PDA

View Full Version : Forecasting model: The GOP might be headed for a landslide victory in November -



MMC
05-23-2016, 07:23 AM
- if voters care about the economy.....



Yale economist Ray Fair is well known for his election forecasts (https://fairmodel.econ.yale.edu/vote2016/index2.htm), predictions based heavily on economic factors. Here’s what he wrote a year ago about the 2016 presidential race, assuming a sluggish-but-improving US economy: “The current consensus economic view thus implies a fairly large loss for the Democrats.”

Back then, Fair’s election model was forecasting Democrats would lose the White House with just 45.9% of the two-party vote. Fair’s own economic forecast, a more optimistic one than consensus, suggested a narrower Democratic loss with 48.6% of the two-party vote.

Things have not improved over the past year for Democrats. Fair: “The main message has not changed … The economy in terms of the growth rate of GDP is clearly not a plus for the Democrats in 2016. This could, of course, be trumped by other factors.”....snip~

http://www.aei.org/publication/gop-might-be-headed-landslide-if-voters-care-about-economy/



That's Right another Model comes out saying the Repubs could win with a Landslide. Trump says, Yuuuuge!

Subdermal
05-23-2016, 07:28 AM
My gut has been telling me this for over a year. My gut is telling me that Trump carries 40+ States.

Safety
05-23-2016, 07:36 AM
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/C5Pa9YvAqLs/hqdefault.jpg

Mac-7
05-23-2016, 07:36 AM
I think its too soon for bold predictions like this.

hillary has 45% of the vote in her pocket just because shes a democrat.

the best trumpsters can realistically hope for is a horserace with the Donald winning by a nose.

zelmo1234
05-23-2016, 07:42 AM
If Trump wins, it will be a landslide for the GOP.

Not because he will win by that many votes or that many states, but because they will add house seats and one or 2 more in the Senate.

Bernie is likely to caucus with the GOP if that happens giving them an additional seat as well.

Cigar
05-23-2016, 07:47 AM
If Trump wins, it will be a landslide for the GOP.

Not because he will win by that many votes or that many states, but because they will add house seats and one or 2 more in the Senate.

Bernie is likely to caucus with the GOP if that happens giving them an additional seat as well.


:roflmao:

zelmo1234
05-23-2016, 07:48 AM
:roflmao:

And?

nathanbforrest45
05-23-2016, 07:49 AM
Mac-7, because of the fact the president is elected by the Electoral College rather than popular vote Hillary could win 49 percent of the vote and still lose every state.

Subdermal
05-23-2016, 07:53 AM
I think its too soon for bold predictions like this.

The nature of bold predictions is that they're made too soon.


hillary has 45% of the vote in her pocket just because shes a democrat.

the best trumpsters can realistically hope for is a horserace with the Donald winning by a nose.

Four things prompt me to vehemently disagree with you:

1) Bernie supporters clearly go far beyond merely not preferring Hillary. They revile Hillary. I grant leeway that at least 50% of them will abandon their personal animace and return to their (D)nomatterwhat nature. That leaves nearly half of Bernie supporters - and that's half of the Dem voting base. Many of them - let's say 20% - will vote Trump, because they've told us they're voting Trump.

That's not a surprise, because they're voting based upon a rejection of Establishment Elitism. They're irrational and short-sighted having supported Bernie in this effort (as he has plainly stated that a core of his platform is increasing the amount of money this corrupt tool of Government receives, thus further propagating the problem) - but at least they're growing aware of the problem. They see Trump as also anti-Establishment. This is really important to them, along with economic concerns.

This is a MAJOR boost for Trump.

2) Hillary isn't a motivating personality. I have not seen a Dem candidate less capable of making a connection with the voter in my lifetime. She is flat unlikable - and that magnifies the damage of her perception as additionally untrustworthy and corrupt. Her impact on Dem voter turnout will at least double Romney's impact on GOP turnout last time around.

3) The economy is shaky and compartmentalized, and the American public knows it, despite the constant claims from Obama that the opposite is true. Obama is inexorably linked to the dysfunctions of this economy, and Clinton has chosen - when she did not have to - to Siamese her platform and goals with Obama's. That will not sit well with a majority of Americans (probably around 66%).

4) It is tougher for a Democrat to win after 8 years of a Democrat - particularly one who has been as divisive as this one has been.

In closing, I challenge your assertion that 45% already goes to Clinton. Showing up at a polling location is many degrees different than simply e-polling the public.

Mac-7
05-23-2016, 07:57 AM
Mac-7, because of the fact the president is elected by the Electoral College rather than popular vote Hillary could win 49 percent of the vote and still lose every state.

Possible but not very likely.

when the democrat gets that many votes the repub cannot afford to make ANY mistakes.

maineman
05-23-2016, 07:57 AM
ah... I remember it like it was yesterday.... Dick Rove confidently predicting a McCain landslide in 2008. Karl Rove confidently predicting a Romney landslide as late as election night!

good times. good times.

Subdermal
05-23-2016, 07:58 AM
:roflmao:

Another liberal prefers non-participation over challenging their perceptions.

Drug addicts behave exactly in the same manner.

Mac-7
05-23-2016, 07:59 AM
Four things prompt me to vehemently disagree with you:

1) Bernie supporters clearly go far beyond merely not preferring Hillary. They revile Hillary. I grant leeway that at least 50% of them will abandon their personal animace and return to their (D)nomatterwhat nature. That leaves nearly half of Bernie supporters - and that's half of the Dem voting base. Many of them - let's say 20% - will vote Trump, because they've told us they're voting Trump.

That's not a surprise, because they're voting based upon a rejection of Establishment Elitism. They're irrational and short-sighted having supported Bernie in this effort (as he has plainly stated that a core of his platform is increasing the amount of money this corrupt tool of Government receives, thus further propagating the problem) - but at least they're growing aware of the problem. They see Trump as also anti-Establishment. This is really important to them, along with economic concerns.

This is a MAJOR boost for Trump.

2) Hillary isn't a motivating personality. I have not seen a Dem candidate less capable of making a connection with the voter in my lifetime. She is flat unlikable - and that magnifies the damage of her perception as additionally untrustworthy and corrupt. Her impact on Dem voter turnout will at least double Romney's impact on GOP turnout last time around.

3) The economy is shaky and compartmentalized, and the American public knows it, despite the constant claims from Obama that the opposite is true. Obama is inexorably linked to the dysfunctions of this economy, and Clinton has chosen - when she did not have to - to Siamese her platform and goals with Obama's. That will not sit well with a majority of Americans (probably around 66%).

4) It is tougher for a Democrat to win after 8 years of a Democrat - particularly one who has been as divisive as this one has been.

In closing, I challenge your assertion that 45% already goes to Clinton. Showing up at a polling location is many degrees different than simply e-polling the public.

The democrat candidate always gets at leadt 45% even if they lose the election.

Subdermal
05-23-2016, 07:59 AM
ah... I remember it like it was yesterday.... Dick Rove confidently predicting a McCain landslide in 2008. Karl Rove confidently predicting a Romney landslide as late as election night!

good times. good times.

And leftist boobs were saying Mondale was going to beat Reagan easily. Thanks for adding nothing substantive to yet another thread.

Subdermal
05-23-2016, 08:01 AM
The democrat candidate always gets at leadt 45% even if they lose the election.

If the Dems only get 45% this time, they will be in danger of losing all 50 States.

Your first claim was that the Dems were going to start with 45% this time around. Your response did not address this, but instead moved the goal post to avoid a response.

Cigar
05-23-2016, 08:04 AM
And?




Bernie is likely to caucus with the GOP

Really dude ... you're hanging your hopes on that ?

maineman
05-23-2016, 08:07 AM
And leftist boobs were saying Mondale was going to beat Reagan easily. Thanks for adding nothing substantive to yet another thread.

I think you are making that up. I think that polling showed that Reagan was going to trounce Mondale all along and the democratic establishment never thought he had much of a chance.

A thread where a bunch of internet geeks are confidently predicting what the American electorate will do a half a year from now? I imagine you think that all the posts up until mine were full of substance, don't you, Mister Hall Monitor?

Jesus.... if you keep following me around critiquing all my posts, It'll start to get creepy after a while.

zelmo1234
05-23-2016, 08:11 AM
Really dude ... you're hanging your hopes on that ?

Bernie was an independent up until his election run. He is likely to return to that status. and he is pissed.

Subdermal
05-23-2016, 08:28 AM
I think you are making that up. I think that polling showed that Reagan was going to trounce Mondale all along and the democratic establishment never thought he had much of a chance.

Not early on they didn't. (http://www.salon.com/2010/10/24/walter_mondale_interview/) They were crowing that Reagan was 'too extreme' and 'deeply flawed', and a 'one term President'. But no one is surprised that you go with a fabricated version of history that fits your delusions.

Moreover, blabbing about past incorrect predictions has zero bearing on this election cycle, which is why my retort used the same tactic. If you actually want to hang your hat on the credibility of predictions, you'd have abandoned anthropomorphic global warming as a belief system over 15 years ago, as THOSE predictions have been laughably incorrect.

Oh! You don't really hang your hat on past predictions as indicative of future performance?

(We knew your reason for bringing up GOPe predictions was grounded in dishonesty).


A thread where a bunch of internet geeks are confidently predicting what the American electorate will do a half a year from now? I imagine you think that all the posts up until mine were full of substance, don't you, Mister Hall Monitor?

How exactly do you disassociate yourself from this pejorative - calling the forum participants 'geeks' when you are here participating yourself?


Jesus.... if you keep following me around critiquing all my posts, It'll start to get creepy after a while.

:biglaugh:

Hey brainstem: I posted in this thread before you ever got here, and your response attempted - weakly - to rebut my points.

Who is following who again? Derp.

zelmo1234
05-23-2016, 08:28 AM
I don't think that there will be a landslide in this election baring anything catastrophic.

If Hillary were to be indicted just weeks before the election of something like that If Trump wins it will be Florida, and Ohio that does it. I also think that he will get a flyer. MI, PA, CO Something like that. and it will carry a Senator with it

del
05-23-2016, 08:42 AM
If Trump wins, it will be a landslide for the GOP.

Not because he will win by that many votes or that many states, but because they will add house seats and one or 2 more in the Senate.

Bernie is likely to caucus with the GOP if that happens giving them an additional seat as well.

:rofl:

i knew you weren't the brightest bulb in the sign, but i had no idea you were into the opiates

Green Arrow
05-23-2016, 08:43 AM
I highly doubt it will be a landslide for either candidate. The result will likely be in the 2008 (7 points) or 2012 (5 points) margin, with it being a toss-up as to who wins.

MMC
05-23-2016, 08:46 AM
I think its too soon for bold predictions like this.

hillary has 45% of the vote in her pocket just because shes a democrat.

the best trumpsters can realistically hope for is a horserace with the Donald winning by a nose.

Fair’s election model, based on his gloomier economic forecast, now sees Democrats gaining just 45% of the two-party vote. Of course, as Fair hints, non-economic factors such as candidate quality might be particularly important this time around. (It’s also worth pointing out that betting markets (http://predictwise.com/) give Democrats a 69% chance of keeping the White House.)....snip~


She has peaked out then.....and it only gets worse for her going forward.

Oh and, then the betting markets might want to change up their bold predictions too.

suds00
05-23-2016, 10:00 AM
there are data which shows that trump hasn't brought in many,if any,new voters.it could be close.that said i can't vote for either one.

The Sage of Main Street
05-23-2016, 10:07 AM
I think its too soon for bold predictions like this.

hillary has 45% of the vote in her pocket just because shes a democrat.

the best trumpsters can realistically hope for is a horserace with the Donald winning by a nose. If it's going to be a horse race, he should pick Calamity Carly as his running mate.

birddog
05-23-2016, 10:19 AM
If it's going to be a horse race, he should pick Calamity Carly as his running mate.

I would much rather have Joni Ernst. She is a Veteran, great speaker, and pretty. She doesn't have a "horsey face." :grin:

Tahuyaman
05-23-2016, 10:20 AM
My gut has been telling me this for over a year. My gut is telling me that Trump carries 40+ States.


It's possible that we see a Hillary win, but a larger majority for the Republicans in the Senate and more governorships going to Republicans.

Tahuyaman
05-23-2016, 10:23 AM
If Trump wins, it will be a landslide for the GOP.

Not because he will win by that many votes or that many states, but because they will add house seats and one or 2 more in the Senate.

Bernie is likely to caucus with the GOP if that happens giving them an additional seat as well.

Sanders will not caucus with the Republicans.

Subdermal
05-23-2016, 10:23 AM
:rofl:

i knew you weren't the brightest bulb in the sign, but i had no idea you were into the opiates

Instead of being an assh0le, how about you simply disagree and explain your disagreement?

Subdermal
05-23-2016, 10:24 AM
Sanders will not caucus with the Republicans.

^^like that, del. Can you do that?

nathanbforrest45
05-23-2016, 10:26 AM
Possible but not very likely.

when the democrat gets that many votes the repub cannot afford to make ANY mistakes.

I agree, was just pointing out that her percentage is not necessarily indicative of how many states she carries.

Tahuyaman
05-23-2016, 10:28 AM
^^like that, del. Can you do that?


No he can't. He's a nit-wit.

nathanbforrest45
05-23-2016, 10:29 AM
there are data which shows that trump hasn't brought in many,if any,new voters.it could be close.that said i can't vote for either one.


Voting for Chairman Mao then??

Tahuyaman
05-23-2016, 10:33 AM
And leftist boobs were saying Mondale was going to beat Reagan easily. Thanks for adding nothing substantive to yet another thread.

I know it was a long time ago. I was in the Army then, but it was pretty clear to me the that Ronald Reagan was going to be the next president.

Sure, there will always be partisans staying loyal to the party nominee until the very end and denying the inevitable.

maineman
05-23-2016, 12:55 PM
Not early on they didn't. (http://www.salon.com/2010/10/24/walter_mondale_interview/) They were crowing that Reagan was 'too extreme' and 'deeply flawed', and a 'one term President'. But no one is surprised that you go with a fabricated version of history that fits your delusions.

so the link you could find that shows that folks were predicting a Mondale victory in 1984 is an interview with.... with.... Walter Mondale????

that's funny. thanks for that!

Tahuyaman
05-23-2016, 01:31 PM
One thing that's changed over the last month is that right now the GOP is starting to show signs of uniting while the Democrats are splintering. This could change, but......

maineman
05-23-2016, 02:17 PM
the reason the GOP is showing signs of uniting is that their candidate is already totally decided. When ours is, we will too.

Crepitus
05-23-2016, 02:44 PM
I think you GOP guys are overlooking a couple of things:

Yes, Trump is popular with a certain segment of the GOP but certainly not all of it.

There will come a time, should a miracle not happen that gets him the nomination, that Bernie will reconcile with Hillary and encourage his followers to vote for the democratic candidate.

Peter1469
05-23-2016, 02:51 PM
there are data which shows that trump hasn't brought in many,if any,new voters.it could be close.that said i can't vote for either one.

The 20% of Sanders' voters who said they would vote Trump are traditional GOP voters?

Cigar
05-23-2016, 02:53 PM
Keep Hope Alive

Subdermal
05-23-2016, 03:00 PM
so the link you could find that shows that folks were predicting a Mondale victory in 1984 is an interview with.... with.... Walter Mondale????

that's funny. thanks for that!

If reading comprehension is your trouble, I doubt posting what you should have read at the link will help, but I'll give it a try.

Reagan’s approval rating fell below 40 percent, and pundits began dismissing him as a one-termer.
It was in this environment that Mondale, who had served as Carter’s vice president, decided to run for president in 1984, and polls at the end of ’82 showed him leading Reagan by nearly 10 points. Of course, that’s not how the race ended up two years later, when Mondale lost 49 states to Reagan. But his experience is worth keeping in mind now, with Republicans confidently predicting an end to the Obama presidency in 2012.

Subdermal
05-23-2016, 03:04 PM
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/more-cautionary-poll-tales/

nic34
05-23-2016, 03:04 PM
^^like that, del. Can you do that?

Nah, why would he?

That was a boring "DUH" post that no one would notice.

The Xl
05-23-2016, 03:06 PM
Hillary Clinton isn't nearly as likeable or charismatic as Obama in 12, and Trump isn't soft and uncharismatic like Romney. I don't think Hillary will do well in the debates.

Ransom
05-23-2016, 03:35 PM
Hillary Clinton isn't nearly as likeable or charismatic as Obama in 12, and Trump isn't soft and uncharismatic like Romney. I don't think Hillary will do well in the debates.

Did you swoon and get light headed when he read his teleprompter?

Obama had no charisma, and that's why he used a teleprompter.

maineman
05-23-2016, 04:21 PM
If reading comprehension is your trouble, I doubt posting what you should have read at the link will help, but I'll give it a try.

Reagan’s approval rating fell below 40 percent, and pundits began dismissing him as a one-termer.
It was in this environment that Mondale, who had served as Carter’s vice president, decided to run for president in 1984, and polls at the end of ’82 showed him leading Reagan by nearly 10 points. Of course, that’s not how the race ended up two years later, when Mondale lost 49 states to Reagan. But his experience is worth keeping in mind now, with Republicans confidently predicting an end to the Obama presidency in 2012.

so you are saying that Mondale, being up in a poll two years before the election is proof, somehow, that democrats were predicting his victory? You think that is equivalent, somehow, to Rove predicting a Romney victory ON ELECTION NIGHT????? Really????

Subdermal
05-23-2016, 05:30 PM
so you are saying that Mondale, being up in a poll two years before the election is proof, somehow, that democrats were predicting his victory? You think that is equivalent, somehow, to Rove predicting a Romney victory ON ELECTION NIGHT????? Really????

No. They are not equivalent.

Neither one matters - and that is the only thing that they have in common.

suds00
05-23-2016, 06:44 PM
i've read pols suggesting a democratic win by a healthy margin.anyway i think trump will lose steam as more people start paying attention to his plans.

Mark III
05-23-2016, 07:19 PM
The only way Trump could win in a landslide is if a lot of blacks and hispanics vote for him and that is simply not going to happen.

Clinton, on the other hand, could have an easy win.

As for models, there are models that haven't been wrong in 40 years predicting Clinton and there are models that haven't been wrong in 40 years predicting Trump. Someone's streak is going to end.

maineman
05-23-2016, 07:50 PM
No. They are not equivalent.

Neither one matters - and that is the only thing that they have in common.

so you think that forecasting models and polls don't matter. Is that why you have posted a dozen times out of 47 posts in this thread about just that?

Dr. Who
05-23-2016, 08:10 PM
Voting for Chairman Mao then??
That would be difficult since he's been dead since 1976 or are you referring to Bernie Sanders, who isn't a communist?

Dr. Who
05-23-2016, 08:21 PM
Did you swoon and get light headed when he read his teleprompter?

Obama had no charisma, and that's why he used a teleprompter.
He was much more likeable than Hillary and he was charismatic during both elections. You just didn't like him. You don't have to like a politician to admit that they have charisma. No matter how vile Bill Clinton is, he also had/has charisma as did Ronald Reagan and Dwight Eisenhower. The most charismatic of all was John Kennedy. http://www.rankopedia.com/Most-charismatic-US-President/Step1/3804/.htm

Tahuyaman
05-23-2016, 09:44 PM
That would be difficult since he's been dead since 1976 or are you referring to Bernie Sanders, who isn't a communist?


I'd be interested in hearing Bernie Sanders thoughts on the merits or lack thereof of communism.

Dr. Who
05-23-2016, 09:51 PM
I'd be interested in hearing Bernie Sanders thoughts on the merits or lack thereof of communism.
Perhaps like me, he might suggest that if humanity overcomes the hurdle of scarcity, that capitalism will no longer make any sense at all.

Tahuyaman
05-23-2016, 09:59 PM
Perhaps like me, he might suggest that if humanity overcomes the hurdle of scarcity, that capitalism will no longer make any sense at all.

Yes, it does appear that Mr Sanders does not respect the concept of capitalism.

Dr. Who
05-23-2016, 10:11 PM
Yes, it does appear that Mr Sanders does not respect the concept of capitalism.
Don't worry, it doesn't make us evil people. Call us futurists. Some day we will either as a society collapse into a new dark ages, or move forward to a world where money doesn't matter. I'm rooting for the latter. Money really is the root of all evil and a kind of economic prison trapping people into endeavours that make money, but don't necessarily make them happy. It's kind of sad that you may have to live your entire adult life working in a field that makes you miserable and only get to do what you want when you retire.

Tahuyaman
05-23-2016, 10:25 PM
Don't worry, it doesn't make us evil people. Call us futurists. Some day we will either as a society collapse into a new dark ages, or move forward to a world where money doesn't matter. I'm rooting for the latter. Money really is the root of all evil and a kind of economic prison trapping people into endeavours that make money, but don't necessarily make them happy. It's kind of sad that you may have to live your entire adult life working in a field that makes you miserable and only get to do what you want when you retire.

who said that I spent my entire adult life working in a field that made me miserable?

A perfect world where where everyone lives in peace and money doesn't matter will never happen. Idealism must be tempered with realism.

maineman
05-23-2016, 10:42 PM
who said that I spent my entire adult life working in a field that made me miserable?


Well, I think you're one of the most miserable excuses for a human being that I have ever known. SOMETHING made you that way!

Dr. Who
05-23-2016, 10:45 PM
who said that I spent my entire adult life working in a field that made me miserable?

A perfect world where where everyone lives in peace and money doesn't matter will never happen. Idealism must be tempered with realism.I meant "you" in the sense of people in general. Of course some people are doing or have done exactly what they wanted. However the vast majority have not. Think of all of the people working drudge jobs. There is no way that the majority of those people are happy doing those jobs, but they do what they must to survive.

Tahuyaman
05-23-2016, 10:46 PM
Well, I think you're one of the most miserable excuses for a human being that I have ever known. SOMETHING made you that way!


Bless your heart.

Tahuyaman
05-23-2016, 10:48 PM
I meant "you" in the sense of people in general. Of course some people are doing or have done exactly what they wanted. However the vast majority have not. Think of all of the people working drudge jobs. There is no way that the majority of those people are happy doing those jobs, but they do what they must to survive.

The only people I know who dislike their job or profession are my friends who work for the federal government.

Subdermal
05-23-2016, 11:09 PM
Perhaps like me, he might suggest that if humanity overcomes the hurdle of scarcity, that capitalism will no longer make any sense at all.

:facepalm:

Dr. Who
05-23-2016, 11:26 PM
:facepalm:
An icon is not actually a response - just an emotion. If there were no scarcity whatsoever, as in Star Trek, where everything could be made from the manipulation of energy - what purpose would there be in capitalism?

Tahuyaman
05-23-2016, 11:42 PM
Star Trek? Really?

Ransom
05-24-2016, 06:24 AM
As in the primaries and mid-term elections, turnout is everything. Trump will need the base and middle, Hillary will need her base and Bernie's as well.

Ground game is everything and I believe Hillary has the advantage and the most incompetent ill informed voters.

It truly will be beauty versus beast albeit the first beast I've ever seen in a pants suit.

MMC
05-24-2016, 06:40 AM
As in the primaries and mid-term elections, turnout is everything. Trump will need the base and middle, Hillary will need her base and Bernie's as well.

Ground game is everything and I believe Hillary has the advantage and the most incompetent ill informed voters.

It truly will be beauty versus beast albeit the first beast I've ever seen in a pants suit.

She has the ground game campaign wise.....But, the repubs have been running grassroots since 2010. Despite losing the presidency in 2012. They still kept the grassroots going and won Historically with States. The House and the Senate, as well as governorships. Which then again in 2014 Repubs won. all due to keeping grassroots up and running.

Bringing huge voter turn out all thru the primaries. Even Nate Silver of 538 says this elections primaries voter turn out will play a part in the general. As the Repubs were up 2/3rds and the Demos down over 1/3rd and nearly 50%. That's a lot of ground to make up. Even for a rigged system and Hillary.

Subdermal
05-24-2016, 07:52 AM
An icon is not actually a response - just an emotion. If there were no scarcity whatsoever, as in Star Trek, where everything could be made from the manipulation of energy - what purpose would there be in capitalism?

Yes, Who.

And if there were no gravity, I wouldn't need shoes.

:facepalm:

maineman
05-24-2016, 07:57 AM
luddites. they're still a force to be reckoned with!

Subdermal
05-24-2016, 08:16 AM
luddites. they're still a force to be reckoned with!

That's not called for. Just because Who bases an entire socio-economic policy on the fantasy of producing products with a Star Trek device does not give you reason to include her in your pejorative declarations.

maineman
05-24-2016, 08:19 AM
That's not called for. Just because Who bases an entire socio-economic policy on the fantasy of producing products with a Star Trek device does not give you reason to include her in your pejorative declarations.

says someone who clearly doesn't know what a luddite really is.

stay classy!

MMC
05-24-2016, 08:47 AM
An icon is not actually a response - just an emotion. If there were no scarcity whatsoever, as in Star Trek, where everything could be made from the manipulation of energy - what purpose would there be in capitalism?


:tongue:


The homeworld of the Ferengi species is Ferenginar. The Ferengi have a culture which is based entirely upon commerce. They follow a code of conduct known as "The Ferengi Rules of Acquisition." These rules ordain conduct such as "Never place family before business."

Reportedly these rules are subject to interpretation depending upon the situation. Plea bargaining is a legal tradition, as is the purchasing of an apprenticeship following the Attainment Ceremony. There is no distinction between business and pleasure in Ferengi culture.

Money is expected to accompany every interchange of life, even private visits to family and friends' homes and government business. A typical home-welcoming greeting exchange between host and visitor is: "My house is my house/as are its contents." - See more at: http://www.startrek.com/database_article/ferengi#sthash.twpI6SCP.dpuf

http://withfriendship.com/images/j/45512/the-ferengi-rules-of.jpg

Subdermal
05-24-2016, 08:49 AM
Dang it, MMC. Stop poking holes in Who's airtight economic philosophy.

:biglaugh:

Green Arrow
05-24-2016, 09:07 AM
That's not called for. Just because Who bases an entire socio-economic policy on the fantasy of producing products with a Star Trek device does not give you reason to include her in your pejorative declarations.

Fantasy?

The imagination you deride as fantasy has allowed humanity to innovate and create some of the most amazing devices we've ever seen. Smartphones, computers, cars, planes, electricity, all were someone's "fantasy" that they decided to try and make a reality.

OGIS
05-24-2016, 10:10 AM
I think its too soon for bold predictions like this.

hillary has 45% of the vote in her pocket just because shes a democrat.

the best trumpsters can realistically hope for is a horserace with the Donald winning by a nose.

You are just wrong here. That 45% figure includes "leaners," and Hillary is probably not going to get them. Hillary will get the Democrat core (those who would vote Dem if Hannibal Lector was running) vote.


"The latter result is more in line with Gallup polling in 2010 that found that 31% of Americans identified as Democrats (tying a 22-year low), 29% as Republicans, and 38% as independents.[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_U.S._states#cite_note-5) Nevertheless, more American independents leaned to the Republican Party when compared to the Democratic Party. Combining leaners with each party's core identifiers, the parties ended up tied at 45 percent in 2011.[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_U.S._states#cite_note-6)"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_U.S._states


In U.S., New Record 43% Are Political IndependentsPRINCETON, N.J. -- An average 43% of Americans identified politically as independents in 2014, establishing a new high in Gallup telephone poll trends back to 1988. In terms of national identification with the two major parties, Democrats continued to hold a modest edge over Republicans, 30% to 26%.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/180440/new-record-political-independents.aspx

The "cores" of both parties have always hovered around the 30% mark. Trump is siphoning off huge numbers of independents as well as some Democrats.

MisterVeritis
05-24-2016, 10:12 AM
Perhaps like me, he might suggest that if humanity overcomes the hurdle of scarcity, that capitalism will no longer make any sense at all.
Really? So if there is plenty you will no longer want to make any of your own choices?

MisterVeritis
05-24-2016, 10:16 AM
Don't worry, it doesn't make us evil people. Call us futurists. Some day we will either as a society collapse into a new dark ages, or move forward to a world where money doesn't matter. I'm rooting for the latter. Money really is the root of all evil and a kind of economic prison trapping people into endeavours that make money, but don't necessarily make them happy. It's kind of sad that you may have to live your entire adult life working in a field that makes you miserable and only get to do what you want when you retire.
No. Money is not the root of all evil. Where did you get such a goofy idea?

As a separate issue, what makes you think you should be happy?

MisterVeritis
05-24-2016, 10:19 AM
An icon is not actually a response - just an emotion. If there were no scarcity whatsoever, as in Star Trek, where everything could be made from the manipulation of energy - what purpose would there be in capitalism?
I just shake my head.

Do you believe Capitalism's purpose is to give you stuff? At its core capitalism is about you making decisions that benefit you while I make decisions that will benefit me. In your utopia who will decide what will be provided?

Ransom
05-24-2016, 10:52 AM
ah... I remember it like it was yesterday.... Dick Rove confidently predicting a McCain landslide in 2008. Karl Rove confidently predicting a Romney landslide as late as election night!

good times. good times.

Who is Dick Rove?

Ransom
05-24-2016, 10:55 AM
I think you GOP guys are overlooking a couple of things:

Yes, Trump is popular with a certain segment of the GOP but certainly not all of it.

There will come a time, should a miracle not happen that gets him the nomination, that Bernie will reconcile with Hillary and encourage his followers to vote for the democratic candidate.

No one overlooks this. It's obvious Trump's appeal isn't across the entire party structure. It's also obvious Trump will line up in your crosshairs, the Dems will unite behind Hillary. They're not about substance, they're all about style. Dems don't make stands as they stand for nothing. Your strat will be to demonize Trump meanwhile claiming you're running a positive campaign.

This isn't that difficult, no one is overlooking anything. You get that...right?

maineman
05-24-2016, 10:58 AM
Who is Dick Rove?Karl's evil twin, of course.

(and the alter ego of Dick Morris)

Crepitus
05-24-2016, 11:07 AM
No one overlooks this. It's obvious Trump's appeal isn't across the entire party structure. It's also obvious Trump will line up in your crosshairs, the Dems will unite behind Hillary. They're not about substance, they're all about style. Dems don't make stands as they stand for nothing. Your strat will be to demonize Trump meanwhile claiming you're running a positive campaign.

This isn't that difficult, no one is overlooking anything. You get that...right?

Sure sure, whatever you say.

Mac-7
05-24-2016, 11:08 AM
You are just wrong here. That 45% figure includes "leaners," and Hillary is probably not going to get them. Hillary will get the Democrat core (those who would vote Dem if Hannibal Lector was running) vote.





The "cores" of both parties have always hovered around the 30% mark. Trump is siphoning off huge numbers of independents as well as some Democrats.

No matter how you stir the tea leaves it will be a close election that could go either way.

Dr. Who
05-24-2016, 05:56 PM
That's not called for. Just because Who bases an entire socio-economic policy on the fantasy of producing products with a Star Trek device does not give you reason to include her in your pejorative declarations.
We have a habit of making science fiction become science fact. The science behind the fiction is not far-fetched when you consider that all matter is just energy, comprised of a collection of electrons, protons, neutrons and quarks. Figure out the correct distribution, rotational speed etc and you could create anything that you want, literally out of thin air.

People once thought flight was an impossible fantasy as well.

Dr. Who
05-24-2016, 06:30 PM
I just shake my head.

Do you believe Capitalism's purpose is to give you stuff? At its core capitalism is about you making decisions that benefit you while I make decisions that will benefit me. In your utopia who will decide what will be provided?
Let's put it this way, if we could make anything we want by simply manipulating energy, then goods would essentially have no cost - we would just create what we want, when we want it. There would be no distribution of goods - just machines that make things and even the replicators could be replicated.

In such a world, government would be fairly limited to dealing with the allocation of the only thing that would still be scarce - land, as well as urban planning, policing human interactions, providing rapid transit, education, science and dwelling on the future of mankind. Countries may even cease to exist. Money would be meaningless in such a world. The only reason for a military in such a world would be if there were bad guys in the universe. People would do whatever they want to fill their time, whether they decide to garden or become research scientists. There would be no pay, just personal interest and possibly recognition for doing something that others appreciate. It would be a completely different paradigm.

Dr. Who
05-24-2016, 06:34 PM
Dang it, MMC. Stop poking holes in Who's airtight economic philosophy.

:biglaugh:
The Ferengi clearly don't have replicators or else gold pressed latinum would have no value. They are in the Star Trek series, a more primitive species.

Mark III
05-24-2016, 06:38 PM
Let's put it this way, if we could make anything we want by simply manipulating energy, then goods would essentially have no cost - we would just create what we want, when we want it. There would be no distribution of goods - just machines that make things and even the replicators could be replicated.

In such a world, government would be fairly limited to dealing with the allocation of the only thing that would still be scarce - land, as well as urban planning, policing human interactions, providing rapid transit, education, science and dwelling on the future of mankind. Countries may even cease to exist. Money would be meaningless in such a world. The only reason for a military in such a world would be if there were bad guys in the universe. People would do whatever they want to fill their time, whether they decide to garden or become research scientists. There would be no pay, just personal interest and possibly recognition for doing something that others appreciate. It would be a completely different paradigm.

Nice utopia, but that is not human nature. I think it is far more like that the future will be dystopian than that it will be utopian.

Dr. Who
05-24-2016, 06:43 PM
No. Money is not the root of all evil. Where did you get such a goofy idea?

As a separate issue, what makes you think you should be happy?
1) 1 Timothy 6:10

2)What makes you think that you shouldn't be happy?

Dr. Who
05-24-2016, 06:44 PM
Nice utopia, but that is not human nature. I think it is far more like that the future will be dystopian than that it will be utopian.
Do you think that humans cannot be happy unless some have more than others?

OGIS
05-24-2016, 07:02 PM
No matter how you stir the tea leaves it will be a close election that could go either way.

No stirring is involved. The historic percentages are cold hard fact.

OGIS
05-24-2016, 07:11 PM
Let's put it this way, if we could make anything we want by simply manipulating energy, then goods would essentially have no cost - we would just create what we want, when we want it. There would be no distribution of goods - just machines that make things and even the replicators could be replicated.

In such a world, government would be fairly limited to dealing with the allocation of the only thing that would still be scarce - land, as well as urban planning, policing human interactions, providing rapid transit, education, science and dwelling on the future of mankind. Countries may even cease to exist. Money would be meaningless in such a world. The only reason for a military in such a world would be if there were bad guys in the universe. People would do whatever they want to fill their time, whether they decide to garden or become research scientists. There would be no pay, just personal interest and possibly recognition for doing something that others appreciate. It would be a completely different paradigm.

I read a short story once that encapsulated some of my concerns over the idea. Seems some aliens were worried that we might get space travel and challenged their dominance. So they gave us the "gift" of several hundred "cornucopia machines." These would replicate any NON-LIVING matter. Put in a dollar bill, or ammo, or a gun, or a nuclear bomb, or food at one end and get two of them at the other end minutes later. Yaaay, scarcity is a thing of the past. Well, not quite. Living things, specifically human beings, are scarce. Civilization crashes and thousands of local warlords make constant war (with replicated ammo and weapons) and enslave other humans, as owning humans is the only remaining status symbol. End threat to the aliens. And THEY didn't fire a shot.

Subdermal
05-24-2016, 07:13 PM
We have a habit of making science fiction become science fact. The science behind the fiction is not far-fetched when you consider that all matter is just energy, comprised of a collection of electrons, protons, neutrons and quarks. Figure out the correct distribution, rotational speed etc and you could create anything that you want, literally out of thin air.

People once thought flight was an impossible fantasy as well.

:facepalm:

I'll continue to humor the ridiculousness of this, so I'll ask: at what point is the discussion of mothballing Capitalism worth having?

Dr. Who
05-24-2016, 07:40 PM
I read a short story once that encapsulated some of my concerns over the idea. Seems some aliens were worried that we might get space travel and challenged their dominance. So they gave us the "gift" of several hundred "cornucopia machines." These would replicate any NON-LIVING matter. Put in a dollar bill, or ammo, or a gun, or a nuclear bomb, or food at one end and get two of them at the other end minutes later. Yaaay, scarcity is a thing of the past. Well, not quite. Living things, specifically human beings, are scarce. Civilization crashes and thousands of local warlords make constant war (with replicated ammo and weapons) and enslave other humans, as owning humans is the only remaining status symbol. End threat to the aliens. And THEY didn't fire a shot.
That is a very dystopic story. It seems to me that we can find a different currency and not one that involves the subjugation of other human beings. I believe that we are raised to be capitalistic, but it's not our natural state of being. Scarcity and ego drives capitalism. There are other ways to satisfy ego - public recognition.

Mister D
05-24-2016, 07:49 PM
Well, there's our solution to the problem of evil. Evil is caused by money. lol

Green Arrow
05-24-2016, 07:52 PM
Nice utopia, but that is not human nature. I think it is far more like that the future will be dystopian than that it will be utopian.

I think people have a tendency to project their bad thoughts and actions onto others as a way of justifying their own.

Green Arrow
05-24-2016, 07:53 PM
1) 1 Timothy 6:10

2)What makes you think that you shouldn't be happy?

While I don't disagree with your point, the verse in question refers to the LOVE OF money as the root of all evil, not money itself.

Mister D
05-24-2016, 07:55 PM
While I don't disagree with your point, the verse in question refers to the LOVE OF money as the root of all evil, not money itself.

It doesn't say that either though. It says that the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil meaning idolatry, particularly in this form, is some bad shit pardon my French.

Mister D
05-24-2016, 07:56 PM
That is a very dystopic story. It seems to me that we can find a different currency and not one that involves the subjugation of other human beings. I believe that we are raised to be capitalistic, but it's not our natural state of being. Scarcity and ego drives capitalism. There are other ways to satisfy ego - public recognition.

Neither is the radical individualism you embrace.

Dr. Who
05-24-2016, 07:57 PM
:facepalm:

I'll continue to humor the ridiculousness of this, so I'll ask: at what point is the discussion of mothballing Capitalism worth having?
One can speculate on the direction of humanity. In fact, that is what science fiction does and ironically that speculation plants the seeds of belief and often discovery in the minds of scientists. We can do whatever we believe that we can do. You mock Star Trek, but it really planted the idea of the cell phone in the minds of kids who were inspired to go into science and engineering. The idea of the replicator has resulted in the 3-D printer. The idea of nanotechnology comes from science fiction as does the concept of robotics. The idea of going to the stars stems from science fiction. Ideas are very powerful. The idea of a world no longer dominated by greed and money is one worth having.

Green Arrow
05-24-2016, 07:58 PM
It doesn't say that either though. It says that the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil meaning idolatry, particularly in this form, is some bad shit pardon my French.

That seems like a distinction without a difference, maybe I'm just not seeing it. It's been a rather long day and I'm slipping under the influence of my insomnia medication.

Mister D
05-24-2016, 07:59 PM
Both the liberal left and right tends to think of capitalism as an economic phenomenon rather than as a culture and one they have all embraced wholeheartedly.

Mister D
05-24-2016, 08:02 PM
That seems like a distinction without a difference, maybe I'm just not seeing it. It's been a rather long day and I'm slipping under the influence of my insomnia medication.

Take the two statements:

Money is the root of all evil

Money is the root of all kinds of evil

What's the difference? The former claims that the love of money is the source of moral evil. The latter claims that the love of money is a source of moral evil. The latter is obviously right. The former is obviously absurd.

Green Arrow
05-24-2016, 08:11 PM
Take the two statements:

Money is the root of all evil

Money is the root of all kinds of evil

What's the difference? The former claims that the love of money is the source of moral evil. The latter claims that the love of money is a source of moral evil. The latter is obviously right. The former is obviously absurd.

I see what you're getting at. That's fair.

Dr. Who
05-24-2016, 08:14 PM
While I don't disagree with your point, the verse in question refers to the LOVE OF money as the root of all evil, not money itself.
Well I don't disagree with that, however, the love of money seems to drive our capitalistic world. People can't seem to get enough of it. They worship it often above all other things. We are encouraged to spend it on all manner of goods that we don't actually need, but we think we need and if we are not doing that, we are hoarding it, because if we don't, we will starve in our old age.

For some, there is never enough even if they couldn't spend it all in 20 lifetimes. For others, it is a reason to hurt, maim or murder.

We have even turned the lack of it into the underpinnings of our currency. An entire world operating on IOUs. People are now born and literally die in debt. Not personal debt, but sovereign debt.

Looking at it rationally, capitalism is insane.

Mister D
05-24-2016, 08:17 PM
I see what you're getting at. That's fair.

I mentioned it because it's an oft repeated citation. Scripture gives an overall negative impression of money and commerce but it's not nearly as absolute as some people, who for obviously tendentious reasonsplace particular emphasis on it, would have you believe.

Subdermal
05-24-2016, 08:19 PM
One can speculate on the direction of humanity. In fact, that is what science fiction does and ironically that speculation plants the seeds of belief and often discovery in the minds of scientists. We can do whatever we believe that we can do. You mock Star Trek, but it really planted the idea of the cell phone in the minds of kids who were inspired to go into science and engineering. The idea of the replicator has resulted in the 3-D printer. The idea of nanotechnology comes from science fiction as does the concept of robotics. The idea of going to the stars stems from science fiction. Ideas are very powerful. The idea of a world no longer dominated by greed and money is one worth having.

That wasn't an answer to my question. You began this silly sidebar by rationalizing that a ridiculous position offered by a poster (or article, I don't remember which now) may be defensible by mothballing capitalism due to a fictional notion of infinite supply.

Mister D
05-24-2016, 08:19 PM
And it's not money but ourselves that we can't seem to get enough of. And, yes, that is insane.

Subdermal
05-24-2016, 08:20 PM
Well I don't disagree with that, however, the love of money seems to drive our capitalistic world. People can't seem to get enough of it. They worship it often above all other things. We are encouraged to spend it on all manner of goods that we don't actually need, but we think we need and if we are not doing that, we are hoarding it, because if we don't, we will starve in our old age.

For some, there is never enough even if they couldn't spend it all in 20 lifetimes. For others, it is a reason to hurt, maim or murder.

We have even turned the lack of it into the underpinnings of our currency. An entire world operating on IOUs. People are now born and literally die in debt. Not personal debt, but sovereign debt.

Looking at it rationally, capitalism is insane.

:facepalm:

You think there is no debt in Communism or Socialism? Your screed is - again - ridiculous.

Dr. Who
05-24-2016, 08:58 PM
:facepalm:

You think there is no debt in Communism or Socialism? Your screed is - again - ridiculous.
You might make an effort not to make these discussions personal. Clearly there would be a distinct difference between the application of socialistic philosophy in a world without scarcity as opposed to one with scarcity. I'm sorry that you cannot see the difference.

Dr. Who
05-24-2016, 09:01 PM
And it's not money but ourselves that we can't seem to get enough of. And, yes, that is insane.
If we teach people that money is the most important thing, then we are what we are taught, are we not?

Mister D
05-24-2016, 09:09 PM
If we teach people that money is the most important thing, then we are what we are taught, are we not?

We teach individuals that they're the most important things that have ever existed. Haven't we just had 20 plus threads about a a tiny handful of freaks upset that they can't use the bathroom of their choice? These were passionate threads! lol The love of money and, more importantly, the reduction of everything into economic or monetary terms is a huge problem. It's also one we are all complicit in. Materialism, consumerism, radical individualism and self-absorption are all related. We can't condemn "capitalism" when we accept all of its fundamental assumptions about human beings.

MMC
05-24-2016, 09:29 PM
We teach individuals that they're the most important things that have ever existed. Haven't we just had 20 plus threads about a a tiny handful of freaks upset that they can't use the bathroom of their choice? These were passionate threads! lol The love of money and, more importantly, the reduction of everything into economic or monetary terms is a huge problem. It's also one we are all complicit in. Materialism, consumerism, radical individualism and self-absorption are all related. We can't condemn "capitalism" when we accept all of its fundamental assumptions about human beings.

http://content.sweetim.com/sim/cpie/emoticons/00020401.gif


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8lhnrCDU4Q

Mister D
05-24-2016, 09:33 PM
People object to the rule of money but steadfastly refuse to acknowledge any collective guilt.

MMC
05-24-2016, 09:41 PM
People object to the rule of money but steadfastly refuse to acknowledge any collective guilt.

I'm willing to refuse some of that collective guilt, along with more of what causes it. Just sayin. :laugh:

http://mrwgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Leonardo-DiCaprio-Toast-Fireworks-Gif.gif

Dr. Who
05-24-2016, 09:43 PM
We teach individuals that they're the most important things that have ever existed. Haven't we just had 20 plus threads about a a tiny handful of freaks upset that they can't use the bathroom of their choice? These were passionate threads! lol The love of money and, more importantly, the reduction of everything into economic or monetary terms is a huge problem. It's also one we are all complicit in. Materialism, consumerism, radical individualism and self-absorption are all related. We can't condemn "capitalism" when we accept all of its fundamental assumptions about human beings.
While I agree to an extent, we also provide ramps for the disabled and special stalls and washroom facilities, for the disabled, so the extension of this is to also eliminate other barriers that make life difficult for other people who have also been physically compromised. Being judgmental is also a human failing. The minority of people being accommodated in a circumstance, where but for legislation, they were able to use the bathrooms of their choice is what makes it noteworthy. Whereas the Money = God equation is implicit in our world. There is no person in any society that is not affected by this paradigm, unless they are living in the middle of nowhere and out of touch with the world in general and their number is incredibly few. Whether money is the chicken or the egg is debatable.

MisterVeritis
05-24-2016, 10:46 PM
Let's put it this way, if we could make anything we want by simply manipulating energy, then goods would essentially have no cost - we would just create what we want, when we want it. There would be no distribution of goods - just machines that make things and even the replicators could be replicated.
In your utopia who creates the replicator designs? Do they create themselves?


In such a world, government would be fairly limited to dealing with the allocation of the only thing that would still be scarce - land, as well as urban planning, policing human interactions, providing rapid transit, education, science and dwelling on the future of mankind. Countries may even cease to exist. Money would be meaningless in such a world. The only reason for a military in such a world would be if there were bad guys in the universe. People would do whatever they want to fill their time, whether they decide to garden or become research scientists. There would be no pay, just personal interest and possibly recognition for doing something that others appreciate. It would be a completely different paradigm.
I am not surprised that human nature is outside the realm of your soft and squishy thinking.

MisterVeritis
05-24-2016, 10:53 PM
1) 1 Timothy 6:10
Let's assume, for the moment, that the Christian Bible is authoritative. What happens when you quote it with precision?

"


Parallel Verses
New International Version (http://biblehub.com/niv/1_timothy/6.htm)
For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. "





This makes you seem to be, well, foolish. It is not money that is the root of all evil. It is the love of money which, a more precise person would recognize is a completely different thing.

Tighten up, friend. You are very sloppy.

2)What makes you think that you shouldn't be happy?
Why do you dodge my simple question? What makes you think you should be happy? You are the one who raised happiness. I don't really care one way or the other. Life can be a happy series of incidents or it can be something else.?

MisterVeritis
05-24-2016, 10:55 PM
Do you think that humans cannot be happy unless some have more than others?
What an odd statement.

Dr. Who
05-24-2016, 10:56 PM
In your utopia who creates the replicator designs? Do they create themselves?


I am not surprised that human nature is outside the realm of your soft and squishy thinking.

Once the first one is created by scientists, everything changes. At that point they will know how to figure out how to replicate anything. It is then just a matter of programming the machine. Some scientist will release the information to the world, because otherwise whomever developed it would be assassinated and the research stuck in a vault.

MisterVeritis
05-24-2016, 10:58 PM
That is a very dystopic story. It seems to me that we can find a different currency and not one that involves the subjugation of other human beings. I believe that we are raised to be capitalistic, but it's not our natural state of being. Scarcity and ego drives capitalism. There are other ways to satisfy ego - public recognition.
How can one person remain so wrong? Capitalism is all about you making choices that benefit you while I make choices that benefit me. There will always be scarcity. Explain your ego comment.

MisterVeritis
05-24-2016, 10:59 PM
While I don't disagree with your point, the verse in question refers to the LOVE OF money as the root of all evil, not money itself.
You completely disagree with Who's invalid point.

MisterVeritis
05-24-2016, 11:01 PM
Take the two statements:

Money is the root of all evil

Money is the root of all kinds of evil

What's the difference? The former claims that the love of money is the source of moral evil. The latter claims that the love of money is a source of moral evil. The latter is obviously right. The former is obviously absurd.
And neither one is a correct statement as claimed by Dr. Who.

Sloppy. Damned sloppy.

MisterVeritis
05-24-2016, 11:02 PM
Looking at it rationally, capitalism is insane.
Why do you believe you are looking at capitalism rationally? You have no clue.

It is sad, really.

MisterVeritis
05-24-2016, 11:04 PM
You might make an effort not to make these discussions personal. Clearly there would be a distinct difference between the application of socialistic philosophy in a world without scarcity as opposed to one with scarcity. I'm sorry that you cannot see the difference.
It always comes back to Marxism's false promises, doesn't it?

MisterVeritis
05-24-2016, 11:06 PM
Once the first one is created by scientists, everything changes. At that point they will know how to figure out how to replicate anything. It is then just a matter of programming the machine. Some scientist will release the information to the world, because otherwise whomever developed it would be assassinated and the research stuck in a vault.
And your utopian dream quietly falls apart...

You assume so much. And so much of what you assume is simply wrong.

Subdermal
05-24-2016, 11:08 PM
You might make an effort not to make these discussions personal. Clearly there would be a distinct difference between the application of socialistic philosophy in a world without scarcity as opposed to one with scarcity. I'm sorry that you cannot see the difference.

I said your screed is ridiculous. Making it personal would have required me saying that YOU are ridiculous.

Regardless.

Your attack on capitalism was not delivered in the context of a world without scarcity. You called capitalism 'insane' when 'looked at rationally' - but your posts are anything but.

To protect your love of socialism, you moved the goal posts and then had the temerity to make it personal by claiming that I cannot see something.

Dr. Who
05-24-2016, 11:17 PM
Let's assume, for the moment, that the Christian Bible is authoritative. What happens when you quote it with precision?

"


Parallel Verses
New International Version (http://biblehub.com/niv/1_timothy/6.htm)
For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. "



This makes you seem to be, well, foolish. It is not money that is the root of all evil. It is the love of money which, a more precise person would recognize is a completely different thing.

Tighten up, friend. You are very sloppy.

Why do you dodge my simple question? What makes you think you should be happy? You are the one who raised happiness. I don't really care one way or the other. Life can be a happy series of incidents or it can be something else.?
I think that you will find that I didn't raise the notion of happiness, only the notion that many people work at jobs where they are miserable. You raised the notion of happiness. There is some distance between happiness and misery.

Dr. Who
05-24-2016, 11:35 PM
It always comes back to Marxism's false promises, doesn't it?
Were I a fan of Marx, that comment would make sense, but Marx does not own the concept of socialism. His was but one theory and not the first. People are just obsessed with Marxism. Communism as a pejorative of socialism as applied in the USSR, the Baltics and Korea in particular, are the AHA vs single payer healthcare, an abomination and a corruption of the theory. Pure socialism cannot exist within a capitalistic matrix. It will become corrupted by definition as long as it needs to trade with a capitalistic world. It ends up at a disadvantage because it must maintain currency and must compete capitalistically in order to maintain currency which therefore requires producing more than the society actually needs. You cannot live in two worlds successfully, especially when one world is all about excess and the other is about meeting needs. It was an experiment that was tried too soon.

Dr. Who
05-24-2016, 11:50 PM
I said your screed is ridiculous. Making it personal would have required me saying that YOU are ridiculous.

Regardless.

Your attack on capitalism was not delivered in the context of a world without scarcity. You called capitalism 'insane' when 'looked at rationally' - but your posts are anything but.

To protect your love of socialism, you moved the goal posts and then had the temerity to make it personal by claiming that I cannot see something.
And calling my post screed and ridiculous is impersonal? Two words that are both fairly insulting. Please. I suggest that you are not understanding my POV and that is personal? I actually tried to ignore your incivility, but you are not having it.

You don't actually have to participate, if reading my posts is that tedious and foolish from your perspective. However, if you must respond, it might be useful if your responses contained more than just off-handed insults, like actual content or argument. Being dismissive is easy, making an argument actually requires effort.

Subdermal
05-25-2016, 12:07 AM
And calling my post screed and ridiculous is impersonal? Two words that are both fairly insulting. Please. I suggest that you are not understanding my POV and that is personal? I actually tried to ignore your incivility, but you are not having it.

You don't actually have to participate, if reading my posts is that tedious and foolish from your perspective. However, if you must respond, it might be useful if your responses contained more than just off-handed insults, like actual content or argument. Being dismissive is easy, making an argument actually requires effort.

The words and stance are ridiculous. That is a line apart from saying that you are. Love the sinner; hate the sin - that's similar.

Beyond that: you based your defense of doing away with capitalism on fiction, FFS.

It reminds me of how Hawking was able to convince himself of a spontaneous creation event without the intercession of a Divine Being by literally inventing 'imaginary math'.

Goofy.

Dr. Who
05-25-2016, 12:09 AM
How can one person remain so wrong? Capitalism is all about you making choices that benefit you while I make choices that benefit me. There will always be scarcity. Explain your ego comment.
There needn't always be scarcity. Ego drives people to feel superior to others. The desire to acquire mountains of money (beyond anything that is really remotely necessary) is the effect of an inflated ego. Money is the symbol of that superiority. The opposite of egoism is humility.

Dr. Who
05-25-2016, 12:20 AM
The words and stance are ridiculous. That is a line apart from saying that you are. Love the sinner; hate the sin - that's similar.

Beyond that: you based your defense of doing away with capitalism on fiction, FFS.

It reminds me of how Hawking was able to convince himself of a spontaneous creation event without the intercession of a Divine Being by literally inventing 'imaginary math'.

Goofy.
Without dreams Sub, we would be still living in caves. Ideas come from somewhere and when they reach the right people who are curious enough to try to make them reality, we have technological progress. That is our history and our future. Davinci imagined human flight. Eventually we made it a reality. All technology comes from an idea and not necessarily the idea of a scientist. One of our greatest strengths as a species is our imagination.

Mac-7
05-25-2016, 04:37 AM
Without dreams Sub, we would be still living in caves. Ideas come from somewhere and when they reach the right people who are curious enough to try to make them reality, we have technological progress. That is our history and our future. Davinci imagined human flight. Eventually we made it a reality. All technology comes from an idea and not necessarily the idea of a scientist. One of our greatest strengths as a species is our imagination.

Sub is saying Hawkings went too far off the deep end.

Not everything humans imagine is true and must become a reality.

Peter1469
05-25-2016, 04:42 AM
Well I don't disagree with that, however, the love of money seems to drive our capitalistic world. People can't seem to get enough of it. They worship it often above all other things. We are encouraged to spend it on all manner of goods that we don't actually need, but we think we need and if we are not doing that, we are hoarding it, because if we don't, we will starve in our old age.

For some, there is never enough even if they couldn't spend it all in 20 lifetimes. For others, it is a reason to hurt, maim or murder.

We have even turned the lack of it into the underpinnings of our currency. An entire world operating on IOUs. People are now born and literally die in debt. Not personal debt, but sovereign debt.

Looking at it rationally, capitalism is insane.

Ironically, it is the best tool we have to allocate scarce resources. It may not look like it on paper but that is what history shows us: what other economic systems have created a larger middle class, and a poor class that isn't in abject poverty?

That said, once the problem of scarcity is solved there will be no need for capitalism.

zelmo1234
05-25-2016, 05:08 AM
There needn't always be scarcity. Ego drives people to feel superior to others. The desire to acquire mountains of money (beyond anything that is really remotely necessary) is the effect of an inflated ego. Money is the symbol of that superiority. The opposite of egoism is humility.

Who gets to determine what is necessary? What is totally amazing to me, is Socialist always assume that those who create and innovate are going to do the same thing and work just as hard, once you take the money away.

Of course this is not true, the farmer begins to raise just enough to meet his or her families needs and innovation that comes through R & D comes to a halt.

Society suffers as items become scares and prices increase.

Of course this too is the fault of the rich because they did not bow to the foolish desires of the socialists.

Mac-7
05-25-2016, 06:14 AM
Who gets to determine what is necessary? What is totally amazing to me, is Socialist always assume that those who create and innovate are going to do the same thing and work just as hard, once you take the money away.

Of course this is not true, the farmer begins to raise just enough to meet his or her families needs and innovation that comes through R & D comes to a halt.

Society suffers as items become scares and prices increase.

Of course this too is the fault of the rich because they did not bow to the foolish desires of the socialists.

Socialists want all the wealth equally divided.

which makes sense to people who look around and see someone with more than they have.

Its all based on envy and jealousy.

maineman
05-25-2016, 06:47 AM
Socialists want all the wealth equally divided.


that is a totally false statement made by someone who really doesn't know what socialism is

Subdermal
05-25-2016, 08:33 AM
Without dreams Sub, we would be still living in caves. Ideas come from somewhere and when they reach the right people who are curious enough to try to make them reality, we have technological progress. That is our history and our future. Davinci imagined human flight. Eventually we made it a reality. All technology comes from an idea and not necessarily the idea of a scientist. One of our greatest strengths as a species is our imagination.

None of that is a problem. The problem is jumping off a cliff prior to DaVinci's imagination coming to fruition - which is what started my response.

Subdermal
05-25-2016, 08:35 AM
that is a totally false statement made by someone who really doesn't know what socialism is

Is that a defense of Socialism? Or do you just not know how to respond with substance? At best, it is not 'totally false'. In fact, it is more true than false.

Socialism is taking from the producers to give to the non-producers. It is by its very nature redistributionist, and it fails.

Green Arrow
05-25-2016, 09:02 AM
Is that a defense of Socialism? Or do you just not know how to respond with substance? At best, it is not 'totally false'. In fact, it is more true than false.

Socialism is taking from the producers to give to the non-producers. It is by its very nature redistributionist, and it fails.

Communism is taking from producers and giving to non-producers. Socialism is producers sharing with producers.

OGIS
05-25-2016, 09:26 AM
Ironically, it is the best tool we have to allocate scarce resources. It may not look like it on paper but that is what history shows up: what other economic systems have created a larger middle class, and a poor class that isn't in abject poverty?

That said, once the problem of scarcity is solved there will be no need for capitalism.

Do you then believe that history is objectively true? Which "story" would that be? for example, The Turks absolutely deny the Armenian genocide; the Armenians absolutely believe it. Similar stances exists for the Holocaust, between Jews and Deniers. Did Obama pay for his drugs by being a transsexual prostitute? Many, many right wing sites swear it is the truth. Who killed JFK? Was 911 an inside job? Were the Enclosure Acts a plot to rip off land from the Poors, or were they a necessary condition for creating a modern capitalist society in England? Was the Inquisition actually about witches, or was it a plot to steal land from wealthy widows?

You get the drift.

Mac-7
05-25-2016, 12:44 PM
Communism is taking from producers and giving to non-producers. Socialism is producers sharing with producers.

Bullshit.

socislists get their wealth the same way communists do - they take it by force.

And they redistribute the same way.

everyone gets the share that the marxists think they deserve.

Mac-7
05-25-2016, 12:46 PM
The only difference between castro and hillary or obumer is the amount of dictatorial power they have managed to obtain.

but their goals are the same

MisterVeritis
05-25-2016, 12:47 PM
Were I a fan of Marx, that comment would make sense, but Marx does not own the concept of socialism. His was but one theory and not the first. People are just obsessed with Marxism. Communism as a pejorative of socialism as applied in the USSR, the Baltics and Korea in particular, are the AHA vs single payer healthcare, an abomination and a corruption of the theory. Pure socialism cannot exist within a capitalistic matrix. It will become corrupted by definition as long as it needs to trade with a capitalistic world. It ends up at a disadvantage because it must maintain currency and must compete capitalistically in order to maintain currency which therefore requires producing more than the society actually needs. You cannot live in two worlds successfully, especially when one world is all about excess and the other is about meeting needs. It was an experiment that was tried too soon.
Right.

Know it or not you are a fan of Marx.
Know it or not you are a fan of totalitarianism.
Know it or not you completely fail because you do not understand that capitalism the shorthand term for individual liberty where you make decisions that are good for you while I make decisions that are good for me.

MisterVeritis
05-25-2016, 12:54 PM
Don't worry, it doesn't make us evil people. Call us futurists. Some day we will either as a society collapse into a new dark ages, or move forward to a world where money doesn't matter. I'm rooting for the latter. Money really is the root of all evil and a kind of economic prison trapping people into endeavours that make money, but don't necessarily make them happy. It's kind of sad that you may have to live your entire adult life working in a field that makes you miserable and only get to do what you want when you retire.
So:

Issue 1) Wrong quote - Money really is the root of all evil. Debunked.
Issue 2) Making money doesn't necessarily make you happy.

Why do you believe you should be happy? I am responding to you. You raised earning money through work as "not necessarily" the means to be happy. It is an odd statement. If you want to do so please explain.

MisterVeritis
05-25-2016, 01:00 PM
You might make an effort not to make these discussions personal. Clearly there would be a distinct difference between the application of socialistic philosophy in a world without scarcity as opposed to one with scarcity. I'm sorry that you cannot see the difference.
I stumble over the idea that someone else can make better decisions for you than you can. That is the crux of socialism.

In a "world with no scarcity", those who are capable will be compelled (presumably) to give up (meaning the state will take it from them) what they produce. And then, the state will dole out the goods taken from the productive based on what the state says each individual needs.

Where am I wrong?

MisterVeritis
05-25-2016, 01:06 PM
I think that you will find that I didn't raise the notion of happiness, only the notion that many people work at jobs where they are miserable. You raised the notion of happiness. There is some distance between happiness and misery.
I responded to this by showing from your message that you raised the happiness issue. You did it in a negative way (making money by working won't necessarily make you happy). I was seeking clarification.

MisterVeritis
05-25-2016, 01:10 PM
There needn't always be scarcity. Ego drives people to feel superior to others. The desire to acquire mountains of money (beyond anything that is really remotely necessary) is the effect of an inflated ego. Money is the symbol of that superiority. The opposite of egoism is humility.
You are dancing around the important issues. Let's see if we can close some gaps. Okay?

What is scarcity?

What is an inflated ego?

I assume that money is your shorthand term for wealth. Is that correct?

At what point in your life are you willing to give up your authority to make your own choices? If it is such a good idea why not give up your right to make decisions for yourself today?

MisterVeritis
05-25-2016, 01:12 PM
That said, once the problem of scarcity is solved there will be no need for capitalism.
What do you believe is the essence of capitalism?
What is the problem of scarcity?

MisterVeritis
05-25-2016, 01:14 PM
that is a totally false statement made by someone who really doesn't know what socialism is
Clarify it for us. How much of someone else's wealth does a socialist believe he or she is owed?

MisterVeritis
05-25-2016, 01:14 PM
communism is taking from producers and giving to non-producers. Socialism is producers sharing with producers.
lol.

Ransom
05-25-2016, 01:50 PM
Communism is taking from producers and giving to non-producers. Socialism is producers sharing with producers.

Can you give us an example, Green Arrow?

Watch this.

maineman
05-25-2016, 02:27 PM
Is that a defense of Socialism? Or do you just not know how to respond with substance? At best, it is not 'totally false'. In fact, it is more true than false.

Socialism is taking from the producers to give to the non-producers. It is by its very nature redistributionist, and it fails.

it isn't about redistribution, it is about who manages and owns the means of production. And the word that makes Mac's post totally false is "equally". Socialism does not seek the equal distribution of wealth. Never has. Never will.

Subdermal
05-25-2016, 02:31 PM
Communism is taking from producers and giving to non-producers. Socialism is producers sharing with producers.

By your own admission, the difference between the two is creating a population in which over 50% wishes to take from the remainder.

There is no 'sharing'.

MisterVeritis
05-25-2016, 02:32 PM
it isn't about redistribution, it is about who manages and owns the means of production. And the word that makes Mac's post totally false is "equally". Socialism does not seek the equal distribution of wealth. Never has. Never will.
"From each according to his ability" (take all you can from the producers), "to each according to his needs" (give the slackers just enough to keep them from rebelling). The dictators (of the proles) will decide what each person needs.

It is about redistribution. It has alway been about taking from those who create wealth. Always.

Subdermal
05-25-2016, 02:32 PM
it isn't about redistribution, it is about who manages and owns the means of production.

No, that's Communism.


And the word that makes Mac's post totally false is "equally". Socialism does not seek the equal distribution of wealth. Never has. Never will.

Wow. Socialism sounds great.

alsonotreally

maineman
05-25-2016, 02:34 PM
No, that's Communism.


no. it's not.

maineman
05-25-2016, 02:36 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism


Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production,[7] as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim at their establishment.[8] Social ownership may refer to public ownership, cooperative ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.[9] Although there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[10] social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.[5][11][12]

OGIS
05-25-2016, 02:46 PM
Right.

Know it or not you are a fan of Marx.
Know it or not you are a fan of totalitarianism.
Know it or not you completely fail because you do not understand that capitalism the shorthand term for individual liberty where you make decisions that are good for you while I make decisions that are good for me.

Except these days, MrV, the general suspicion amongst an increasing number of the Proles is that "you make decisions that are good for you while I make decisions that are good for me" is lying shorthand for "I make decisions that are good for me and legally fark you over and take everything you own."

IOW, much like the oh-so-well publicized hysteria over the communists and socialist hiding behind other rhetoric, it appears to many that the apologists for crony capitalism are hiding behind "laissez faire" rhetoric.

We don't believe you people anymore. The con isn't working any more. And you have no Plan B.

That trickle down is sure taking it's time. We've been waiting for it for 30+ years now.

MisterVeritis
05-25-2016, 03:24 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism


Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production,[7] as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim at their establishment.[8] Social ownership may refer to public ownership, cooperative ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.[9] Although there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[10] social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.[5][11][12]
And at their core, they take wealth created by productive people in order to give some to the unproductive. The dictators skim the greatest portion off the top for themselves.

MisterVeritis
05-25-2016, 03:26 PM
Except these days, MrV, the general suspicion amongst an increasing number of the Proles is that "you make decisions that are good for you while I make decisions that are good for me" is lying shorthand for "I make decisions that are good for me and legally fark you over and take everything you own."

That is not capitalism. Nice try, though.

Green Arrow
05-25-2016, 04:11 PM
By your own admission, the difference between the two is creating a population in which over 50% wishes to take from the remainder.

There is no 'sharing'.

No, that's not my admission. My admission was quite clear. In socialism, everyone produces and everyone gets a portion of what is produced. In communism, some people produce and everyone gets what is produced.

I advocate the former and oppose the latter.

OGIS
05-25-2016, 04:29 PM
[/I][/U]That is not capitalism. Nice try, though.

That is exactly my point. You have a way, MrV, of strawmanning statements of other people and then criticizing the strawman.

What I said was that the crony capitalists are hiding behind the capitalist rhetoric.

Dr. Who
05-25-2016, 05:27 PM
I stumble over the idea that someone else can make better decisions for you than you can. That is the crux of socialism.

In a "world with no scarcity", those who are capable will be compelled (presumably) to give up (meaning the state will take it from them) what they produce. And then, the state will dole out the goods taken from the productive based on what the state says each individual needs.

Where am I wrong?
In a post-technological world without scarcity - meaning that we can create all things without any human intervention at all - there is no human capital. If people work, they do so to amuse themselves. They don't have to produce anything because everything that anyone could ever want or need is produced for us. The majority of human-kind will want to occupy themselves with something that interests them. They won't be paid for it because money has no meaning in such a world. If an individual does something that makes a great contribution, they will receive public accolades. If trade existed at all, it would be in things that are uniquely human and imperfect. A piece of art exchanged for a unique landscaping job or a handmade piece of furniture, ceramic or jewellery or a specially prepared meal etc.

maineman
05-25-2016, 05:27 PM
And at their core, they take wealth created by productive people in order to give some to the unproductive. The dictators skim the greatest portion off the top for themselves.

:yawn:

Dr. Who
05-25-2016, 06:42 PM
You are dancing around the important issues. Let's see if we can close some gaps. Okay?

What is scarcity?

What is an inflated ego?

I assume that money is your shorthand term for wealth. Is that correct?

At what point in your life are you willing to give up your authority to make your own choices? If it is such a good idea why not give up your right to make decisions for yourself today?

Scarcity - as implied in the word, it is having less of something than is required. It can be actual or contrived. It is less important when the scarce item does not involve something people need to survive or have a modicum of dignity. It can be contrived if artificially reducing the supply of an item results in it selling for more.

An inflated ego - an inflated feeling of pride in your superiority to others. Often accompanied by narcissism.

Wealth - Money was invented because of the impracticality of hoarding things. Think about that concept for a minute. Envision the multi-billionaires of the world, if there were no medium of exchange. They would have mountains of stuff that they could never actually use, but don't want anyone else to use either.

How is wealth created - ultimately in our society it generally involves looking at human endeavor as a commodity. Someone who digs a ditch is less valuable than an accountant. Our value in society is predicated on the scarcity or abundance of our skill. If everyone were a great artist, art would have no value. If everyone could be a quantum physicist, they would be earning minimum wage. However if we had no machines and people were generally spindly and weak, a person who could dig a ditch would make a great deal of money.

Wealth or more importantly great wealth in the 21st century is created by finding a commodity to sell, then employing people who are also treated like commodities and paid accordingly. They become the means for creating the wealth. Either the commodity workers are manufacturing the product at little cost to the employer or they are performing services for depreciated remuneration because people as commodities are only valued for their scarcity. The commodity that is being sold is marketed, thus creating a demand and the business makes it sufficiently scarce such that it gains additional value because the demand then exceeds the availability. When that happens the price of the good or service increases. If the cost of the commodity workers exceeds the price point for creating great wealth, the business moves somewhere that the pricing for human endeavor is lower. These are also usually places where human life, in general, is cheap and disposable.

Mac-7
05-25-2016, 07:21 PM
Socialism does not seek the equal distribution of wealth. Never has. Never will.

You do but progressive/socislists/marxists do not have the power to do it yet.

OGIS
05-25-2016, 07:35 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism


Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production,[7] as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim at their establishment.[8] Social ownership may refer to public ownership, cooperative ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.[9] Although there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[10] social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.[5][11][12]

Just as there are many forms of capitalism. for example, capitalism under military dictatorship, as in Chile under General Pinochet. And capitalism with a democracy (the best one money can buy) here in the US.

To automatically equate a socialist economic system (state ownership of production) with dictatorship is simplistic.

Mister D
05-25-2016, 08:00 PM
Just as there are many forms of capitalism. for example, capitalism under military dictatorship, as in Chile under General Pinochet. And capitalism with a democracy (the best one money can buy) here in the US.

To automatically equate a socialist economic system (state ownership of production) with dictatorship is simplistic.

Yet every historical manifestation of a socialist economic system has been authoritarian and, quite frankly, murderous. So tell us OGIS...where are these other forms of socialism? Now don't get stupid on us OGIS. Europe is not socialist. Europe's nations have free markets.

OGIS
05-25-2016, 08:06 PM
Yet every historical manifestation of a socialist economic system has been authoritarian and, quite frankly, murderous. So tell us OGIS...where are these other forms of socialism? Now don't get stupid on us OGIS. Europe is not socialist. Europe's nations have free markets.

LOL, oh so NOW Europe isn't socialist because it has free markets, LOLOLOL. But on this very forum I have seen post after post after post whining about "socialist Scandinavia." Self-described socialist Bernie Sanders has said, more than once, that his model is "more Scandinavian socialism" here and I have never, ever seen you or any of the other con(servative)-artists here say that he isn't a socialist.

Can't have your cake and eat it to sweetcheeks, so which is it? Is Scandinavia (part of Europe) socialist? Or not?

Mister D
05-25-2016, 08:12 PM
LOL, oh so NOW Europe isn't socialist because it has free markets, LOLOLOL. But on this very forum I have seen post after post after post whining about "socialist Scandinavia." Self-described socialist Bernie Sanders has said, more than once, that his model is "more Scandinavian socialism" here and I have never, ever seen you or any of the other con(servative)-artists here say that he isn't a socialist.

Can't have your cake and eat it to sweetcheeks, so which is it? Is Scandinavia (part of Europe) socialist? Or not?

:facepalm:

First of all, take it up with whoever it is that you're referring to. Secondly, you just defined socialism as state ownership of production. Again, there are no socialist countries in Europe. Now...tell us where all of these socialist countries are that don't fit this description?

Mister D
05-25-2016, 08:15 PM
What is OGIS to do? He can't ban me and he can't answer the question without admitting he's wrong. :laugh:

Common
05-25-2016, 08:18 PM
Yet every historical manifestation of a socialist economic system has been authoritarian and, quite frankly, murderous. So tell us OGIS...where are these other forms of socialism? Now don't get stupid on us OGIS. Europe is not socialist. Europe's nations have free markets.

One of the best example is the MUCH touted Venezuelan model under Hugo Chavez, he was touted as genius. He railed on american capitalism. He railed on GWB and tried to embarass him. We had celebrities going there and just fawning all over him.

8yrs later the entire country is chaos, they are starving they are hunting dogs and slaughtering them for food. No celebrities going there now.

Mister D
05-25-2016, 08:21 PM
One of the best example is the MUCH touted Venezuelan model under Hugo Chavez, he was touted as genius. He railed on american capitalism. He railed on GWB and tried to embarass him. We had celebrities going there and just fawning all over him.

8yrs later the entire country is chaos, they are starving they are hunting dogs and slaughtering them for food. No celebrities going there now.

Don't steal his thunder. I'm expecting a eulogy for Hugo Chavez. Or maybe he'll start babbling about prehistoric hunter gatherers. :laugh: You never know with this guy.

Subdermal
05-25-2016, 08:22 PM
No, that's not my admission. My admission was quite clear. In socialism, everyone produces and everyone gets a portion of what is produced. In communism, some people produce and everyone gets what is produced.

I advocate the former and oppose the latter.

Correction.

In your idealized version of Socialism, everyone produces and everyone gets a portion of what is produced.

In the real world, the real producers get very irritated that they're doing all the producing but collecting the same share as the sh!thead who sat on his ass all day.

Which is why that exact experiment was a horrific failure when the Pilgrims attempted it. Initially done to survive, they very quickly realized that it is for emergency only, and fails due to its conflict with human nature.

maineman
05-25-2016, 08:29 PM
interesting that the countries who are actually working under democratic socialism are the countries with the happiest citizens in the world.

odd, eh?

OGIS
05-26-2016, 12:14 AM
Post 1 of 3 (or maybe 4):


LOL, oh so NOW Europe isn't socialist because it has free markets, LOLOLOL. But on this very forum I have seen post after post after post whining about "socialist Scandinavia." Self-described socialist Bernie Sanders has said, more than once, that his model is "more Scandinavian socialism" here and I have never, ever seen you or any of the other con(servative)-artists here say that he isn't a socialist.

Can't have your cake and eat it to sweetcheeks, so which is it? Is Scandinavia (part of Europe) socialist? Or not?


:facepalm:

First of all, take it up with whoever it is that you're referring to. Secondly, you just defined socialism as state ownership of production. Again, there are no socialist countries in Europe. Now...tell us where all of these socialist countries are that don't fit this description?


What is OGIS to do? He can't ban me and he can't answer the question without admitting he's wrong. :laugh:

Oh my, what is Mister D to do? He's just realized that refutation of all his bullsh1t is just a few google clicks away.

Read the below; it seems pretty socialized to me. Take your time, then you can visit the links.

After you educate yourself we can talk again. DISMISSED!


List of government enterprises of SwedenWholly owned


Akademiska Hus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akademiska_Hus)
Apoteket (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apoteket)
Green Cargo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Cargo)
Göta Kanalbolag (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=G%C3%B6ta_Kanalbolag&action=edit&redlink=1)
Infranord (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infranord)
Jernhusen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jernhusen)
Lernia (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lernia&action=edit&redlink=1)
LKAB (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LKAB)
Samhall (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samhall&action=edit&redlink=1)
SBAB (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SBAB&action=edit&redlink=1)
SJ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SJ_AB)
Sveaskog (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sveaskog&action=edit&redlink=1)
Svenska Spel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svenska_Spel)

Casino Cosmopol (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casino_Cosmopol)


Swedavia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedavia)
Svevia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svevia)
Swedish Space Corporation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Space_Corporation)
Systembolaget (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systembolaget)
Teracom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teracom)

Boxer TV Access (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer_TV_Access)


Vattenfall (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vattenfall)

Shared ownership Further information: Government-linked companies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government-linked_companies)



PostNord (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PostNord) (60%)
SAS Group (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAS_Group) (21,4%)
Telia Sonera (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telia_Sonera) (37,3%)

Commercial Government agencies

Svenska Kraftnät (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svenska_Kraftn%C3%A4t)
Swedish Civil Aviation Administration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Civil_Aviation_Administration)
Swedish Maritime Administration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Maritime_Administration)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_enterprises_of_Sweden





Denmark


DONG Energy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DONG_Energy)
DSB (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSB_%28railway_company%29)
Post Danmark (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_Danmark)


GermanyBertelsmann (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertelsmann)


State Palaces, Castles and Gardens of Saxony (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Palaces,_Castles_and_Gardens_of_Saxony) – manages several palaces, castles and parks in Saxony (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxony)


France

Commissariat à l'énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commissariat_%C3%A0_l%27%C3%A9nergie_atomique_et_a ux_%C3%A9nergies_alternatives)
Électricité de France (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lectricit%C3%A9_de_France)
France Télévisions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9visions)
IFREMER (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IFREMER)
London United Busways (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_United_Busways)
La Poste (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Poste_%28France%29)


England Companies owned by municipalities of England [/URL]


An Ipswich Buses (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ipswich_buses_vehicle.jpg) bus




Blackpool Transport (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackpool_Transport)
Halton Transport (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halton_Transport)
Ipswich Buses (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipswich_Buses)
Manchester Airports Group (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_Airports_Group)
Merseytravel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merseytravel)
NEC Group (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEC_Group)
Network Warrington (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Warrington)
Newquay Cornwall Airport (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newquay_Cornwall_Airport)
Nottingham City Transport (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nottingham_City_Transport)
Reading Buses (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_Buses)
Rosso (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosso_%28bus_company%29) (bus company)
South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Yorkshire_Passenger_Transport_Executive)
Thamesdown Transport (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thamesdown_Transport)
Transport for Greater Manchester (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_for_Greater_Manchester)
Transport for London (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_for_London)
Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyne_and_Wear_Passenger_Transport_Executive)
West Midlands Passenger Transport Executive (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Midlands_Passenger_Transport_Executive)
West Yorkshire Metro (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Yorkshire_Metro)


Finland Main article: List of Finnish government enterprises (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Finnish_government_enterprises)


Alko (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alko)
Altia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altia)
CSC – IT Center for Science (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSC_%E2%80%93_IT_Center_for_Science)
Destia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destia)
Hansel Ltd. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hansel_Ltd.)
Laatumaa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laatumaa)
Metsähallitus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mets%C3%A4hallitus)
National Land Survey of Finland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Land_Survey_of_Finland)
Omaisuudenhoitoyhtiö Arsenal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omaisuudenhoitoyhti%C3%B6_Arsenal)
Patria (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patria_%28company%29)
Senate Properties (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Properties)
Veikkaus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veikkaus)
VR Group (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VR_Group)



Netherlands

ABN AMRO (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABN_AMRO)
Gasunie (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasunie)
Nederlandse Spoorwegen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nederlandse_Spoorwegen)
NS Railinfratrust (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Railinfratrust)

[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government-owned_companies

OGIS
05-26-2016, 12:16 AM
Post 2 of 3 (or 4):




Poland



Grupa Lotos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grupa_Lotos)
Huta Stalowa Wola (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huta_Stalowa_Wola)
KGHM Polska Miedź (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KGHM_Polska_Miedź)
LOT Polish Airlines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOT_Polish_Airlines)
Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nofer_Institute_of_Occupational_Medicine)
PGNiG (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PGNiG)
PKN Orlen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PKN_Orlen)
PKO Bank Polski (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PKO_Bank_Polski)
PKP Group (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PKP_Group)
Polska Grupa Energetyczna (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polska_Grupa_Energetyczna)
Powszechny Zakład Ubezpieczeń (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powszechny_Zakład_Ubezpieczeń)
Przedsiębiorstwo Komunikacji Samochodowej (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Przedsiębiorstwo_Komunikacji_Samochodowej)
Tauron Group (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tauron_Group)
Warsaw Stock Exchange (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Stock_Exchange)
Zakłady Azotowe Kędzierzyn (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakłady_Azotowe_Kędzierzyn)
Zakłady Azotowe Puławy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakłady_Azotowe_Puławy)



Portugal



Águas de Portugal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Águas_de_Portugal)
Caixa Geral de Depósitos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caixa_Geral_de_Depósitos)
Comboios de Portugal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comboios_de_Portugal)
Companhia das Lezírias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Companhia_das_Lezírias)
CTT Correios de Portugal, S.A. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CTT_Correios_de_Portugal,_S.A.)
EMPORDEF (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMPORDEF)
Fábrica de Braço de Prata (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fábrica_de_Braço_de_Prata)
Imprensa Nacional-Casa da Moeda (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprensa_Nacional-Casa_da_Moeda)


Scotland

Companies owned by municipalities of Scotland



Bus na Comhairle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_na_Comhairle)
Cairngorm Mountain Railway (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairngorm_Mountain_Railway)
Lothian Buses (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lothian_Buses)
Orkney Ferries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orkney_Ferries)
SIC Ferries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIC_Ferries)
Strathclyde Buses (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strathclyde_Buses)
Strathclyde Partnership for Transport (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strathclyde_Partnership_for_Transport)


Spain



Administrador de Infraestructuras Ferroviarias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrador_de_Infraestructuras_Ferroviarias)
Aena (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aena)
Aeroports de Catalunya (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroports_de_Catalunya)
Correos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correos)
EFE (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EFE)
Euskotren Tranbia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euskotren_Tranbia)
Euskotren Trena (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euskotren_Trena)
Maritime Security and Rescue Society (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maritime_Security_and_Rescue_Society)
National Hydrocarbons Institute (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Hydrocarbons_Institute)
Navantia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navantia)
Renfe Operadora (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renfe_Operadora)
RTVE (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTVE)
Sociedad Estatal de Participaciones Industriales (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociedad_Estatal_de_Participaciones_Industriales)



Transport Initiatives Edinburgh (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_Initiatives_Edinburgh)

Public corporations of the Scottish Government



Caledonian Maritime Assets (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caledonian_Maritime_Assets)
David MacBrayne (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_MacBrayne)
Highlands and Islands Airports (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highlands_and_Islands_Airports)
Scottish Canals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Canals)
Scottish Futures Trust (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Futures_Trust)
Scottish Water (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Water)




INDEP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INDEP)
OGMA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OGMA)
Parpública (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parpública)
Rádio e Televisão de Portugal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rádio_e_Televisão_de_Portugal)
TAP Portugal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAP_Portugal)





Switzerland



Eidgenoessische Konstruktionswerkstaette (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eidgenoessische_Konstruktionswerkstaette)
Hotel Bellevue Palace (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotel_Bellevue_Palace)
RUAG (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RUAG)
Skyguide (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyguide)
Swiss Federal Railways (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Federal_Railways)
Swiss National Bank (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_National_Bank)
Swiss Post (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Post)
Swisscom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swisscom)
Verkehrsbetriebe Glattal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verkehrsbetriebe_Glattal)


United Kingdom

Further information: subcategories within the Government-owned companies of the United Kingdom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Government-owned_companies_of_the_United_Kingdom) category


BBC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC)
Behavioural Insights Team (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioural_Insights_Team)
Bio Products Laboratory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bio_Products_Laboratory)
British Business Bank (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Business_Bank)
CDC Group (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDC_Group)
Collingwood O'Hare Entertainment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collingwood_%26_Co.)
Community Health Partnerships (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Health_Partnerships)
Direct Rail Services (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Rail_Services)
Directly Operated Railways (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directly_Operated_Railways)
Dr Foster Intelligence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr_Foster_Intelligence)
International Nuclear Services (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Services)
London and Continental Railways (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_and_Continental_Railways)
National Nuclear Laboratory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Nuclear_Laboratory)
NATS Holdings (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATS_Holdings)
Network Rail (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Rail)
NHS Professionals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHS_Professionals)
NHS Property Services (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHS_Property_Services)
NHS Shared Business Services (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHS_Shared_Business_Services)
NRAM plc (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NRAM_plc)
Nuclear Liabilities Fund (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Liabilities_Fund)
Post Office Ltd (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_Office_Ltd)
The Royal Bank of Scotland Group (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Royal_Bank_of_Scotland_Group)
Royal Mint (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Mint)
Student Loans Company (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_Loans_Company)
UK Asset Resolution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Asset_Resolution)
UK Financial Investments (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Financial_Investments)
UK Green Investment Bank (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Green_Investment_Bank)
Urenco Group (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urenco_Group)
Wave Hub (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_Hub)
Working Links (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Links)


Wales



Cardiff Bus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiff_Bus)
Newport Transport (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newport_Transport)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government-owned_companies

OGIS
05-26-2016, 12:21 AM
Post 3 of 4:


List of government enterprises of Norway


Wholly owned



Company
Type
Cat[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_enterprises_of_Norway#cite_note-cat-1)
Ministry[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_enterprises_of_Norway#cite_note-stake-2)
Sector
Ref


Argentum Fondsinvesteringer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentum_Fondsinvesteringer)
AS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aksjeselskap)
1
Trade and Industry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Ministry_of_Trade_and_Industry)
Venture capital
[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_enterprises_of_Norway#cite_note-tradeindustry-3)


Avinor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avinor)
AS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aksjeselskap)
4
Transport and Communications (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Ministry_of_Transport_and_Communications )
Airport operation and airspace control
[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_enterprises_of_Norway#cite_note-transport-4)


Baneservice (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baneservice)
AS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aksjeselskap)
1
Transport and Communications (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Ministry_of_Transport_and_Communications )
Maintenance of railway infrastructure
[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_enterprises_of_Norway#cite_note-transport-4)


Bjørnøen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bjørnøen)
AS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aksjeselskap)
4
Trade and Industry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Ministry_of_Trade_and_Industry)
Real estate
[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_enterprises_of_Norway#cite_note-tradeindustry-3)


Central Norway Regional Health Authority (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Norway_Regional_Health_Authority)
RHF (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_health_authority_(Norway))

Health and Care Services (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Ministry_of_Health_and_Care_Services)
Healthcare
[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_enterprises_of_Norway#cite_note-hospitals-5)


Eksportutvalget For Fisk (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eksportutvalget_For_Fisk&action=edit&redlink=1)
AS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aksjeselskap)

Fisheries and Coastal Affairs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Ministry_of_Fisheries_and_Coastal_Affair s)
Marketing



Electronic Chart Centre (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Chart_Centre)
AS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aksjeselskap)
3
Trade and Industry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Ministry_of_Trade_and_Industry)
Cartography (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartography)
[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_enterprises_of_Norway#cite_note-tradeindustry-3)


Enova (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enova_SF)
SF (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statsforetak)
4
Petroleum and Energy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Ministry_of_Petroleum_and_Energy)
Marketing



Entra Eiendom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entra_Eiendom)
AS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aksjeselskap)
1
Trade and Industry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Ministry_of_Trade_and_Industry)
Real estate
[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_enterprises_of_Norway#cite_note-tradeindustry-3)


Flytoget (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flytoget)
AS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aksjeselskap)
1
Trade and Industry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Ministry_of_Trade_and_Industry)
Railway company
[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_enterprises_of_Norway#cite_note-tradeindustry-3)


Gassco (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gassco)
AS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aksjeselskap)
4
Petroleum and Energy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Ministry_of_Petroleum_and_Energy)
Natural gas pipes



Gassnova (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gassnova)
SF (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statsforetak)
4
Petroleum and Energy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Ministry_of_Petroleum_and_Energy)
Research



Industrial Development Corporation of Norway (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Development_Corporation_of_Norway)
SF (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statsforetak)
4
Trade and Industry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Ministry_of_Trade_and_Industry)
Industry



Innovation Norway (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innovation_Norway)
AS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aksjeselskap)
4
Trade and Industry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Ministry_of_Trade_and_Industry)
Innovation



Kompetansesenter for IT i helse- og sosialsektoren (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kompetansesenter_for_IT_i_helse-_og_sosialsektoren&action=edit&redlink=1)
AS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aksjeselskap)
4
Health and Care Services (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Ministry_of_Health_and_Care_Services)
Information technology



Kings Bay (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kings_Bay_(company))
AS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aksjeselskap)
4
Trade and Industry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Ministry_of_Trade_and_Industry)
Research
[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_enterprises_of_Norway#cite_note-tradeindustry-3)


Mesta (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesta_(company))
AS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aksjeselskap)
1
Trade and Industry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Ministry_of_Trade_and_Industry)
Road construction and maintenance
[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_enterprises_of_Norway#cite_note-tradeindustry-3)


Nationaltheatret (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Theatre,_Oslo)
AS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aksjeselskap)

Culture and Church Affairs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Ministry_of_Culture)
Theater



Nofima (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nofima&action=edit&redlink=1)
AS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aksjeselskap)

Fisheries and Coastal Affairs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Ministry_of_Fisheries_and_Coastal_Affair s)
Research
[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_enterprises_of_Norway#cite_note-6)


Norfund (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norfund)
AS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aksjeselskap)
4
Foreign Affairs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Foreign_Affairs_(Norway))
Investments in developing countries



Norges Statsbaner (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_State_Railways)
AS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aksjeselskap)
4
Transport and Communications (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Ministry_of_Transport_and_Communications )
Railway company
[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_enterprises_of_Norway#cite_note-transport-4)


Norsk Eiendomsinformasjon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norsk_Eiendomsinformasjon)
AS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aksjeselskap)
4
Trade and Industry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Ministry_of_Trade_and_Industry)
Real estate database



Norsk Tipping (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norsk_Tipping)
AS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aksjeselskap)
4
Culture and Church Affairs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Ministry_of_Culture)
Lotteries and gambling



Northern Norway Regional Health Authority (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Norway_Regional_Health_Authority)
RHF (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_health_authority_(Norway))

Health and Care Services (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Ministry_of_Health_and_Care_Services)
Healthcare services
[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_enterprises_of_Norway#cite_note-hospitals-5)


Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Broadcasting_Corporation)
AS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aksjeselskap)
4
Culture and Church Affairs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Ministry_of_Culture)
Television and radio channels



Norwegian Social Science Data Services (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Social_Science_Data_Services)
AS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aksjeselskap)
4
Education and Research (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Ministry_of_Education_and_Research)
Research




AS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aksjeselskap)

Local Government and Regional Development (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Ministry_of_Local_Government_and_Regiona l_Development)
Banking




AS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aksjeselskap)
4
Petroleum and Energy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Ministry_of_Petroleum_and_Energy)
Manages the State's Direct Financial Interest (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State's_Direct_Financial_Interest) in the petroleum industry



Posten Norge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posten_Norge)
AS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aksjeselskap)
4
Transport and Communications (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Ministry_of_Transport_and_Communications )
Postal services
[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_enterprises_of_Norway#cite_note-transport-4)


Rehabil (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rehabil&action=edit&redlink=1)
AS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aksjeselskap)

Labour and Social Inclusion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Ministry_of_Labour)
Manufacturing

OGIS
05-26-2016, 12:24 AM
Post 4 of 4:




















































































































































































































































List of government enterprises of Norway















Southern and Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_and_Eastern_Norway_Regional_Health_Author ity)

RHF (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_health_authority_%28Norway%29)



Health and Care Services (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Ministry_of_Health_and_Care_Services)

Healthcare services

[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_enterprises_of_Norway#cite_note-hospitals-5)



Statkraft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statkraft)

AS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aksjeselskap)

3

Trade and Industry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Ministry_of_Trade_and_Industry)

Electricity production

[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_enterprises_of_Norway#cite_note-tradeindustry-3)



Statnett (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statnett)

SF (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statsforetak)

4

Petroleum and Energy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Ministry_of_Petroleum_and_Energy)

Electricity lines





Statskog (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statskog)

SF (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statsforetak)

4

Agriculture and Food (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Ministry_of_Agriculture_and_Food)

Forestry and real estate





Staur Farm (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staur_Farm)

AS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aksjeselskap)



Agriculture and Food (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Ministry_of_Agriculture_and_Food)

Farm





UNINETT (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNINETT)

AS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aksjeselskap)

4

Education and Research (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Ministry_of_Education_and_Research)

Telecommunications





University Centre in Svalbard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_Centre_in_Svalbard)

AS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aksjeselskap)

4

Education and Research (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Ministry_of_Education_and_Research)

Research





Venturefondet (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Venturefondet&action=edit&redlink=1)

AS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aksjeselskap)

1

Trade and Industry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Ministry_of_Trade_and_Industry)

Venture capital





Vinmonopolet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinmonopolet)

AS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aksjeselskap)

4

Health and Care Services (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Ministry_of_Health_and_Care_Services)

Retailing of alcoholic beverages





Western Norway Regional Health Authority (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Norway_Regional_Health_Authority)

RHF (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_health_authority_%28Norway%29)



Health and Care Services (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Ministry_of_Health_and_Care_Services)

Healthcare services

[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_enterprises_of_Norway#cite_note-hospitals-5)



Shared ownership

Company

Stake[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_enterprises_of_Norway#cite_note-stake-2)

Cat[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_enterprises_of_Norway#cite_note-cat-1)

Sector

Ref



Aker Holding (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aker_Holding)

30.0%

2

Owns 30% of Aker Solutions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aker_Solutions)

[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_enterprises_of_Norway#cite_note-7)



Beaivváš Sámi Theatre (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaivv%C3%A1%C5%A1_S%C3%A1mi_Theatre)

40.0%



Theater





Bioparken (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bioparken&action=edit&redlink=1)

8.0%



Research





Adaptor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adapter)

44,4%



Accessories for the blind





Carte Blanche (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carte_Blanche_%28company%29&action=edit&redlink=1)

70.0%



Theater





Cermaq (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cermaq)

43.5%†



Aquaculture

[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_enterprises_of_Norway#cite_note-tradeindustry-3)



Den Nationale Scene (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Den_Nationale_Scene)

66.7%



Theater





DnB NOR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DnB_NOR)

34.0%†

2

Banking

[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_enterprises_of_Norway#cite_note-tradeindustry-3)



Eksportfinans (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eksportfinans&action=edit&redlink=1)

15.0%

1

Banking

[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_enterprises_of_Norway#cite_note-tradeindustry-3)



Filmparken (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Filmparken&action=edit&redlink=1)

77.6%



Production of movies





Graminor (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Graminor&action=edit&redlink=1)

34.0%



Research





Instrumenttjenesten (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Instrumenttjenesten&action=edit&redlink=1)

45.0%



Telecommunications





Itas Amb (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Itas_Amb&action=edit&redlink=1)

46.1%

4

Manufacturing





Kimen Såvarelaboratoriet (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kimen_S%C3%A5varelaboratoriet&action=edit&redlink=1)

51.0%



Research





Kommunalbanken (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kommunalbanken)

80.0%



Banking





Kongsberg Gruppen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kongsberg_Gruppen)

50.0%†



Defense and maritime

[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_enterprises_of_Norway#cite_note-tradeindustry-3)



Kompetansesenter For IT I Helse- og Sosialsektoren (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kompetansesenter_For_IT_I_Helse-_og_Sosialsektoren&action=edit&redlink=1)

10.5%



Information technology





Nammo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nammo)

50.0%

2

Ammunition industry

[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_enterprises_of_Norway#cite_note-tradeindustry-3)



Nordic Investment Bank (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Investment_Bank)

19.1%



Banking





Norsk Hydro (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norsk_Hydro)

43.8%†

2

Aluminum

[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_enterprises_of_Norway#cite_note-tradeindustry-3)



Norut Gruppen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norut_Gruppen)

11.6%



Research





Norwegian National Opera and Ballet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_National_Opera_and_Ballet)

90.0%



Opera





Protevs (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Protevs&action=edit&redlink=1)

66.0%



Research





Rogaland Teater (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogaland_Teater)

66.7%



Theater





Rosenkrantzgt. 10 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Nye_Teater)

10.0%



Real estate





SAS Group (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAS_Group)

14.3%†

1

Airline

[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_enterprises_of_Norway#cite_note-tradeindustry-3)



Simula Research Laboratory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simula_Research_Laboratory)

80.0%

4

Research





StatoilHydro (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statoil)

67%

2

Petroleum

[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_enterprises_of_Norway#cite_note-tradeindustry-3)



Store Norske Spitsbergen Kulkompani (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Store_Norske_Spitsbergen_Kulkompani)

99.9%

3

Mining

[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_enterprises_of_Norway#cite_note-tradeindustry-3)



Telenor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telenor)

54.0%†

2

Telecommunications

[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_enterprises_of_Norway#cite_note-tradeindustry-3)



Trøndelag Teater (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tr%C3%B8ndelag_Teater)

66.7%



Theater





Yara International (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yara_International)

36.2%†

2

Fertilizer manufacturing

[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_enterprises_of_Norway#cite_note-tradeindustry-3)



Veterinærmedisinsk Oppdragssenter (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Veterin%C3%A6rmedisinsk_Oppdragsse nter&action=edit&redlink=1)

51.0%

3

Research






https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_enterprises_of_Norway#Wholly_ow ned

maineman
05-26-2016, 06:49 AM
You do but progressive/socislists/marxists do not have the power to do it yet.

do some study Mac and quit relying on talk radio.

Green Arrow
05-26-2016, 08:29 AM
Correction.

In your idealized version of Socialism, everyone produces and everyone gets a portion of what is produced.

No, it's in the very definition of socialism. If it violates those terms it is not socialism.


In the real world, the real producers get very irritated that they're doing all the producing but collecting the same share as the sh!thead who sat on his ass all day.

Again...that's communism, not socialism. In socialism there is no shithead that sits on his ass all day. That shithead would get nothing because he did not produce and contribute.

OGIS
05-26-2016, 09:08 AM
Yet every historical manifestation of a socialist economic system has been authoritarian and, quite frankly, murderous. So tell us OGIS...where are these other forms of socialism? Now don't get stupid on us OGIS. Europe is not socialist. Europe's nations have free markets.

And oh, by the way, there is no contradiction between a company being owned by the government and that same company operating in a free market and following good business practices designed to allow the company to respond to free market competitive forces.

NEXT!

Mister D
05-26-2016, 09:13 AM
And oh, by the way, there is no contradiction between a company being owned by the government and that same company operating in a free market and following good business practices designed to allow the company to respond to free market competitive forces.

NEXT!


You forgot 5 of 5

United States[edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_government-owned_companies&action=edit&section=77)]Further information: subcategories within the Government-owned companies of the United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Government-owned_companies_of_the_United_States) category

Amtrak (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amtrak)
Commodity Credit Corporation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Credit_Corporation)
Conrail (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrail)
Corporation for Public Broadcasting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_for_Public_Broadcasting)
CSS Industries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSS_Industries)
Digiview Entertainment
Export-Import Bank of the United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export-Import_Bank_of_the_United_States)
Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farm_Credit_System_Insurance_Corporation)
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Crop_Insurance_Corporation)
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Deposit_Insurance_Corporation)
Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Retirement_Thrift_Investment_Board)
Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Savings_and_Loan_Insurance_Corporation)
Holdings of American International Group (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holdings_of_American_International_Group)
Legal Services Corporation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_Services_Corporation)
Mercury Filmworks
NeighborWorks America (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeighborWorks_America)
North Dakota Mill and Elevator (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Dakota_Mill_and_Elevator)
Overseas Private Investment Corporation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_Private_Investment_Corporation)
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pension_Benefit_Guaranty_Corporation)
Picatinny Arsenal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picatinny_Arsenal)
Public development authority (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_development_authority) – in the U.S. state of Washington (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_(state)), a public development authority is a government-owned corporation
Reconstruction Finance Corporation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_Finance_Corporation)
Resolution Trust Corporation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_Trust_Corporation)
Rural Edge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_Edge)
Securities Investor Protection Corporation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securities_Investor_Protection_Corporation)
State Justice Institute (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Justice_Institute)
Stepping Stones Entertainment
Stribling Productions
Tennessee Valley Authority (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Valley_Authority)
United States Postal Service (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service)

:smiley_ROFLMAO:

Mister D
05-26-2016, 09:16 AM
The USA has da scary sochialism huh, OGIS? :laugh:

Mister D
05-26-2016, 09:18 AM
And oh, by the way, there is no contradiction between a company being owned by the government and that same company operating in a free market and following good business practices designed to allow the company to respond to free market competitive forces.

NEXT!

There is no free market in a socialist country by your own definition! :laugh:

OGIS
05-26-2016, 09:18 AM
You forgot 5 of 5

United States[edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_government-owned_companies&action=edit&section=77)]

Further information: subcategories within the Government-owned companies of the United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Government-owned_companies_of_the_United_States) category

Amtrak (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amtrak)
Commodity Credit Corporation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Credit_Corporation)
Conrail (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrail)
Corporation for Public Broadcasting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_for_Public_Broadcasting)
CSS Industries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSS_Industries)
Digiview Entertainment
Export-Import Bank of the United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export-Import_Bank_of_the_United_States)
Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farm_Credit_System_Insurance_Corporation)
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Crop_Insurance_Corporation)
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Deposit_Insurance_Corporation)
Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Retirement_Thrift_Investment_Board)
Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Savings_and_Loan_Insurance_Corporation)
Holdings of American International Group (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holdings_of_American_International_Group)
Legal Services Corporation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_Services_Corporation)
Mercury Filmworks
NeighborWorks America (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeighborWorks_America)
North Dakota Mill and Elevator (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Dakota_Mill_and_Elevator)
Overseas Private Investment Corporation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_Private_Investment_Corporation)
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pension_Benefit_Guaranty_Corporation)
Picatinny Arsenal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picatinny_Arsenal)
Public development authority (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_development_authority) – in the U.S. state of Washington (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_(state)), a public development authority is a government-owned corporation
Reconstruction Finance Corporation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_Finance_Corporation)
Resolution Trust Corporation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_Trust_Corporation)
Rural Edge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_Edge)
Securities Investor Protection Corporation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securities_Investor_Protection_Corporation)
State Justice Institute (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Justice_Institute)
Stepping Stones Entertainment
Stribling Productions
Tennessee Valley Authority (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Valley_Authority)
United States Postal Service (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service)


:smiley_ROFLMAO:



We weren't talking about the United States, were we? The question was whether Europe has state-owned companies. I provided a list of countries in Europe owned by government. I note that the list you provide (from the same source that you were apparently too stupid to look up on your own (or this entire issue would not be being discussed) of government owned firms in the US is - for the relative size of the economies involved - rather skimpy.

So you actually prove my point, even more.

Damn, your dumb. Go back to "scrool," Mister D. And this time, keep your mouth shut, pay attention, and learn something.

Mister D
05-26-2016, 09:21 AM
We weern't talking about the United States, were we? The question was whether Europe has state-owned companies. I provided a list of countries in Europe owned by government. I note that the list you provide (from the same source that you were apparently too stupid to look up on your own (or this entire issue would not be being discussed) of government owned firms in the US is - for the relative size of the economies involved - rather skimpy.

So you actually prove my point, even more.

Damn, your dumb.

No, the question was whether or not Europe was socialist. You lie so shamelessly! :smiley_ROFLMAO:

So we're a scary sochialist country too, huh? Man, you really fucked up that response. You were better off slinking away with your tail between our legs like you usually do.

Mister D
05-26-2016, 09:23 AM
Remember this folks when OGIS mocks you for claiming the Democrats are socialists. We're a socialist country by his own reasoning. :laugh:

OGIS
05-26-2016, 10:19 AM
No, the question was whether or not Europe was socialist. You lie so shamelessly! :smiley_ROFLMAO:

And socialism was defined by several people as "government owning the means of production." That is the definition i responded to. Europe has many government-owned companies. They are therefore, by that definition, socialist to a very great extent.


So we're a scary sochialist country too, huh? Man, you really $#@!ed up that response. You were better off slinking away with your tail between our legs like you usually do.

No, I did not say that. I pointed out that the list was much smaller than Europe's... in a much bigger economy. That would therefore imply that we are LESS socialist than Europe, would it not? Yes, it would.

Look, just try not lying for a change, OK? You might be surprised at the clean feeling between your ears.

MisterVeritis
05-26-2016, 10:26 AM
That is exactly my point. You have a way, MrV, of strawmanning statements of other people and then criticizing the strawman.

What I said was that the crony capitalists are hiding behind the capitalist rhetoric.
Wrong.

Crony capitalism is corruption, not capitalism. I correctly criticized your nonsense.

Mister D
05-26-2016, 10:28 AM
And socialism was defined by several people as "government owning the means of production." That is the definition i responded to. Europe has many government-owned companies. They are therefore, by that definition, socialist to a very great extent.

No, I did not say that. I pointed out that the list was much smaller than Europe's... in a much bigger economy. That would therefore imply that we are LESS socialist than Europe, would it not? Yes, it would.

Look, just try not lying for a change, OK? You might be surprised at the clean feeling between your ears.

:facepalm: This guy is shameless...



Just as there are many forms of capitalism. for example, capitalism under military dictatorship, as in Chile under General Pinochet. And capitalism with a democracy (the best one money can buy) here in the US.

To automatically equate a socialist economic system (state ownership of production) with dictatorship is simplistic.

I mean...lol

Europe is not socialist. There are no socialist economies in Europe. None. The existence of state owned enterprises is not socialism by your own admission. If it was, the US has been a socialist country for a very long time. Hopefully, no one is stupid enough to argue that. Well, except you. :laugh:

MisterVeritis
05-26-2016, 10:30 AM
I stumble over the idea that someone else can make better decisions for you than you can. That is the crux of socialism.

In a "world with no scarcity", those who are capable will be compelled (presumably) to give up (meaning the state will take it from them) what they produce. And then, the state will dole out the goods taken from the productive based on what the state says each individual needs.

Where am I wrong?

In a post-technological world without scarcity - meaning that we can create all things without any human intervention at all - there is no human capital. If people work, they do so to amuse themselves. They don't have to produce anything because everything that anyone could ever want or need is produced for us. The majority of human-kind will want to occupy themselves with something that interests them. They won't be paid for it because money has no meaning in such a world. If an individual does something that makes a great contribution, they will receive public accolades. If trade existed at all, it would be in things that are uniquely human and imperfect. A piece of art exchanged for a unique landscaping job or a handmade piece of furniture, ceramic or jewellery or a specially prepared meal etc.
You are full of crap. I mean that in the nicest sort of way.

Will food grow itself? Will lawns mow themselves? Will children watch themselves? Will movies be made without human involvement? Will songs sing themselves? Will advancements in knowledge and technological know-how magically happen without human involvement?

We have the utopias you seek. We call them prisons.

MisterVeritis
05-26-2016, 10:41 AM
Scarcity - as implied in the word, it is having less of something than is required. It can be actual or contrived. It is less important when the scarce item does not involve something people need to survive or have a modicum of dignity. It can be contrived if artificially reducing the supply of an item results in it selling for more.
Is time scarce? Do I have an infinite amount of time or must I make choices? Most of us already have everything we need to survive. We can survive on ten pounds of rice and beans with an occasional scrap of meat and a few pieces of fruit.

What is a modicum of dignity?


An inflated ego - an inflated feeling of pride in your superiority to others. Often accompanied by narcissism.
Okay. How is an inflated ego relevant to your utopia? Will your dictators have some measuring device to ensure that no one has any more ego than any other? Will the dictators crush those who are found to have inflated egos?


Wealth - Money was invented because of the impracticality of hoarding things. Think about that concept for a minute. Envision the multi-billionaires of the world, if there were no medium of exchange. They would have mountains of stuff that they could never actually use, but don't want anyone else to use either.
So when you use money, you actually do mean wealth. Money has no value unless we believe it does. Wealth gets created. Money is simply created magically.


How is wealth created - ultimately in our society it generally involves looking at human endeavor as a commodity. Someone who digs a ditch is less valuable than an accountant. Our value in society is predicated on the scarcity or abundance of our skill. If everyone were a great artist, art would have no value. If everyone could be a quantum physicist, they would be earning minimum wage. However if we had no machines and people were generally spindly and weak, a person who could dig a ditch would make a great deal of money.

Wealth or more importantly great wealth in the 21st century is created by finding a commodity to sell, then employing people who are also treated like commodities and paid accordingly. They become the means for creating the wealth. Either the commodity workers are manufacturing the product at little cost to the employer or they are performing services for depreciated remuneration because people as commodities are only valued for their scarcity. The commodity that is being sold is marketed, thus creating a demand and the business makes it sufficiently scarce such that it gains additional value because the demand then exceeds the availability. When that happens the price of the good or service increases. If the cost of the commodity workers exceeds the price point for creating great wealth, the business moves somewhere that the pricing for human endeavor is lower. These are also usually places where human life, in general, is cheap and disposable.
Your beliefs on wealth creation come straight out of Capital Volume One. Karl Marx was very proud of that piece of work. Most of us get our beliefs from Radical Karl.

Thanks.

MisterVeritis
05-26-2016, 10:48 AM
Just as there are many forms of capitalism. for example, capitalism under military dictatorship, as in Chile under General Pinochet. And capitalism with a democracy (the best one money can buy) here in the US.

To automatically equate a socialist economic system (state ownership of production) with dictatorship is simplistic.
There is one form of capitalism. You get to decide what is best for you and I get to decide what is best for me. Everything else is a constraint on capitalism. We can be less free but that does not change freedom.

The United States has grown its own fascistic system using hundreds of thousands of regulations, rules, and laws to bind us in the darkness. We cannot call what we have capitalism nor can we call our system of government a Constitutional Republic.

MisterVeritis
05-26-2016, 10:51 AM
No, it's in the very definition of socialism. If it violates those terms it is not socialism.

Again...that's communism, not socialism. In socialism there is no $#@!head that sits on his ass all day. That $#@!head would get nothing because he did not produce and contribute.
The socialism you describe does not exist. Nor can it ever exist. Cool.

maineman
05-26-2016, 11:01 AM
We cannot call what we have capitalism nor can we call our system of government a Constitutional Republic.

Call me anything...just don't call me late for suppah!

Subdermal
05-26-2016, 11:14 AM
No, it's in the very definition of socialism. If it violates those terms it is not socialism.

First: you know I like you and respect your views and tone, GA - and I agree with you here. The problem is not questioning the definition of Socialism. The problem is the viability of the actual application of it.


Again...that's communism, not socialism. In socialism there is no $#@!head that sits on his ass all day. That $#@!head would get nothing because he did not produce and contribute.

I guess I can speak on the idealized version and the real-world application simultaneously.

1) Is it idealized or realistic to expect that there will be no lazy people who do just that?

2) What of welfare, and how do you account for people who work harder than others because of their nature - or those who are more intelligent than others and are the impetus for more wealth production? How do you prevent disincentivizing them and suppressing their productivity?

Green Arrow
05-26-2016, 01:05 PM
First: you know I like you and respect your views and tone, GA - and I agree with you here. The problem is not questioning the definition of Socialism. The problem is the viability of the actual application of it.

And I don't necessarily disagree with the criticism of the application. I've seen it work on the small scale and that's all it was really ever intended for, where we run into trouble is trying to apply it to the large scale.

That said, pretty much all of the large scale applications we've seen were applications of communism, not socialism. They were applications of Marxist ideology, and Marx was actually an opponent of the socialists. He broke from their movement to form his own ideology - communism.


I guess I can speak on the idealized version and the real-world application simultaneously.

1) Is it idealized or realistic to expect that there will be no lazy people who do just that?

Idealistic. There will be those who refuse to contribute, but are physically and mentally able to contribute. All socialism requires is that they receive nothing, but I would go further and kick them out of the communty altogether.


2) What of welfare, and how do you account for people who work harder than others because of their nature - or those who are more intelligent than others and are the impetus for more wealth production? How do you prevent disincentivizing them and suppressing their productivity?

The answer is in the socialist theory of distribution - to each according to his contribution. If you work harder and contribute more, you get more. Socialism doesn't promise equality of outcome, it only promises equality of means. That's where Marx and the communists broke away from socialism, they wanted both equality of means and of outcome. It's the reason the Marxist theory of distribution is one of the first concrete ideas of communism that Marx wrote: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

MisterVeritis
05-26-2016, 01:48 PM
The answer is in the socialist theory of distribution - to each according to his contribution. If you work harder and contribute more, you get more.
In your utopia who is the middleman? Why do you believe you need someone to take what you have produced and then give it back to you?

Dr. Who
05-26-2016, 06:24 PM
I stumble over the idea that someone else can make better decisions for you than you can. That is the crux of socialism.

In a "world with no scarcity", those who are capable will be compelled (presumably) to give up (meaning the state will take it from them) what they produce. And then, the state will dole out the goods taken from the productive based on what the state says each individual needs.

Where am I wrong?

You are full of crap. I mean that in the nicest sort of way.

Will food grow itself? Will lawns mow themselves? Will children watch themselves? Will movies be made without human involvement? Will songs sing themselves? Will advancements in knowledge and technological know-how magically happen without human involvement?

We have the utopias you seek. We call them prisons.
Machines will manage farms with little human intervention althought that might be a fringe industry, since the replicators will make anything you want including fresh produce and meat. People who love interacting with kids will volunteer their time at daycares or the family robot will mind the kids. People will still sing and write songs, but not for money. People will still involve themselves in R&D and science because they like it, they just won't need to be paid because everything that they need will come out of a machine that turns energy into whatever you want. Just because there is no need to be paid won't stop people from pursuing the things that interest them.

Dr. Who
05-26-2016, 07:01 PM
Is time scarce? Do I have an infinite amount of time or must I make choices? Most of us already have everything we need to survive. We can survive on ten pounds of rice and beans with an occasional scrap of meat and a few pieces of fruit.

What is a modicum of dignity?


Okay. How is an inflated ego relevant to your utopia? Will your dictators have some measuring device to ensure that no one has any more ego than any other? Will the dictators crush those who are found to have inflated egos?


So when you use money, you actually do mean wealth. Money has no value unless we believe it does. Wealth gets created. Money is simply created magically.


Your beliefs on wealth creation come straight out of Capital Volume One. Karl Marx was very proud of that piece of work. Most of us get our beliefs from Radical Karl.

Thanks.
I am not a reader of Marx. It is unneccesary, if you actually observe how the world works. Marx came from an upper middle class family and never really worked a day in his whole life - he was a perpetual academic - he married a rich wife who financed his philosophical interests. Had he ever worked he might have had a better understanding of capitalism from a realistic perspective and would have understood that his version of socialism was doomed to failure so long as there was scarcity. That said, even in capitalistic world there is room for a little socialism, if for no other reason than to prevent unmanageable social anarchy among the poor.

I have not been discussing a world with scarcity, but a post-scarcity world where everyone can have whatever they want, travel as they want - where everyone can live like a king but where the concept of wealth has no meaning. If you could replace every article of clothing you have daily, along with every piece of furniture, every appliance, your car, eat anything you want and everything had the same price of zero because your replicator could create anything you want from your breakfast to a 50 pound diamond and take whatever you no longer want, turn it back into energy and rearrange the molecules into whatever you do want, what meaning would wealth have? What value would there be in money?

OGIS
05-26-2016, 11:27 PM
There is one form of capitalism. You get to decide what is best for you and I get to decide what is best for me. Everything else is a constraint on capitalism. We can be less free but that does not change freedom.

The United States has grown its own fascistic system using hundreds of thousands of regulations, rules, and laws to bind us in the darkness. We cannot call what we have capitalism nor can we call our system of government a Constitutional Republic.

My point is that the crony "capitalists" (Ayn Rand's "Aristocracy of Pull") are hiding behind the rhetoric of "real capitalism" and the conservative movement. That such deception could occur should not be a surprise to you; the right regularly carries on about how the International Communist Conspiracy constantly cloaks itself in the rhetoric of more benign movements and issues.

This is, in fact, the excuse for opposing many of those movements and issues. "Ah-HA! Yes! The people behind these protests are the Communists!" You know damned well this little slight of hand is true; I've seen it happen over and over again for 50+ years.