Spasiba
5th March 2008, 21:39
Yeah, me again, more questions!
A few things brought up in a class of mine that beg me to ask questions:
(Mind you, this was a Western Civilization course, so perhaps it was just meant historically)
1. Businesses always will make more money when the government doesn't intervene.
Understandable, but probably because the profit is born out of exploitation. But the thought occured to me, then, is how is the economy to grow? Then, maybe I just don't understand and a leftist economy is different, and if so, tell me, but the fact that right now, a growing economy is good, and that what we believe in seems like it would harm the economy (a point that I see frequently brought up by the right) and thus would be bad for the community as a whole. Is this at all true?
2. Businesses tend to run things more effeciently and with better profits than the government can.
Pretty much the same as the above statement.
other thoughts:
3. Machines are supposed to take over difficult labor after the revolution, but how do we make sure this happens smoothly enough that people aren't left unemployed? It is awkward, though, that we want machines (well most of us anyway) to do labor, but at the same time, in today's world, this is a serious problem because it does leave people unemployed but without compensation.
4. I see this point brought up all the time: "What if, for example, someone starts growing food in their own backyard and starts selling it, would that not create inequality?"
Well, I see 2 things wrong with this: 1. Food shouldn't be a problem, why would you need more? problem here being, people like food, so that's not necessarily the case 2. Someone making more money than another isn't a problem.. Right? But this is just one example of a certain problem: People creating the possibily to exploit others: what if this becomes some kind of farm where people may be paid more; gaining more money than otherwise is possible. Now don't limit this to just this garden example, but the general thought of it is what I'm troubled with.
5. Music, art, all that, as I understand it, would be more abundant as more people would have time to do it, and because it isn't about money, wouldn't be pressured when making it. Correct?
6. Limited supplies. How do we distribute that? Say there is an epidemic and only so much of a cure. What do we do? What if people want a certain type of car but enough don't exist? Now of course more can be produced, but the thing that keeps bugging me is the thought of the USSR's experience with this, with over and under production for things people didn't or did want, respectively. Who do we make sure that doesn't happen? I hear stories of malls being made, but nothing put in to them (this is a specific example I've gotten from an Eastern European), not enough shoes (IDK if its true) etc. Capitalism creates tons of cars, and thus there is no waiting period, unlike in the USSR. What do we do to not run into these problems? I guess what I'm saying is, how do we measure demand? And how do we deal with limited supply?
By the way, I know some times I may sound capitalist and such, but please understand I'm playing devil's advocate sometimes or asking honest questions I just really need the answer to. If I'm going to be a Lefty I must understand it, right?
Oh, and a rant: How can anyone seriously view North Korea and Cambodia as communist countries? Pol Pot was a huge fucker that decided to kill smart people and those wearing glasses, needless to say, thats idiotic beyond words. Kim Jung-il and his father? Everytime I see their pretty little faces (such as peoples avatars on Soviet Empire) I want to punch this screen. God dammit! Who wants to blindy follow a leader who cares only for his own looks?! Oh, and Jim Jones. Why is there a group that dares call itself communist and likes him at the same time? Dammit all....
More to come, I'm sure.:cool:
A few things brought up in a class of mine that beg me to ask questions:
(Mind you, this was a Western Civilization course, so perhaps it was just meant historically)
1. Businesses always will make more money when the government doesn't intervene.
Understandable, but probably because the profit is born out of exploitation. But the thought occured to me, then, is how is the economy to grow? Then, maybe I just don't understand and a leftist economy is different, and if so, tell me, but the fact that right now, a growing economy is good, and that what we believe in seems like it would harm the economy (a point that I see frequently brought up by the right) and thus would be bad for the community as a whole. Is this at all true?
2. Businesses tend to run things more effeciently and with better profits than the government can.
Pretty much the same as the above statement.
other thoughts:
3. Machines are supposed to take over difficult labor after the revolution, but how do we make sure this happens smoothly enough that people aren't left unemployed? It is awkward, though, that we want machines (well most of us anyway) to do labor, but at the same time, in today's world, this is a serious problem because it does leave people unemployed but without compensation.
4. I see this point brought up all the time: "What if, for example, someone starts growing food in their own backyard and starts selling it, would that not create inequality?"
Well, I see 2 things wrong with this: 1. Food shouldn't be a problem, why would you need more? problem here being, people like food, so that's not necessarily the case 2. Someone making more money than another isn't a problem.. Right? But this is just one example of a certain problem: People creating the possibily to exploit others: what if this becomes some kind of farm where people may be paid more; gaining more money than otherwise is possible. Now don't limit this to just this garden example, but the general thought of it is what I'm troubled with.
5. Music, art, all that, as I understand it, would be more abundant as more people would have time to do it, and because it isn't about money, wouldn't be pressured when making it. Correct?
6. Limited supplies. How do we distribute that? Say there is an epidemic and only so much of a cure. What do we do? What if people want a certain type of car but enough don't exist? Now of course more can be produced, but the thing that keeps bugging me is the thought of the USSR's experience with this, with over and under production for things people didn't or did want, respectively. Who do we make sure that doesn't happen? I hear stories of malls being made, but nothing put in to them (this is a specific example I've gotten from an Eastern European), not enough shoes (IDK if its true) etc. Capitalism creates tons of cars, and thus there is no waiting period, unlike in the USSR. What do we do to not run into these problems? I guess what I'm saying is, how do we measure demand? And how do we deal with limited supply?
By the way, I know some times I may sound capitalist and such, but please understand I'm playing devil's advocate sometimes or asking honest questions I just really need the answer to. If I'm going to be a Lefty I must understand it, right?
Oh, and a rant: How can anyone seriously view North Korea and Cambodia as communist countries? Pol Pot was a huge fucker that decided to kill smart people and those wearing glasses, needless to say, thats idiotic beyond words. Kim Jung-il and his father? Everytime I see their pretty little faces (such as peoples avatars on Soviet Empire) I want to punch this screen. God dammit! Who wants to blindy follow a leader who cares only for his own looks?! Oh, and Jim Jones. Why is there a group that dares call itself communist and likes him at the same time? Dammit all....
More to come, I'm sure.:cool: