe a bit improved with electronic surveying (cams, telephone calls, cell tracking), while before everything was written on papers about activity of individuals.

[Ludwik]

HydrogenBond, on 07 February 2010 - 07:38 AM, said:

Another way to look at this is, China went from socialism into a blend of socialism and capitalism. The adding of capitalism, appears to responsible for the changes we see. We started with one variable (socialism) and achieved given historical results. We added a second variable, and noticed a major change. This gives us some idea of the influence of the second variable, by comparing it to only the first variable; science inference.

Right now capitalism has a lot of fertile ground that was left unused during pure socialism. For example, in socialism there is little need for a lot of restaurants. But with capitalism increasing disposable money, there is a lot of opportunity to start a restaurant business, with this expanding to the suburbs. When this open ground is used up, and internal China starts to compete for the same land, there might be a capitalist shakedown analogous the internet boom.

When the internet first appeared, there was open fertile ground for many years, with any business finding a niche, because the land was fertile and untapped. When all the land lots began to touch, due to too many squatters looking for opportunity, there was a shake down. This increases resource efficiency.

This may be when China socialism will need to add additional influence, to deal with the social consequences of the internal free market shake down. Countries like the US won't be able to borrow and may need to budget more within their means. China may need to call back some of its loans to pay the costs of the socialism, so as to not further cool the economy with too many internal taxes.

Yes, the blend is helping China now. Will the rulers allow it to continue? I hope so. But this is not certain.


Ludwik
.

[Farming guy]

I think China's primary advantage will also be it's downfall. The average person in China has no say over much of anything, and the Chinese government is not held accountable to it's people. It may be true that America is far from perfect and has not always lived up to it's ideals, but America's greatest streangth has always been the value it has placed on liberty. Such a shame that this generation seems so willing to yeild it's liberty for a false promise of security.