Free Competition is a load - of bullshit

[hazard]

I touched on this subject in the theory forum. No capitalist’s bit. I'm gonna be away from this board for a couple of days, so hopefully the comrades will pick up any slack for me.

Free Competition does not work. It divides the resources of any nation is a drastic way that can only lead to disaster. Let me explain.

Country A and Country B both have a workforce of one hundred million people. Country A uses competition as its model while Country B uses communism as its model. Both country's desire to develop and produce 5 levels of an item. To clarify, this item can be anything. A missile, a rifle, a bicycle or a conveyer belt. It doesn't matter.

Country A, as a competitive mode of production, divides its population into 4 freely competing camps. That’s 25 million all working to develop and produce that item through five evolutionary stages. First, each division must research the initial level. After this level is researched, production can begin. Then, as it is being produced, the next level can be researched. Just to be even, lets say it takes every division the same amount of research time. One year. And, since every division is producing similar products, they all produce the same amount within every year before the next advance comes out. Let's say one million items per camp. Now, as each stage of development evolves, ten percent is lost in production, per division. This is due to the retraining of staff and modification of equipment. Now lets look at the results.

Year One : no items, research time only
Year Two: 4 million y1 items
Year Three: 3.6 million y2 items
Year Four: 3.24 million y3 items
Year Five: 2.916 million y4 items
Year Six: 2.6244 million y5 items

Country B, as a communist mode of production, need not divide its population into 4 ( or more) divisions to compete against one another. SO, there's 100 million all working to develop and produce the same item. Since Country A took a year to develop the item with a QUARTERED population, Country B can quarter its production time. Each stage takes only 3 months. Production values for each stage will decline only for the amount of time necessary for the development period. That number will remain at 10 percent to compensate for universal upgrades. The total number of items will also remain the same, for the total number of producers is the same. Now lets look at some initial results.

Period One(3 months): research time
Period Two(6 months): 1 million p1 items
Period Three(9 months): 0.9 million p2 items
Period Four(12 months): 0.81 million p3 items
Period Five(15 months): 0.729 million p4 items
Period Six(18 months): 0.6561 million p5 items

At this point, it is obvious that Country B is using a far more efficient system of production. In one year it has manufactured and developed a far superior product than Country A. By the time Country A has even started producing the highest level of that item, Country B will have stock piled over 10 million, six hundred and fifty six thousand, one hundred of the most technologically advanced versions of that item!

The only benefit of Country A is in the accumulation of outdated versions of the same technology. And what good is that when it comes to rifles and missiles? This is why the Soviet Union won the space race and the arms race. This is why free competition is vastly inferior to communal competition. Capitalism cannot even hope to keep up with communism.


(Edited by hazard at 8:08 pm on April 13, 2003)

[Anarcho]

Oddly enough, the idea is sound, but there are two large flaws in your statement.

One is that research would take less time for Nation B. More people does not necessarily mean better research. In the real world, barring serendipity, research tends to be a constant.

And the US won the arms race. They did, however, loose the space race.

And are preparing to loose it again to the Chinese.

[hazard]

nation B takes the same amount of time to research on a basis of population. it takes nation A four times as long since they are split into 4 seperate competitive camps. hence, if it takes 25 million people one year to develop a technological advance, it would take 100 million people 3 monthes to make the same advance. also, whatever way you look at it, the divisions are my point. forcing the population into competitive camps yields only disadvantages. more people may not yield better research, but it won't have the disadvantages of a fragmented society. thats really what this model is about. not illustrating the advantages of communism, but rather the DISADVANTAGE of capitalism.

as far as the arms race, last time I checked the USSR had triple the number of warheads that the US had. the americans sought a treaty to freeze their production in the seventies because they were losing so badly. of course, the americans said that they sought the treaty because they had more than they needed already. in other words, THEY LOST! WE WON! WE WON!

(Edited by hazard at 8:29 pm on April 13, 2003)

[Boris Moskovitz]

The thing with the warheads, is that both the Soviet Union and America have enough to kill us all. But you are right! Competition doesn't work! But people simply don't want to be with each other, one company among them wants to touch the prize. But I gotta say, you are right. The only reason people want to be competetive is that it is the only thing they know to do.

[Anarcho]

Population does not bear much of a factor into research. If that were the case, China would have long since colonized Mars, the asteroid belt and beyond.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying your premise is flawed.

Arms race. While it is true that the Sov Union had more warheads, in conventional arms, US quality and systems more than made up for Soviet quantity. See the Arab-Israeli proxy wars, wherin vast quantities of Soviet Equipment were slagged by US equipment.

And if it's being measured by nuclear aresenal, I don't think anyone wins.

[hazard]

I made this model basic to keep the ideas easy enough to discuss. once you introduce PROFIT into the production levels and development levels, the model starts to lean even more hevily in favour of the communist country B. simply, both research and development MUST be penalized even furthur if it is conducted for the benefit of each divisions repecetive bourgeois privet property owner. they won't be as concerned in the production or development as they will be in their profit. country B blows country A away even without the profit overlay.

[hazard]

anarcho:

china is an interesting question.
basically, all I can say is that past a certain threshold, numerical advantages can become a disadvantage. also you seem to be mincing the logic of my model with real world situations. whether or not china has or has not or could or could not colonize mars based upon my model is not the point of the model. the model is supposed to show the flaws of a capitalist mode of production and nothing more. it deals with an imaginary "item". obviously, the complexity of interplanetary travel relies upon a massive amount of research with little to no production at all. as such, the question of china and mars overlooks all that is necessary for the model to work.

namely, a basic item that can be upgraded rapidly and produced in mass quantities quickly, regardless of the mode of production.

[Anarcho]

Well, I am not a student of Industrial economics, so I can't go into to much detail.

But I will say this much.

Traditionally, when a project requires a lot of research, companies tend to work together and share the results. See the growth of GPS companies and products, Cellular phones, and broadband internet... all made possible by numerous companies working together, all upgradeable products that require research to build and modify, all with fairly inexpensive products.

Also, sad to say, but the historical example of the Soviet run Automobile company, compared to the American or even better, the Japanese auto industry, would tend to indicate that your premise, again, has a fundamental flaw somewhere.

I have no idea where.

[Anonymous]

Quote: Capitalism cannot even hope to keep up with communism.




Averge per person.

Norway GDP = 24,005 http://biz.yahoo.com/ifc/no/
USA GDP = 32,042 http://biz.yahoo.com/ifc/us/
Russia = 4,570 http://biz.yahoo.com/ifc/ru/ even worse when they were Soviet
Poland = 7,053 http://biz.yahoo.com/ifc/pl/ even worse durring cold war
China: $4,091 http://biz.yahoo.com/ifc/cn/ (Even worse before free market reform)
Cuba: $1,692 http://biz.yahoo.com/ifc/cu/ (oye vey!)


Our production is doing fine. Communist could use a little help. Feel free to check any other coutry out on Yahoo. You will find a distrubing trend with socialsim/communism and a free market.

[Pete]

Kelvin, I have told you enough times that you cannot measure socialist and capitalist countries on the same scales. So fuck off with your glorious gdp/capita numbers. They mean nothing in some cases than some people are insanely rich while others rot.

[Anonymous]

Contrary. The numbers are very important. It is a standardized measure of worker production. In the USA a woker can take $1 of raw material and make 32,042 worth of usefull improvement on it. In China a woker can only make 4,091of usefull improvement for his effort.

Read the orginal post. He is directly comparing worker output. So why don't you learn to read, then I'll consider FUCKING OFF.

Are you so blind that when you have the cold hard truth hit you in the face that you will still deny it?

[Anonymous]

Crazy Pete;

Your general respect and contempt for other people must get you in trouble a lot. Or is the anonymity of the internet that gives you the courage of a coward. I bet you would not talk like that to me if we were face to face. How do expect to live in communist bliss with so much contempt?

[Tkinter1]

History proves hazards logic wrong.

[Pete]

Kelvin, you deserve no comment.

[Wolfie]

kelvin: But people in the US have to live with the stress of keeping food on the table, their children in school and the mortgage up to date, so as my good friend mr. crazypete said "you cannot measure socialist and capitalist countries on the same scales".

TKinter1: Well, yes i suppose your right, but has a system such as we belive in been correctly implemented ever. All of capitalism must be destroyed.

[Tkinter1]

"but has a system such as we belive in been correctly implemented ever."

Has a capitalist system?

[Wolfie]

Capitalist in what sense? Pure capitalism, by which i mean completly free markets then I'd have to say no, but the US has extremly limited goverment intervention. Im not sure what your getting at though?

[Tkinter1]

I'm saying that systems never work out exactly as planned.

[Wolfie]

but a capitalist system has been implmented.

[Anonymous]

Quote: from Wolfie on 11:16 pm on April 13, 2003
kelvin: But people in the US have to live with the stress of keeping food on the table, their children in school and the mortgage up to date, so as my good friend mr. crazypete said "you cannot measure socialist and capitalist countries on the same scales".

TKinter1: Well, yes i suppose your right, but has a system such as we belive in been correctly implemented ever. All of capitalism must be destroyed.


Tell it to the orginal poster.

The Soviets made to earth orbit first. I don't ever recall a commie walking on the moon? As I recall no Soviet ever decleared "WE WILL BE IN ORBIT BEFORE THE AMERICANS". There was no space reace until JFK said "WE WILL BE ON THE MOON BEFORE THE DECADE IS OVER"

The arms race? The Soviets fell for the very reason of trying to keep up with the arms race. The arms race was thier very downfall.

web.pdx.edu/~kinsella/papers/pssi96.pdf

Jump to the conclusions which state: Arms production was an equilibrium, but it was the US that constantly out produced the Soviets. The equilibrium was one sided. The US constantly adjusted the the equilibrium by over producing the Soviets, for every minor increase in production that the Soviets accomplished.

In other words the USA was a fat kid sitting on the short end of a see-saw. The Soviets were the skinny kid sitting on the long end of the see-saw. The Soviets could not keep up with the USA on a 1 to 1 basis.

[HankMorgan]

Hazard, it isn't competition that makes capitalism successful and communism a failure. The reason capitalism works and communism doesn't is the system of rewards.

A worker in a capitalist country has the potential to better his situation through harder and smarter work or through switching to a line of work that pays better. A worker in a communist country doesn't work for himself, can't better his situation and as a result has no incentive.

The workers in country B, the communist country of your example, wouldn't work as hard as the workers in country A and would be left behind.

The flaw of communism isn't its lack of competition, it's the lack of incentive.

[notyetacommie]

Kelvin, how come you say so surely that your workers outproduced the Soviet workers? Have you been to any of the USSR enterprises? Who measured this all? In another thread you put an URL with "statistics" on the USSR that used the word "supposedly" twice a line. I have no doubt that the USA was a fat kid, and it continues to be so - just a fat kid who lives off all other nations, beating those who won't give their food for the hell of it. Nice talk about worker production! Why the hell do you send your astronauts to the outdated Russian stations instead of creating your own? Maybe because your Challengers and Liberties are not THAT reliable?

[Anonymous]

Quote: from notyetacommie on 9:03 am on April 14, 2003
Kelvin, how come you say so surely that your workers outproduced the Soviet workers? Have you been to any of the USSR enterprises? Who measured this all? In another thread you put an URL with "statistics" on the USSR that used the word "supposedly" twice a line. I have no doubt that the USA was a fat kid, and it continues to be so - just a fat kid who lives off all other nations, beating those who won't give their food for the hell of it. Nice talk about worker production! Why the hell do you send your astronauts to the outdated Russian stations instead of creating your own? Maybe because your Challengers and Liberties are not THAT reliable?



It is called the International Space Stataion (but really it is a USA project) which was renamed for political reasons. It was originally called the Ronald Reagan Space Station.

I can say US workers out produce Soviet workers 1) Yahoo GDP says so 2) The info from web.pdx.edu/~kinsella/papers/pssi96.pdf says so.

Who measured it? San-man Chung of National Defense Staff of South Korea. He was worried that the USA was spending too much on defense production and was trying to justify more rational controls on defense spending based on real threats rather than perceived. Reading between the lines the Soviets never got near to producing 1 to 1 with the USA in arms. It is not a theory (like communism). He was trying to explain decision behavior of US commanders and policy makers. (I would like to see similiar paper that takes a society appart and explains why communism works, but first you have to find a society where communism works.)

I type looking at the keyboard rather than the screen. I guess then you can rationally discredit Yahoo, the National Defense Staff, and James Oberg NASA scientist/historian because of my typing skills.

Soviets have died too. In secret accident during the cold war. An angry general ordered crews to work on a fueled rocket to keep it on schedule. Proper procedure is to unfuel the rocket, then move in the crews. Well rocket blows up, kills general, and technicians. About 165 total. It is called the "Nedelin Catastrophe", but because of Soviet secrets, your not going to read it in old Soviet newspapers. If your going to die in space accident, it is a 90% chance you will be flying Soviet/Russian equipment.

http://www.astronautix.com/articles/sovcrets.htm

Don't believe that Russian GDP sucks? Don't believe that Polish GDP sucks? Don't believe that Red China GDP sucks? I made it easy for to check. The links are there just click or paste which ever works. Maybe Yahoo is part of capitalist imperial plot to discret communism? HMMMMM.

(Edited by kelvin9 at 10:25 am on April 14, 2003)

[Anonymous]

Quote: from hazard THEY LOST! WE WON! WE WON!


The reason why the Soviets have so many missiles and war heads because they can not be counted on to work. A nuclear device and a rocket is a very complicated thing. Guidance and navigation over 1000s of miles is not easy.

The USA has the corner market on smart bomb guidance and navigation since the 70s and has only been getting better. The Soviets need more and bigger warheads to be sure they can kill a target. The USA can be sure to kill a target with one bomb, Soviet nuclear doctrine was to target several warheads at the same target.

Read the post above with the study on USA military decision and policy making. The study was not an economic one, it was a systematic analysis to understand how commanders and policy makers justify big defense budgets. It also accidently shoots down the idea that Soviets won the arms race in a very rigerous analysis.

If the Soviets won, where are they now? They are in the dustbin of history.

[notyetacommie]

Hey, body, I am a Soviet. I still have the USSR passport. I know what I am talking about. The reason you Americans are so brave now to go in a country that has handed in all their most deadly weapons to UN inspectors to win is that Soviets, headed by Gorbatchev, were thinking that the cold war should be over, all this perestroyka things and stuff. We thought that USA is not our enemy, we thought that our government was lying to us saying that the US were aggressors and our enemies. We thought we could make friends. Now every thinking creature on Earth sees that US IS an aggresor and IS going to become the global tyrant, we think that maybe our officials were right, after all. Maybe you DID sponsor tyrants like Saddam and sold them WMDs. Maybe it was too early to disarm, for, as we see from Iraq, you prefer to see others disarm, while spending more and more on deadlier and deadlier weapons, which are also illegal. Maybe they were right that the USSR is the only thing that can stop your greediness from killing this world. Maybe it was too early to say the cold war is over, it's too early to say the Soviets are the dust of history, as you haven't killed us all, you haven't killed me!!!

Worker productivity, measured by a capitalist researcher! A South Korean one!
There is something that I spotted that makes me not believe him. He says that Americans reacted to the Soviet moves. How about nuclear missiles to mention just one? US is STILL the only one to have used them, and they were the first to develope them.
Next, he stated pretty clearly that all this was just assumptions. He wrote:" The basic obstacle preventing a balanced examination of the process is the unavailability of Soviet defence budgeting data". No data, no research, I would say. It is OK for a cappie, though. "No data? No problem, we could say what we like."

I am not the last Soviet, and I tell you: you'll have to kill us all till you say "cold war is over". I am now thinking of becoming an army translator, or something to help all people of the world get rid of the US imperialism.

Now, US colonies or hidden colonies. How about this scheme: you buy a product from a country where the labor costs are low, or the living costs are low (a loaf of bread still costs 20 cents in Russia, and it used to cost even less in the Soviet times, whereas, say, in Germany a similar loaf would costs like 5 Euros last month.), bring it to US, sell it at 5 times as much (I personally know some companies that do so- I saw their products at the Chinese warehouses) and there you go- the US productivity is 5 times as much as in China!!!!

Shit...

[Anonymous]

Quote: from notyetacommie on 12:05 pm on April 14, 2003
, Maybe you DID sponsor tyrants like Saddam and sold them WMDs.

, it's too early to say the Soviets are the dust of history, as you haven't killed us all, you haven't killed me!!!

Worker productivity, measured by a capitalist researcher! A South Korean one!
There is something that I spotted that makes me not believe him. He says that Americans reacted to the Soviet moves. How about nuclear missiles to mention just one? US is STILL the only one to have used them, and they were the first to develope them.
Next, he stated pretty clearly that all this was just assumptions. He wrote:" The basic obstacle preventing a balanced examination of the process is the unavailability of Soviet defence budgeting data". No data, no research, I would say. It is OK for a cappie, though. "No data? No problem, we could say what we like."


bring it to US, sell it at 5 times as much (I personally know some companies that do so- I saw their products at the Chinese warehouses) and there you go- the US productivity is 5 times as much as in China!!!!

Shit...

Your English is incredibly good. You write it better than many students born here.

The Iraqi, they are not shooting M-16, driving M-1s, or Flying F-15s. Thier military equipment is Soviet. The US sold them intelligence and photographs in the Iranian/Iraq war. Make what you want of that.

The South Korean study does a statistical analysis common to medicine and other complicated systems. In a physical science you can make direct calculations for cause and effect. Not so in economics, drug threapy, or social analysis. Sometimes the analysis can relate two totally different things that common sense tells you can not happen, but the statistics says it is true. No one ever believes it. Just like in medicine and social analysis, but the analysis says it is there. Even if you asume 1 to 1 production for the US and USSR. It says some very troubling things about USSR military production: the lack of responsiveness and flexability.

I am sure that the Soviet story is not yet over. Where is your capitol now? History has shown that this moment in time Russia is looking west. When St. Petersburg becomes Leningrad. Then maybe you will have your turn again, but not now.

[notyetacommie]

Thanks for the compliment, anyway.
But there are some points that you either distorted or ignored. First, I meant the WMDs, not the conventional arms. Second, the arms were sold to Iraq in the 70s (maybe in the 80s) mostly, so they are reflecting the arms technology of that time. Concerning the WMD, is this article
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?p...9&notFound=true (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29&notFound=true)

supposed to be a lie or another case of Communist propaganda?

So it was not just intelligence and photographs. And you have not been hunting for the USSR arms, but for the WMDs that you supplied yourselves. And the use of which Rumsfeld did approve. As usual, double standards!

[abstractmentality]

Quote: from HankMorgan on 4:41 pm on April 13, 2003
Hazard, it isn't competition that makes capitalism successful and communism a failure. The reason capitalism works and communism doesn't is the system of rewards.

A worker in a capitalist country has the potential to better his situation through harder and smarter work or through switching to a line of work that pays better. A worker in a communist country doesn't work for himself, can't better his situation and as a result has no incentive.

The workers in country B, the communist country of your example, wouldn't work as hard as the workers in country A and would be left behind.

The flaw of communism isn't its lack of competition, it's the lack of incentive.

although i am trying to get away from spending so much time on this board, i just had to address this.

i think hank produces a good thought here. and i think that a lot of what he says is true, but only to a certain extent. i think that when born into a society that is based upon "bettering" yourself within the social heirarchy, then i think a vast majority will attempt to work hard in order to fulfill that thought. yes, i will give you that, hank.

however, one has to think in a theoretical sense of if a people were to be born within a society when the norm was to not work to "better" yourself on the social ladder (because their isnt one), but to rather just help in the building of society and helping out the community, would those workers work just as hard as the worker born into a capitalist country? this question is key.

now, if the social ladder is the "motivation" in the capitalist system, then only when the "motivation" to help in the building of society and community is equal to the social ladder concept can the production be equal. i bring the argument that the motivational factor can be equal.

the value of motivation is relative to the societal context of which the person is born into. since this is the case, i think it is valid to assume that the motivation of the two cases above can be equal, relatively. in fact, i would venture far enough to say that once the majority of people within a capitalist system realize that a vast majority of people that are born into the working class die in the working class, that they will not work as hard (seeing the fiction of complete social mobility), making the overall "hardness" of working more on the communist side. (i say communist side in the thought of after the transitional period, not directly after a revolution.)

[Bodacious]

The Soviet's dont have the brain power to build anything. That remark make's my stomach turn. Everything that has come out of there was stolen technolgy. Hmm they stole rocket technology from the German's and forced German scientist to build them in the USSR. Even the so called AK47 ( the only weapon todate that's reliable ) was from a German design.

It's just hard for them to steal any new technolgy from the US since the lockdown , I was really impressed with there GPS Jammer's they installed around Iraq. That had to hurt having all 6 took out in no time and one with a GPS guided bomb!

Hence all the weapon's we're finding in Iraq ( made in the USSR ) show's how desperate they really are , and how bad there economy is. But that's no excuse. Putin need's to find another way to improve Russia other than selling there useless excess weapon's from the coldwar to Dictator's.

Edit: Just looked at your so called double standard link , what double standard's? if you may have not of noticed brainchild that's the Washington Post an American run newspaper. We posted that , we confirmed it. That happened 20 year's ago. What I want you to deny is Russia selling *banned* weapon's to Iraq throughout the entire UN sanction's and up to two month's before the war started.


(Edited by Bodacious at 5:04 pm on April 15, 2003)

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Bodacious on 4:30 pm on April 15, 2003
The Soviet's dont have the brain power to build anything. That remark make's my stomach turn. Everything that has come out of there was stolen technolgy. Hmm they stole rocket technology from the German's and forced German scientist to build them in the USSR. Even the so called AK47 ( the only weapon todate that's reliable ) was from a German design.

It's just hard for them to steal any new technolgy from the US since the lockdown , I was really impressed with there GPS Jammer's they installed around Iraq. That had to hurt having all 6 took out in no time and one with a GPS guided bomb!

Hence all the weapon's we're finding in Iraq ( made in the USSR ) show's how desperate they really are , and how bad there economy is. But that's no excuse. Putin need's to find another way to improve Russia other than selling there useless excess weapon's from the coldwar to Dictator's.


Well what technology has the USA got which was not also stolen from other nations. I can think only one invention.

The only true American invention is the light bulb.

That is it.

[Anonymous]

Since you asked and I am typing this on a computer:



1) Transistors. AT&T Bell Labs

2) Integrated Circuits. Jack St. Clair Kilby at TI labs.

3) Micro Computers. NASA for the first moon landing.

4) The Internet. DRAPA USA defense research project.

None of it invented outside the USA.

[Som]

Communist could use a little help. Feel free to check any other coutry out on Yahoo. You will find a distrubing trend with socialsim/communism and a free market.

The problem with those numbers is that they dont account for what that money can actually buy, and what actually goes into their pockets, not much of a comparison.

In cuba, health care and all education is free, a certain amount of food in rations is provided for people free, housing is a lot cheaper than anywhere else (ive read that sometimes it comes as a flat 10% of their total pay), and I assume other necesities like utilities are either free or a very low cost.

Most everything is kept at a very cheap cost, a minor example is that a bicycle in Cuba costs $6.

So while the average Cuban in those statistics earns about 1/8th of the average Argentinean, more cubans are able to go out and buy TVs.

[Wolfie]

"more cubans are able to go out and buy TV's"

you talk crap. The state supplies, you dont go down to your local dixons or neighborhod electrical store. LoL

[hazard]

It's fascinating that all the capitalist support relies upon supposedly "real world" examples. On a basis of logic, and in respect to the model I constructed, none of them are able to counter the simple reality. NONE OF THEM.

aladin, or the dude with the aladin avatar, raised a question towards reward. that question was that how could communist workers outproduce capitalist workers when they are not rewarded for working? and that is a good question. I suppose if we were dealing with dogs who will only roll over because they know they will be rewarded it would be a better question. Or, maybe if we were dealing with donkey's who will only drag a cart because a carrot is dangled in front of its nose. But these are humans. Whether communists are enlghtened, more intelligent, or more driven than the cattle herd of capitalism I cannot say. But to assume that people will only produce like animals if they are treated like animals undercuts this entire discussion that is based upon reason. What aladin calls reward is nothing more than enslavement. The reward is actually only useful to prevent revolution. Nothing more. Communist workers will never revolt, for they have acheived the goal: FREEDOM. Capitalist workers, as slaves, need reward so they will not revolt.

I am amazed that the capitlaists cite the obvious propaganda of capitalist scientific abilities. This is despite my model which hinges upon communist scientific superiority. It is clear that this model illustrates just how obvious this propaganda is. Currently, the US is working on an SDI type system. The USSR had this system in a higher developmental stage in the 1960's. As for such claims as "moon landing" and vcr's, in order, verification and wasteful. The moon landing, although it could have happened, can never truly be proven. Even if it did happen, it merely contradicts my model, but does not in any way prove that Capitalism is more productive on a basis of their competitive mode. Which, again, is the entire point of my model. I think everybody should do a little thinking regarding the TV BROADCAST of the moon landing. Now look at MODERN images of shuttle and space shuttle orbits. See the diffrence? WAKE UP! Anyway, I think calvin or somebody listed a host of ridiculous frivolous capitalist thingies like RC cars and vcr's and atari's and shit. A total waste of productive powers used only to collar the exploited slaves that could revolt and eliminate the ruling class at any moment. These "advances" only illustrate how much of a waste the capitlaist mode is in contrast to the communist mode. SUch advances are so unnecessary and pointless that the fact that they exist at all, again, show how streamlined and effective the communist model is. There is no need to opiate the massess with the modern religion of TV and its peripherals when the massess will not revolt, at default, for theyhave finally revolted and eliminated the final division between ruler and slave. The capitalist slaves are convinced of two things when they go out to purchase another "fix" of their modern opiate. One: that they are well paid, treated and rewarded for their forced labour and Two: only in capitalism are such wonderous technologies(drugs) available. Both are modes of propaganda that are so essential to capitalism that noone notices when they occur.

In total, there must be a way to counter this model from a capitalist perspective. Unfortunately, the cattle herd is supposed to be dumb, and so they dumbly either avoid this truth, or attempt to counter it with propaganda. I now urge my comrades, who will most likely have a better logical ability than the pigs simply because they are comrades, to not assault my model. Yet. The pigs have oinked. Now I wanna hear 'em squeal.

[HankMorgan]

Quote: from abstractmentality on 4:38 am on April 15,
now, if the social ladder is the "motivation" in the capitalist system, then only when the "motivation" to help in the building of society and community is equal to the social ladder concept can the production be equal. i bring the argument that the motivational factor can be equal.


abstractMentality, I lie awake at night wondering if you could be right. In a free capitalist country, a rich man's cat will have milk before a poor man's daughter. I'm a capitalist because it works better than anything else but I've never liked that a poor man's daughter may go hungry while a rich man's cat gets fat. It's wrong but I don't see how to fix it without making everyone go hungry.

Again I think it has to do with incentives. Is it human nature to work as hard for someone else's daughter as you would work for your own? I don't think so.

I don't believe free market capitalism is pinnacle of economic development for all time but communism is clearly a failure because doesn't work with human nature.

Thanks, abstract, for the quality of your post.

[hazard]

I am unsure what has brought both aladin and abstact to their conclusion that the donkey's carrots are actually motivational. at the very least, it is. but I fear that these "motivations' work more like a harness than anything else. this is an old question anyway. motivation has less to do with material reward than it does with the TRUE drive for humanity to be free. it is only a matter of time before the material filth that plagues the slaves of capitalism will no longer serve as a motivational reward or a preventative revolutionary method.

in any case, the capitalist faction seems to be having difficulty dealing with the facts of the model I have employed. based upon it, there is no way at all that capitalism could ever hope to outproduce communism. obviously, to this type, the biased GNP scale is the be all and the end all to any analytical attempt at inferring the truth. without their propaganda, these capitalists cannot even pretend to counter. toss up a model, based on pure reason, pure logic, and they ignore the facts and evidence. maybe their genie's granted them their wish for blind stupidity after all. that is what you wished for, isn't it? welcome to the rest of your life.



(Edited by hazard at 6:33 pm on April 16, 2003)

[abstractmentality]

Hank,
Although i do respect you as one of the more economicly sound capitalist on this board, i must disagree with you on the matter of incentive. your basic argument is completly based upon what you believe to be "human nature," even though human nature is no more than a thought. human nature is unproven. you, as well as hazard, make economic judgements on human nature, of which is nothing more than a thought that can and does change from person to person. any argument with a base premise that is human nature makes the conclusion false.

i will say that i think peoples incentives to work can be changed when born into different societies. most people will adopt the dominant ideological apparatus they are born into. for example, in capitalist economies, most people will work for their betterment on the social ladder. when a person is born into a catholic family, they are likely to be catholic for a time. just as this is true, i would be willing to bet that people born outside of a capitalist system would adopt the dominant ideological apparatus of working for the community rather then the betterment on the social ladder.

this thought is what keeps me going in the leftist thought.

[hazard]

abstract:

what I'm not too clear on is when you start to mention the word "change". for if people are born into a society, their motivations would not be affected or adopted in any way. it would be simply taken as the standard reason for working. we do agree on the conclusion, however, that communist productive abilities would not suffer a penalty simply because their system uses an alternate mode of motivation than capitalism. this is all that aladin was really attempting in his challenge to the original post.

my conclusions have less to do with human nature than they do with verifiable information. when I know people who make good money and people who want to one day make good money, good being used very loosely here, it is clear that they are being motivated to work for the reward. what is unclear is if this reward is as much of a reward as it is a materialistic trap that binds and forces subserviance from the slaves. human nature in a sense that many people behave in such a way is anything but unprovable. as for the exact basis for human nature you are correct that it is, technically, a mystery.

[notyetacommie]

Quote: from AK47 on 5:11 pm on April 15, 2003[


Well what technology has the USA got which was not also stolen from other nations. I can think only one invention.

The only true American invention is the light bulb.

That is it.


Check out this one I found in another forum:

By the way American didn't invent everything. Bulb lamp was firstly invented by Russian inventers Ladygin, and then Yablochkov. Edison just improved this invention. Radio was invented by Russian inventor Popov and then Italian inventor Marconi. TV was invented by russian Zvorykin and Scottish John Lodge Burd. Laser was invented at the same time by Americans and Russians. And so on. As to Russians and Chinese would invade Canada if it wasn't for Americans it is ridiculous. No of these countries never made war far from their borders. All really BIG wars Russia had were defending those when Western countries invaded to Russia (like Germany or France. Americans are really very friendly and nice but I don't think you meet many people from other countries to compare education and friendliness of people from various cultures.

-- Jeka ([email protected]), November 03, 2002.

It wasn't written by me, but by somebody else.
You may not even know Ladygin, but he received an award from the Russian Academy of Science BEFORE Edison "invented" the bulb. He is not considered to be its inventor because he didn't patent his invention.

[abstractmentality]

hazard:
sorry for my misuse of the word change in my previous post; im re-reading it right now, and i can now see what you are saying. the word "change" is supposed to note the relative change with respect to the motivation of one born into a capitalist system to the motivation of one born into a non-capitalist (leftist) society.

do you see the irony of your human nature, that which is nature but only "many people" take part in? when i think of something that is "human nature," i think of something that is inherent in all of us, not just "many." their is a great book that has segments in it about "human nature" called Biology as Ideology : The Doctrine of DNA by Richard C. Lewontin (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060975199/qid=1050477271/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/102-8024438-2102526) if you would like some more writing on it, coming from the viewpoint and knowledge of a geneticist.

(Edited by abstractmentality at 12:20 am on April 16, 2003)

[hazard]

my long standing grudge with biology would disallow any effective and thoughtful reading of such a volume. in brief, I disagree with the premise that human nature, to incorporate the current discussion, as having any scientific basis. be it pseudo or otherwise.

human nature can be defined in many ways outside of science, especially in logical ways. Aristotle categorized the human condition in terms of elements that are common to all men. From here, as this logic is over two thousand years old, it is clear that logical constructions yield many pratical applications to any and every field. Especially the fields of science, linguistics and politics.

[abstractmentality]

please, explain your thoughts of human nature in science, linguistics and politics. i would really like the read this.

human nature is laughable, really. if a cloned cat has a different color fur coat then the original cat, then the thought of human nature breaks down even more, for me. it is kind of like the idea of racism. racism is a taught thought, not something that you are inherently born into. a child growing up in a racists home, will probably be a blatant racist. however, if one were to grow up in an egalitarian non-racists society, they will probably not be racists. do you see the parrallel with the thought of human nature as to what you are applying it to?

(Edited by abstractmentality at 12:39 am on April 16, 2003)

[hazard]

abstract:

thats the old dichotomy of "nature versus nurture". I can't tell if you think humans are conditioned or pre-conditioned into becoming what they are. at times you seem to think that genetics, that is pre-conditioning, is the answer. then you seem to infer that behaviour is conditioned, such as in your racism example. what do you think it is?

science is at ends determining what human nature is a result of. it seems that is most likely a combination between nature and nurture. as for linguistics, the language of a society has a direct relatio to an overall effect upon all of those that are raised to speak such a language as their mother tongue. it has been debated that language, more than climate or history, determines the characteristics of a society. proving this would be scientifically impossible, however, as one would need millions of babies to raise to speak languages, both of their natural society and foreign ones to see what effect the mother tongue actually has. it is simply a theory that seems to have some pull. so far, every society that uses a germanic source for its mother tongue(german, english) has been the most warlike and destructive throughout history. politics is only an attempt to govern the behaviour of people on a basis of their characteristics. hence, as civilization advances, the political control was necessarilly loosen. eventually, this control will "wither away" and humanity will become the commune that Marx spoke of. capitalism stands in direct opposition to the lessening of political control, for it represents the demise of their regime. that is why they are so brutal upon protesters, the protestors represent the decline of their contrl and reign as rulers. politics, then, are the intervention imposed by humanity upon itself in order to protect itself. like a conscience of some sort.

[Anonymous]

Quote: from Som on 2:19 am on April 16, 2003
Communist could use a little help. Feel free to check any other coutry out on Yahoo. You will find a distrubing trend with socialsim/communism and a free market.


The problem with those numbers is that they dont account for what that money can actually buy, and what actually goes into their pockets, not much of a comparison.

In cuba, health care and all education is free, a certain amount of food in rations is provided for people free, housing is a lot cheaper than anywhere else (ive read that sometimes it comes as a flat 10% of their total pay), and I assume other necesities like utilities are either free or a very low cost.

Most everything is kept at a very cheap cost, a minor example is that a bicycle in Cuba costs $6.

So while the average Cuban in those statistics earns about 1/8th of the average Argentinean, more cubans are able to go out and buy TVs.




Those numbers are a standardized for each country. I Cuban buying a $6 bicycle will get $6 worth of bicycle here in the USA. Excpet a Cuban will never afford a bicyle in the USA because there is no such thing. A $40 appartment in Cuba, will get you $40 worth of appartment in the USA.

Time out for a little lesson in economics. GDP is a measure of productivity, what is the labor worth for the average worker. GDP is not the income a worker takes home. I believe the USA is around 5th or 6th in terms of income taken home by an average worker. The USA is #1 in productivity.

None of the communist states come close in income or productivity.

[hazard]

calvin klein:

so thats why the #1 country now ships its labour to foreign nations, eh? you can get away with forcing five year olds to stitch up jeans in malaysia for a nickel an hour while in america it costs $20 an hour. god bless the gdp! USA is #1, in exploitative labour forced upon people of ages around the world.

gdp is a tool of propaganda. once you realize that you may think twice before patting yourself on the ass over it. your example sort of works against you too, calivin. six dollars worth of bicycle? don't take it personally, but you come off sounding like an idiot. obviously, Cuba is the better place to buy a bicycle or rent an apartment. bike's are only six bucks? I coulda bougt TWENTY bikes in cuba. and since my country trades with cuba, I think I WILL buy twenty bikes from cuba. then I'll sell em at one hundred and twenty bucks a pop. profit like that can't be made every day, you know. I"m GONNA BE RICH! all my dreams and prayers and hopes have finally been answered. i might even cut you in for a percent or two calvin. unless you will admit your fault, I stand to beecome the bicycle tycoon of the decade. I'll even buy a cache f cigars to light with my hundred dollar bills when I'm down there buying my bikes.


(Edited by hazard at 3:56 pm on April 18, 2003)

[Anonymous]

Then YOU will be exploiting the Cuban worers.

[hazard]

thats why I won't be doing that. I was using as obvious sarcasm as is possible. my actual point was that your "six dollar bicycle" premise was fundamentally flawed. not only was it false, but it did nothing to prove your point. sort of like my sarcastic point not really proving mine.

[Robot Rebellion]

Quote: from kelvin9 on 4:34 am on April 14, 2003

Quote: Capitalism cannot even hope to keep up with communism.


Averge per person.

Norway GDP = 24,005 http://biz.yahoo.com/ifc/no/
USA GDP = 32,042 http://biz.yahoo.com/ifc/us/
Russia = 4,570 http://biz.yahoo.com/ifc/ru/ even worse when they were Soviet
Poland = 7,053 http://biz.yahoo.com/ifc/pl/ even worse durring cold war
China: $4,091 http://biz.yahoo.com/ifc/cn/ (Even worse before free market reform)
Cuba: $1,692 http://biz.yahoo.com/ifc/cu/ (oye vey!)


Our production is doing fine. Communist could use a little help. Feel free to check any other coutry out on Yahoo. You will find a distrubing trend with socialsim/communism and a free market.Lot's of fallacies...

-You assume the US has a free market and that its GDP is due to that and not governments efforts to reduce the side of effects of feudalism... Capitalist Cato, to which libertarian-capitalist like Harry Brown quote, state roughly half of all income goes to government... Does that sound like a free market to you? Many even attribute this taxation as the major source of aggregate US wealth, and not US wealth existing despite taxation...

-GDP discounts free time and working conditions. A capitalist does a happy dance, if the workers are forced to work twice as long, to which increases GDP. GDP (and materialism) are means to an end, and not ends unto themselves. Americans have much longer works hours than Europeans, so you have to factor that in. Same deal with increasing capacity through bad work conditions. Free time and pleasant work conditions are just not things you can commoditisize.

-GDP does not take into account externalized pollution and unsustainable depletion of resources to steal from the future generations. (The US is quite guilty of that.)

-GDP as a source of goodness, does not reflect who has control over the means of production like land. The US has oodles of natural resources such as oil, coal, relatively fresh top soil, (used) to have lots of trees, and on and on. To say capitalism helped the US become the monster it became without access to land is disingenuous.

-GDP ignores, who has the stored labor, to which is need to further enrich ones self. The US has been built up on stolen labor. Starting from the obvious with slaves (who with Cotton put the US on the map), going up to immigrants who were exploited, to all such victims of capitalism through history, as well as victims abroad where the US bought up their means of production. This stolen labor doesn't belong to those who inherited it, but to all.

-The US has been built on counterfeiting money. From the Gold rushes in Alaska and California, to the Potsdam conference, where the dollar was adapted as an international currency. Real wealth comes into the states, fake wealth goes out, where massive amounts of federal reserve dollars are not located inside the states (the current accounts deficit is proof enough of this.) The US exists not ahead of third world countries, but on top of them. That we can all become Americans, is a funny joke.

-GDP doesn't reflect voluntary labor. I help my friend fix a computer and this isn't reflected in GDP. He pays me to fix such, to which then strangely enough is reflected though no real difference...

-Also, as Pete has pointed out, GDP doesn’t reflect inequities of wealth. To say an average is representative is quite misrepresentative. If 10 people earn 10 million dollars, GDP doesn’t reflect that 9.9 million goes to just one person. Using GDP logic, Feudalism was not as bad as it seemed… In this regards the US has one of the highest concentrations of wealth up top, to which a median would be a more accurate measure (somewhat).

-About the only thing GDP is a good measure of is materialism, to which I doubt you would argue against the US leading the world.

[Robot Rebellion]

On the subject matter (of competition)... It will always be beat out by cooperation. If my friends and I are shipwrecked, where we float up to an island, do we divvy the land into private property, form seashell money, and all that nonsense? No, as capitalism/competition is unnatural. We cooperate to build the shelter, take care of the wounded/sick, cooperate in finding food (not keep secrets where it is), and such... Shipwreck a group with dog-eat-dog capitalist intentions, and shipwreck a group with communist intents, and we will see who does better...

The predator and prey relationship does not reflect well for those communist who interact with cannibalis ... er capitalist. The Soviet worker who contributed to the Soviet society, is suddenly gypped when the promise of returning his labor in retirement is replaced by privatization or a give away of the means of production to the rich.

So many American jobs are designed around guarding wealth and not producing it. The banker, lawyer, businessman, clerk, cashier, commercials, military, politicians, police, all reflect competitive who own's what, to which this guard duty is a waste of resources, like guards pay to watch over the Kings gold...

Competition from businesses are supposed to keep them in check (equitable income, fair working conditions, making sure they don't wreck the environment, fair prices, etc). It doesn't work this way... Businesses are like the t1000 terminator, will they seek to merge together, to concentrate their control at the expense of the masses. That or they just don't compete with each other. Games theory points out, how in an auction like environment it is best for the participates not to compete... An economist will auction off a 20$ dollar to his students to which the correct solution is for the students to collectively buy it for a penny, and split the proceeds accordingly. The business does not compete on price, to generate an super small rate of return (exploitation) on capital, for they would just be engaging in cannibalism with each other (although big businesses do destroy small businesses to weed off excess capacity). Why generate a 10% rate of return on capital, when you can generate a 12%? I don't sell widget for 30 as opposed to 40, because my competitor will do the same, to which we are both up a creek without a paddle. We know supply and demand is not static, but dynamic and we don't work to cannibalize each other. Business schools teach this, where they tell their students not to enter a market solely on price, for competitors will just nullify such, and nothing (from the business side) will have happened.

[hazard]

robo:

great analogy. glad you shared that.

also, your insight into the education of business is fascinating. it is so self serving and pointless I have to shake my head. I mean, if somebody truly has no values except for value, then business is obviously their only avenue for life. that way, once they are dead, their assets can be liquidated and reinvested into their precious slave system without any furthur delay. ever notice that business students seem to lack any creativity or imagination at all? same applies to the people of business. they live in the fantasy world of capitalist economics, overly complicated and deceptively manipulative. I mean, what use is creativity when one is surrounded by a false creation? none, I tell ya.

(Edited by hazard at 8:07 pm on April 18, 2003)

[abstractmentality]

hazard:
i use the example of genetics because if one is to say "human nature" then it is almost certain that it must be in their biological structure in some way shape or form. i then use the racism example to show that people can be nurtured into certain actions.

like i said before, my personal opinion is that when people are born into a capitalist society, the vast majority will be nurtured into a capitalist ideology. and when people are born out of capitalism, into a libertarian-socialist society, they will be nurtured to fit that ideology.

the thing that i dont like, on either side of the argument, is when people atribute things to "human nature," as that is an unknown. you put forth some interesting ideas in your reply to me, but just as you say, they are all just theories.

[Anonymous]

Quote: from Robot Rebellion -About the only thing GDP is a good measure of is materialism, to which I doubt you would argue against the US leading the world.


Where are your number to back up your argument? How do you test your arguement? You have constructed a nice theory that can not be measured or proved.

If this was a hard science how would your number add up?

Read the orginal post. Nice construct, reasonable argument, NO experiment or measurable support.

The weakness of my evidence is I used Yahoo for everyone to check for themselves. I trust that Yahoo is not part of capitalist conspiracy to keep communism down. If you prove that then I will try and reconstruct another body of measurement for you to examine.

[hazard]

abstract: theories, certainly. then again, so is evolution which is the basis for all of biology. sometimes a theory can be of extreme value.

ck: it is not a "capitalist conspiracy" to keep communism down. it is a known and proven fact. what was the cold war but an attempt to keep communism down by the capitalists? what was korea and vietnam and cuba? these aren't conspiracies, these are events.

[Robot Rebellion]

Quote: from kelvin9 on 7:29 am on April 19, 2003

Quote: from Robot Rebellion -About the only thing GDP is a good measure of is materialism, to which I doubt you would argue against the US leading the world.


Where are your number to back up your argument? How do you test your arguement? You have constructed a nice theory that can not be measured or proved.

If this was a hard science how would your number add up?

Read the orginal post. Nice construct, reasonable argument, NO experiment or measurable support.

The weakness of my evidence is I used Yahoo for everyone to check for themselves. I trust that Yahoo is not part of capitalist conspiracy to keep communism down. If you prove that then I will try and reconstruct another body of measurement for you to examine.
Why do you limit yourself? Would you approve of slavery, if there weren't 'numbers' on why slavery was not right, quantifiable experiences that clearly said slavery was wrong, 'hard science' that said slavery was wrong, and yahoo said you were right? There was depth behind each of the items that I included, to which if you want, I could go into more detail on a specific item why there exist a positive correlation.

[Anonymous]

Quote: from Robot Rebellion on 3:39 am on April 21, 2003
[quote]There was depth behind each of the items that I included, to which if you want, I could go into more detail on a specific item why there exist a positive correlation.

That is all that I am asking. I am trying to put the orginal post to a test. So for all I have seen is supposition. Which is fine, eventually you must put it to a test.

So far my counter argument has been proposed as a lie. Fine, within the scope of this media I offered numbers as a test to the orginal post. Now is is your job to find a proof that Yahoo is intentionally putting up lies on thier site.

[hazard]

ck:

are you still talking gnp? that doens't even fit into the original post. if you want to criticize the original post, criticize it. your involvement of third party factoids completely disregards the intention of the original post. which was to creat a working logical model that compares communism to capitalism. gnp has nothing to do with this model anyway.

for your information, its better to present something and then explain how it works than just to present something. just saying 'here's the gnp' doesn't prove anything. what is it supposed to prove? tell me.

[Anonymous]

Quote: from hazard on 2:31 am on April 21, 2003
abstract: theories, certainly. then again, so is evolution which is the basis for all of biology. sometimes a theory can be of extreme value.

ck: it is not a "capitalist conspiracy" to keep communism down. it is a known and proven fact. what was the cold war but an attempt to keep communism down by the capitalists? what was korea and vietnam and cuba? these aren't conspiracies, these are events.


What value is an exteme theory if you can not test it?

"based on pure reason, pure logic, and they ignore the facts and evidence. " -hazard

Logic is not evidence. If you make a leap of logic, you still must back it up.

[Anonymous]

Quote: from hazard on 4:23 am on April 21, 2003
ck:

are you still talking gnp? that doens't even fit into the original post. if you want to criticize the original post, criticize it. your involvement of third party factoids completely disregards the intention of the original post. which was to creat a working logical model that compares communism to capitalism. gnp has nothing to do with this model anyway.

for your information, its better to present something and then explain how it works than just to present something. just saying 'here's the gnp' doesn't prove anything. what is it supposed to prove? tell me.



I use it because it is a standard indicator of productivity. Do you have a better one? You made to comparison of worker productivity. You used logic and a unitless measurement to compare productivity. I used a measure too, it is called GDP.

What is your measurement tool? You so far have not proposed a way to actually measure worker productivity. Your just guessing.

[hazard]

ck:

please don't misquote me when my quotes are RIGHT HERE IN FRONT OF YOU.

first, i said extreme value. from this you get extreme theory. don't do that.

if such a leap was made, ck, where was it? again, you claim something but do nothing to support it. where was this leap made. how was it a leap. stuff like that.

logic is evidence. ever see a trial that didn't involve logic? legal evidence is one of the most convincing kinds of evidence. logic must necessarilly be some form of evidence for this reason.

[Anonymous]

Quote: from hazard on 8:04 am on April 13, 2003
I touched on this subject in the theory forum. No capitalist’s bit. I'm gonna be away from this board for a couple of days, so hopefully the comrades will pick up any slack for me.

Free Competition does not work. It divides the resources of any nation is a drastic way that can only lead to disaster. Let me explain.

Country A and Country B both have a workforce of one hundred million people. Country A uses competition as its model while Country B uses communism as its model. Both country's desire to develop and produce 5 levels of an item. To clarify, this item can be anything. A missile, a rifle, a bicycle or a conveyer belt. It doesn't matter.

Country A, as a competitive mode of production, divides its population into 4 freely competing camps. That’s 25 million all working to develop and produce that item through five evolutionary stages. First, each division must research the initial level. After this level is researched, production can begin. Then, as it is being produced, the next level can be researched. Just to be even, lets say it takes every division the same amount of research time. One year. And, since every division is producing similar products, they all produce the same amount within every year before the next advance comes out. Let's say one million items per camp. Now, as each stage of development evolves, ten percent is lost in production, per division. This is due to the retraining of staff and modification of equipment. Now lets look at the results.

Year One : no items, research time only
Year Two: 4 million y1 items
Year Three: 3.6 million y2 items
Year Four: 3.24 million y3 items
Year Five: 2.916 million y4 items
Year Six: 2.6244 million y5 items

Country B, as a communist mode of production, need not divide its population into 4 ( or more) divisions to compete against one another. SO, there's 100 million all working to develop and produce the same item. Since Country A took a year to develop the item with a QUARTERED population, Country B can quarter its production time. Each stage takes only 3 months. Production values for each stage will decline only for the amount of time necessary for the development period. That number will remain at 10 percent to compensate for universal upgrades. The total number of items will also remain the same, for the total number of producers is the same. Now lets look at some initial results.

Period One(3 months): research time
Period Two(6 months): 1 million p1 items
Period Three(9 months): 0.9 million p2 items
Period Four(12 months): 0.81 million p3 items
Period Five(15 months): 0.729 million p4 items
Period Six(18 months): 0.6561 million p5 items

At this point, it is obvious that Country B is using a far more efficient system of production. In one year it has manufactured and developed a far superior product than Country A. By the time Country A has even started producing the highest level of that item, Country B will have stock piled over 10 million, six hundred and fifty six thousand, one hundred of the most technologically advanced versions of that item!

The only benefit of Country A is in the accumulation of outdated versions of the same technology. And what good is that when it comes to rifles and missiles? This is why the Soviet Union won the space race and the arms race. This is why free competition is vastly inferior to communal competition. Capitalism cannot even hope to keep up with communism.


(Edited by hazard at 8:08 pm on April 13, 2003)


It is all a logical argument. You have nothing to back it up.

Logic is not evidence. Murderers are not convicted on logic. Finger prints, DNA, and eye witnesses can support a conviction. All I am asking is an economic version of DNA and finger prints. So far you have not offered any? Then I just must take your word for it that your logic is correct. I never asked you to take my word for it, only to examine the measurements.

[hazard]

calvin:

if the gnp is a standard measurement of productivity, why does it use dollars? my model specifically avoided the use of worth and value because it can be easily manipulated and warped to paint a tainted perspective of the truth.

true enough, people aren't convicted on the logic alone. have you ever seen a lawyer do something like this " here is the evidence. thank you, that is all ". no you haven't. something more like this " and becuase this IS your glove, and you WERE at this location, you MUST have committed the crime". logic, plain and simple. evidence is a complete throwback to the animal world. smell food, eat food.

I have never pretended my argument was anything BUT what you claim it to be. this is news to nobody, least of all myself. I designed it that way.

show me where the logical flaw is, for this is, AS WE ALL KNOW, ck, a logical model. if there is none or you are unable to locate such a logical deficiency, this model will prove, LOGICALLY, that communism is superior to capitalism. and that was my point after all.

apples and oranges mean anything to you calvin klein? or what about levi's and jcpenny?

[Robot Rebellion]

Quote: from kelvin9 on 10:18 am on April 21, 2003

Quote: from Robot Rebellion on 3:39 am on April 21, 2003
[quote]There was depth behind each of the items that I included, to which if you want, I could go into more detail on a specific item why there exist a positive correlation.

That is all that I am asking. I am trying to put the orginal post to a test. So for all I have seen is supposition. Which is fine, eventually you must put it to a test.

So far my counter argument has been proposed as a lie. Fine, within the scope of this media I offered numbers as a test to the orginal post. Now is is your job to find a proof that Yahoo is intentionally putting up lies on thier site.Your logic is flawed. I don't care if the rat poison ingredients are listed perfectly correct, but I do care if it kills me if I consume such. Your arguing it won't kill me to eat it, because the label 'clearly' identifies the ingredients.

If you want to address my points, start with the first one. How can the US be a star example of capitalism when 47% of national income is taxed (at all government levels)?

[Anonymous]

Even if I am wrong, that does not mean you are right. You still have to put your ideas to a test.

When, where, and what time has the ideas of the orginal post ever been shown to be true? It is a model. You are ready to base public policy on a model that so far has not been tested on a small scale or any scale? Again you are asking me to take your word for it.

I show you in 2001 GDP was measured for these countries. I am not asking you to use GDP, if you don't believe in it. I am asking you to show me your indicators that a communist system can out produce a free market. So far you have not done so. All you have to offer is your superior logic and my inferior logic as support to your model. That may disprove my point (I have offered weakness of my arguement and so far it has not been proven) , but does not prove yours.

[hazard]

then show me where I am incorrect in the model calvin. as it STILL stands, on a basis of logic, free competition is an inferior system to communism.

[Anonymous]

Quote: from hazard on 5:31 am on April 21, 2003
then show me where I am incorrect in the model calvin. as it STILL stands, on a basis of logic, free competition is an inferior system to communism.



This is an example of what you have done:
____________________________________________
Communism can not outproduce a free market.

A factory in a free market stays in biz only when the workers are productive and efficent, otherwise they go out of biz.
__________________________________________

But I offer no evidence, just my logic. Do you believe my above statements? If not, then why do I believe yours?


Your guess is as good as mine. Your guessing.

[hazard]

how is my model anything like what you say it is like?

[Voice of Reason]

the problem is you can't hit a restart button on free enterprise. the people who win the game generally keep winning for a while until they miscalculate and screw up their company.

[Robot Rebellion]

Even if I am wrong, that does not mean you are right. You still have to put your ideas to a test.

Sigh... You are asking me to prove a negative. If you state there is a fire and brimstone hell, I can't disprove an illusion as it is only that. When one examines what you stated, you retort they need to do scientific test to prove a fire and brimstone Hell doesn't exist, and without such, such a Hell does indeed exist.

I show you in 2001 GDP was measured for these countries. I am not asking you to use GDP, if you don't believe in it.

You didn't include those GDP figures for the fun of it. Why, you included them is what you were communicating, which was 'more GDP = better economic system', and 'capitalist countries are more apt to have a higher GDP', and 'the US is capitalist'.

I am asking you to show me your indicators that a communist system can out produce a free market.

There, you just contradicted your previous statement. A slave owner will out produce a non-slaveowner in cotton. It is up to you to say why this is such a terrific thing…

So far you have not done so. All you have to offer is your superior logic and my inferior logic as support to your model. That may disprove my point (I have offered weakness of my arguement and so far it has not been proven) , but does not prove yours.


GDP is not an end unto itself, but a means to an end. You have yet to show WHY GDP is important... You have yet to show what GDP represents. To me you are just throwing around labels, facts and figures, without a clue of what they represent, or how they correlate to a healthy economy.

[Robot Rebellion]

kelvin9, let me put your GDP infatuation in perspective... If I trip and break my leg, this means I will have to pay a doctor to fix my leg, which will increase GDP. You are saying GDP is good, therefore we should break our legs. Or... Say I get into a car accident. My expenditures to replace the car, means more GDP. You think a society that is more apt to crash their cars, is more apt to have a better economy? Think about this...

[hazard]

robo rebel:

good stuff. obviously the less government intervention means an inflated gdp (gnp?). it is, as has been stated all along, capitalist propaganda. designed to weigh the figures disproportionately in favour of the most "free" market economies.

that leg thing needs even more analysis though. so we already have the cost of repairing the leg contributing to the gdp, right? but now we factor in he profit for repairing the leg. in a modified free enterprize system with federal healthcare, fixing the leg would only cost fifty dollars. none of which would contribute to the gdp. in the US, fixing the leg would cost one hundred and fifty because of the profit motive. the doctors bills, ambulance, lab fees and materials all jacked up in price and all contributive to the ridiculous gdp propaganda.

[Anonymous]

"At this point, it is obvious that Country B is using a far more efficient system of production. In one year it has manufactured and developed a far superior product than Country A. By the time Country A has even started producing the highest level of that item, Country B will have stock piled over 10 million, six hundred and fifty six thousand, one hundred of the most technologically advanced versions of that item!" -hazard


The USA most productive parts of the economy are sections that compete nationally and internationally.

The higest worker wages are in industries that compete on a global market.

http://www.compete.org/pdf/competitiveness2001.pdf

Pages 71 and 72.

If competition is inversely portional to production. Why do traded clusters pay their workers more and why are they the most productive part of the US economy.

Hazard your reasons are:
1) It is a lie
2) You wrong. Your so wrong. Take my word for it.
3) You logic in inferior to mine and your wrong.
4) It is a morally inferior system.

Please respond. I can always use a chuckle.

[Anonymous]

Quote: from Robot Rebellion on 5:39 pm on April 21, 2003
kelvin9, let me put your GDP infatuation in perspective... If I trip and break my leg, this means I will have to pay a doctor to fix my leg, which will increase GDP. You are saying GDP is good, therefore we should break our legs. Or... Say I get into a car accident. My expenditures to replace the car, means more GDP. You think a society that is more apt to crash their cars, is more apt to have a better economy? Think about this...


Have you counted your GDP to see if breaking a leg really does what you propose. Your guessing? You do not really know if it does. If I don't know for sure I can not comment on your model.

[hazard]

ck:

you never have to ask me to respond, its guaranteed. of course, the only guarantee you'll believe is a "double your money back". am I right?


calvin, what in the name of fuck are you babbling on about? I cannot make a single bit of soliary sense out of anything that you had to say. except for my awesome quotation at the beggining, the rest of your post is nonsense.

listen, I am in no mood to figure out what you are trying to say. it seems like you're saying because americans are well paid for industrial labour they are more productive. but that doesn't make sense, does it?

and one more mother fucking time - IF YOU WANT TO DISCUSS MY MODEL, DO NOT INCORPORATE MEANINGLESS FACTOIDS. This model is logical. As such, you must analyze its logical components. I'm not even going to look at the link.

here's what I should see if you want to discuss anything with me in this thread:

Country A, production period 2, should not be producing at a penalty for such and such a reason.

or whatever

ck, I mean come on. is this funny? maybe if you'r eall hopped up on goofballs it is. as for the rest of us, smirnov is the only substitute for a world spinning down the drain.

[Robot Rebellion]

Quote: from kelvin9 on 10:02 am on April 22, 2003
Have you counted your GDP to see if breaking a leg really does what you propose. Your guessing? You do not really know if it does. If I don't know for sure I can not comment on your model.GDP is the aggregate market value of all transactions minus 'intermediate goods' in a year. Supposedly, aggregate price * aggregate quantity... Services are included, to which the doctor fixing my leg, adds to GDP. Even the inventor (of sorts) of GDP/GNP system (that government demanded he create), had issues with GDP! From http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ecbig/gdp.htm

Simon Kuznets had deep reservations about the national accounts he helped to create. In his very first report to Congress, in 1934, he tried to warn the nation of the limitations of the new system. "The welfare of a nation," the report concluded, can "scarcely be inferred from a measurement of national income as defined above."

But the GNP proceeded to acquire totemic stature, and Kuznets's concerns grew deeper. He rejected the a priori conceptual schemes that govern most economic thought. As an economy grows, he said, the concept of what it includes must grow as well. Economists must seek to measure more and different things. By 1962 Kuznets was writing in The New Republic that the national accounting needed to be fundamentally rethought: "Distinctions must be kept in mind between quantity and quality of growth, between its costs and return, and between the short and the long run," he wrote. "Goals for 'more' growth should specify more growth of what and for what" (emphasis added).

Kelvin9, read the entire article, as it is filled with good GDP debunking bits of wisdom.

[Robot Rebellion]

Quote: from kelvin9 on 9:58 am on April 22, 2003
The USA most productive parts of the economy are sections that compete nationally and internationally.

The higest worker wages are in industries that compete on a global market.So, if in a moon colony where the cost of living is 100,000 per year, and the astronaut earns 110000, then he is well off? Americans are loaded with debt, which means they are leveraged of sorts and you have to count gross happiness, and not GDP. My friend from Malaysia says that US food is expensive... Does then food price reflect upon the inferior economy of Malaysia? If a country charges you to breathe air, while another does not, then does country with parasites (and subsequent higher GDP) have a better economy?

[Anonymous]

Quote: from Robot Rebellion on 4:57 am on April 22, 2003

Quote: from kelvin9 on 10:02 am on April 22, 2003
Have you counted your GDP to see if breaking a leg really does what you propose. Your guessing? You do not really know if it does. If I don't know for sure I can not comment on your model.GDP is the aggregate market value of all transactions minus 'intermediate goods' in a year. Supposedly, aggregate price * aggregate quantity... Services are included, to which the doctor fixing my leg, adds to GDP. Even the inventor (of sorts) of GDP/GNP system (that government demanded he create), had issues with GDP! From http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ecbig/gdp.htm

Simon Kuznets had deep reservations about the national accounts he helped to create. In his very first report to Congress, in 1934, he tried to warn the nation of the limitations of the new system. "The welfare of a nation," the report concluded, can "scarcely be inferred from a measurement of national income as defined above."

But the GNP proceeded to acquire totemic stature, and Kuznets's concerns grew deeper. He rejected the a priori conceptual schemes that govern most economic thought. As an economy grows, he said, the concept of what it includes must grow as well. Economists must seek to measure more and different things. By 1962 Kuznets was writing in The New Republic that the national accounting needed to be fundamentally rethought: "Distinctions must be kept in mind between quantity and quality of growth, between its costs and return, and between the short and the long run," he wrote. "Goals for 'more' growth should specify more growth of what and for what" (emphasis added).

Kelvin9, read the entire article, as it is filled with good GDP debunking bits of wisdom.

I agree that GDP is not the whole story. The massive GDP of the USA is not equally shared by everyone. The untrained and uneducated are seriously getting the short end of the stick.

There is a logical model offered on this thread. It can not be proven or disproven. It is a mental exercise.

The comparison was made in productivity between two systems. What is the bench mark? I offer one. I am willing to look at another. In reality the mental exercise can not be checked. Unless, I have missed one? Please show me where I can check the model. Remember were measuring production. Show me a bean counters study that has checked to see if competition degrades production.

[Anonymous]

Quote: from hazard on 4:41 am on April 22, 2003
ck:

and one more mother fucking time - IF YOU WANT TO DISCUSS MY MODEL, DO NOT INCORPORATE MEANINGLESS FACTOIDS. This model is logical. As such, you must analyze its logical components. I'm not even going to look at the link.


First I am sure you have a pottie mouth. Second you are copping out. I won't hold it against you. I can wait. I am sure the entertainment value of it will be worth the wait. Should I just check it later?

[hazard]

i'd prefer if you said that I have a foul mouth.

just admit that you are logically unsound. I'm not the one who is copping out of my request to discuss my model under the logical framework that I intended it. as its creator, I understand where there is a mild slip. as its critic, you must find where it takes place. and all of this can be done on its own merits, no outside sources are necessary.

the mental exercise supports my conclusion that capitalist supporters remain what they are because they are simply incapable of seeing the truth. I can prove to you, through logic, the superiority of communism. if you are logical, or simply intelligent enough, to see my models flaw you wouldn't be arguing with me because you would be a communist already. but you are illogical, you are not intelligent, and so you incapable of detecting the flaw. I cannot lose.

ever hear he song "stigmata" by Ministry? there is a live version on an ep called "In case you didn't feel like showing up". you would think that ALAIN has a pottie mouth. I think he is an artist at the highest form of his craft.

[Anonymous]

You prove to me by logic what I am trying to prove to you by an economic study.

http://www.compete.org/pdf/competitiveness2001.pdf

Industries that compeat nationally and internationally are more productive. Page 71.

Either your logic is wrong or Michael Porter of the Harvard Business School is wrong, lying, or is part of a conspiracy.

Your mental model is a game. The economic study is an analysis of competition and productivity that is actually taking place in the real world.



(Edited by kelvin9 at 6:53 am on April 25, 2003)

[hazard]

ck:

if my logical model is a game, you are losing. big time.

your econmic study is propaganda. the stats you are using are pruposefully weighted heavilly in favour of the capitalist mode of production. this is why I constructed the model. on a basis of logic, communism is vastly superior. for when one is confronted with "real" world "economic" "statsistics", one is forced to look beyond these "facts". this is my model. I did not present it to hear the same propaganda that the capitalists pump into my head day in and day out. I presented it to avoid the propaganda.

calvin klein, don't present the propaganda I have been trying to avoid. please.

[Anonymous]

Quote: from hazard on 1:51 am on April 26, 2003
ck:

if my logical model is a game, you are losing. big time.

your econmic study is propaganda. the stats you are using are pruposefully weighted heavilly in favour of the capitalist mode of production. this is why I constructed the model. on a basis of logic, communism is vastly superior. for when one is confronted with "real" world "economic" "statsistics", one is forced to look beyond these "facts". this is my model. I did not present it to hear the same propaganda that the capitalists pump into my head day in and day out. I presented it to avoid the propaganda.

calvin klein, don't present the propaganda I have been trying to avoid. please.

Please post your own analysis of a real world system.

What you propose is that your logic is superior to actual measurement and a lie.

You still do not have a real world example to point and claim that your logic is indeed correct. Until then your model is just a good guess.

[Anonymous]

Quote: from hazard on 1:51 am on April 26, 2003
ck:

if my logical model is a game, you are losing. big time.

your econmic study is propaganda. the stats you are using are pruposefully weighted heavilly in favour of the capitalist mode of production.



Your model did the same thing. You weighted the circumstances in favor of a communist system and without any evidence to support that your initial conditions are indeed "real world".

[hazard]

ck1:

first post:

you say "actual measurement", but you mean actual propaganda. as such, my logic is indeed superior to actual propaganda. an actual measurement would be, as my logical model illsutrates, actual units produced. not profit and capital produced.

second post:

keep going. this is what I'm looking for. just show me WHERE I did this and we can have the discussion I'm looking for. your reasoning, so far, is incorrect. if you think my model is purposefully weighted it is not because it does not incorporate real world examples. there must be a nother reason, or you are incorrect. I'm hoping you might be on to something though.

[Anonymous]

http://clubs.hemmings.com/clubsites/nomac/allpage.pdf

Communist use and need capitalist production methods.

Oh I forget, it must be a lie.

[Anonymous]

You keep using your superior logic as proof that you are correct. Which is basically saying "trust me I know what I am talking about".

Then what are your qualifications. Do you have any manufacturing experience?

In the 9 years I have been in light and heavy manufacturing, we just don't copy a business practice because an expert says it sounds logical. We make sure it has been tried somewhere else then copy it.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/7365/...witherden2.html (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/7365/academic_discussion/business/witherden2.html)

As an example for years the accepted manufacturing process philisophy was TQM. It is now six sigma. No one got on the six sigma band wagon just because it was logical. It was tried somewhere else, proven to work, then copied else where.

You example is logical. You have not proven it works.

[hazard]

ck1:

I told you you were on the right track, so why the regression?

1st post: if lies are information recast in deceptive and manipulative ways then yes, these are all lies. or what I like to call propaganda.

2nd post: it sounds like you really don't know what logic is. obviously there is some logical validity of something if it is widely used and accepted. THIS IS MY POINT. in america, something is considered valid if it produces PROFIT. in other words, the logical validity of something has a pragmatic, "cash value". the gdp, and all other examples you present use this warped logic to prove how efficient these production modes are. hjowever, you, and every other mind controlled slave fail to realize that in efficiency in capitalist production modes means only PROFIT, not PRODUCTION.

the original post attempted to eliminate this perspective warping principle and compare production on a basis of units, not dollars. UNITS, NOT DOLLARS. I repeat this because every capitalist on this board keeps on about dollars when this factor is completely irrelevant to a communist mode of production.

[Anonymous]

Quote: from hazard on 1:59 am on April 27, 2003

capitalist production modes means only PROFIT, not PRODUCTION.


Some practices from TQM:

1) Breakdown barriers between different sections of a corportion

2) Decentralization

3) Freedom to speak your mind without fear.

Then you will increase production and produce a product with less defects.

Your model proposes #1, more efficient co-operation, and stops there.

Your model goes against TQM #2, instead of decentralizing production, you group it together.

Speaking your mind against centralized production in a communist system is a ticket to the gulag.

TQM has increased production world wide and in different countries. It has been a common practice for at least 20 years, and before that another similiar quality control system started by Demming.

By your model TQM will have grinded a factory to halt and produced flawed finished goods. It has not. The next evolution of TQM is six sigma. I see it every day. I know it works. I know it produces a BETTER product, FASTER, and with MORE profit. It also produces an empowered work force. The Japanese embraced Demming and TQM after WW2 to rebuild thier country. Thier yearly national medal honoring production is named after him. The first year Nissan entered the Paris to Daquar race in the 1950s, it was considered a joke. Nissan won! When was the last time a communist produced vechice won the Paris to Daquar race. In the wolds most remote places, natives drive Range Rovers and Toyotas, not anything made by a communist. The communist may make a better product, but they don't make enough for export. Why can they not make enough for export?

[hazard]

ck1:

I want to work with you on this but I need clarification first.

six sigma. I have discussed this with HR personelle and people being tested for promotion. NONE of them could explain it, at all. which I find fascinating considering they are being tested on it and are running these programs. my conclusion, I know, this is getting repetitive, is that it is merely pro-capitalist propaganda.
can you explain it to me?

your 3 points are a direct contradiction to the communist mode of production. point 2 is the antithesis of communism. centralization IS the key. all across the corprate world, centralization is occuring. why decentralization is mentioned as a benefit, I cannot begin to wonder as to why. point 3 is ridiculous. what does it even mean? I've never seen ANY workplace where people are even allowed to speak AT ALL let alone "speak their mind". look at all of the harrassment cases and new inter personal regulations. does that even remotely resemble such a "freedom"? I didn't think so.

in any case, all of hese factors may lead to better production, but ONLY because that in turn leads to more profit. production is secondary to the goal in capitalism, which is profit. in communism, production IS the goal.

[Anonymous]

Quote: from hazard on 2:45 am on April 27, 2003
ck1:

I want to work with you on this but I need clarification first.

six sigma. I have discussed this with HR personelle and people being tested for promotion. NONE of them could explain it, at all. which I find fascinating considering they are being tested on it and are running these programs. my conclusion, I know, this is getting repetitive, is that it is merely pro-capitalist propaganda.
can you explain it to me?

your 3 points are a direct contradiction to the communist mode of production. point 2 is the antithesis of communism. centralization IS the key. all across the corprate world, centralization is occuring. why decentralization is mentioned as a benefit, I cannot begin to wonder as to why. point 3 is ridiculous. what does it even mean? I've never seen ANY workplace where people are even allowed to speak AT ALL let alone "speak their mind". look at all of the harrassment cases and new inter personal regulations. does that even remotely resemble such a "freedom"? I didn't think so.

in any case, all of hese factors may lead to better production, but ONLY because that in turn leads to more profit. production is secondary to the goal in capitalism, which is profit. in communism, production IS the goal.



It is much easier to understand the prior generation of six sigma, TQM.

TQM is a set of guidlines and practices that allow improvement of a process (service or manufacturing) using quantitative methods. Anything that is a process or a series of steps to achive a goal, can be improved by TQM. Improvements can be a better, cheaper, and faster produced end product.

In manufacturing, it is used to reduce defects, trim unnecessary production steps, and more importantly: continue improvement of the process. After you fixed or made something more efficient, review TQM steps again to see what else can be improved.

It works. It based on measureable results: reduced cycle time, less defects at inspection, and the elimination of unnecessary production steps.

None of which your model addresses.

Centralization is not happening in the USA. Ownership of companies and factories is being centralized, but not the manufacturing. Quite the contrary. I used to personally inspect and oversee sub assemblies that were delivered to me that I would build in to my finished assembly. I used to hover over the people building the sub assemblies. I would piss them off asking questions all the time and making sure the work was done right. They all got moved across the country. We got decentralized. That skilled worker no longer serves just me, but she builds similiar sub assemblies for other people across the country. Employees with similiar skill sets were grouped togther into a single center that serves the whole country. They are now a just a short snipet of the assembly line that covers the whole country. The assebly line has been decentralized. When they all moved away, I was sure my quality would suffer, it has not, instead employees are now supervised by someone who really does know when they are doing, rather than some nosey bussy body.

Freedom to speak your mind: is freedom to say something about the production and quality, not interpersonal relationships. Freedom the accuse another worker of poor quality finished goods. Freedom to be critical of part or the whole system of production.

In communism, production is also political.

Western production should be grinding to a halt by your model. Why doesn't assembly lines in the USA grind to a halt?

(Edited by kelvin9 at 2:32 am on April 29, 2003)

[Anonymous]

Soooo? What is your manufacturing experience?

[El Reagan Latino]

Holy cow, where to begin with this one...

Well, you're assumption that division of labor is a hinderance to productivity is completely false. If you take uneducated people and separate them from the educated, then you get the disparity you speak of. But dividing 4 equally qualified groups to produce a good or service will only improve the quality of the products because the point to producing a good or service is to sell it. But if your's isn't what the market demands, then your product will not sell and you will go out of business. Competition is what makes us work harder because we know that the other 3 groups are producing a similar product and have the desire to win as badly as you do.

In your Communist model, the major flaw with it and the over-all system of government is that there is no incentive to produce a good product since you will only have one to choose from. It's like being in the market for a car. If you only have one to choose from - where's the choice? What other options do you have if that one product you choose is not the one you like or is not reliable? Choices or competition is what forces companies (like the 4 in your example) to work harder and design a product they think will be a superior product to the one their competitor is making. This also (self) monitors the price. If one product is 95% what you are looking for and costs $1000 and the other product is 98% what you are seeking but costs $1500, you will likely choose the first product because you can't justify the extra $500 for the second product. Now if you have two other products to choose from, there will likely be 2 or 3 types of products depending on what the market demands.

This is similar to the car example again. Some people look for a larger car because of the size of the family and some seek a smaller car because they don't need the space. The market of cars needs to adjust according to what the public demands.

If you don't like the shirt at the store, do you not wear a shirt? NO - you the OTHER shirt because you like it better! But they're both just shirts??? Well, if you don't care how you look, then you'll buy the cheapest one or the ugliest because of your indifference. But if you like to look good, you'll buy the shirt that looks the best even if you have to pay more money!

Ah, Capitalism - what a beautiful thing!

What do you think about my response?


(Edited by El Reagan Latino at 7:37 am on April 29, 2003)

[antieverything]

Hazard, your model is suprisingly well thought out but the fact remains that it is a model based only on logical assumptions.

You can create the most logically sound model and apply it...and it could very well fail miserably. Why? Economics is, in my opinion, the most complex of the social sciences (as much as people try to portray it as a pure science, economics is the study of human behavior in human systems) because it is effected by most every other social science: sociology, phsychology, etc. How people behave with their money is as much controlled by values, stupidity, and short-term interists as it is by long-term interests...probably more so.

It really pisses me off when economists (usually those on the free-market side) try to say, on one hand, that the market is too complex to be understood and then in the same breath that they can explain exactly why their proposed policies work best by using simple logical arguments. The models they come up with usually have equals trading on a perfectly functioning market where alternatives are always present. While there is no real logical flaw in the model, the fact remains that it is nothing more than a model...if you try to do this in physics, say to plot the path of a thrown object, you will be way off on the resultant side of the equation because you failed to factor in stuff like air resistance etc.

This sort of psuedo-economics was popular a few decades ago. It was called the Austrian School and it shunned the scientific method in favor of such "logical models" and assumptions. It even won its proponents a few Nobel Prizes (of course, these same proponents were on the Nobel economics board...). Now, however, it is defunct, a laughing stock, and mostly ignored.

If you want to see exactly how short-sighted and arrogant economists can be, I suggest reading the book "Economics in One Lesson" in which the author points out the common mistake of ignoring "the potential third party" but then proceeds to promote free-market ideology while making the same methodalogical mistake. His conclusions are that tarriffs hurt workers, unions drive wages down, and that taxes are extremely detrimental to production (of course this is true but not to the extent he would have you believe). Now, the logical models the author uses to illustrate his points are perfectly sound, logically. However, history paints a different picture of tarriffs, unions, and taxes. Either the author is wrong or history is a massive fluke. You can decide that for yourself. The point is, he may have looked at the "third party" but he ignored the fourth, fifth, and eleven-millionth parties.

Kelvin is falsly assuming that socialism automatically means a centralized command economy. Obviously such an economy has the problems he says it does. But most modern socialists propose a totally different type of economy, much like the sort he talks about while discussing his (very cool and interesting) business experiences.

Yeah, GDP is bullshit. Thanks to Robot Rebellion for posting that article (I read that a few months ago and was planning on posting it...but never got around to it...but I printed it out to share with some rl friends and I've read it several times) One of the most interesting things is that while we had the largest period of peace-time growth in GDP since WWII during the Reagan years (which really isn't saying much at all...it was sort of the cyclical inevitability, Reagan just made it suck for working people more than it should have), the GPI (Genuine Progress Indicator) which takes into account many other social indicators actually began to stagnate and drop.

Part of the huge growth, in the worker productivity and total output areas during the period, was due to the fact that American workers were being forced to work longer hours (we work more, on average, than the Japanese) and women were entering the workforce in record numbers to maintain the families standard of living.

But the simple increase in the size of the work-force and the longer hours and lower pay for the average worker were just one part of the story. The social problems that this created, the societal decay, actually showed up as a gain in the GDP! How does that work? When women enter the work-force, they can no longer be stay-at-home mothers resulting in higher expendatures for child-care. Children spent more time in front of television...watched more commercials and wanted more things. Parents went further and further into debt fueling the new hyper-consumerism. Since more people were watching TV, advertizing revenues went up. All of this adds up and results in a pretty sizable addition to the GDP. But the working people were now going deeper into debt and the average wage dropped by about a dollar.

[abstractmentality]

El Reagan Latino:

Your assumption that the workers will not have the "incentive" to produce "a good product since you will only have one to choose from" is completely wrong. lets say their is a revolution, time goes by, and things are already in the communist stage, as you say, then dont you think that a vast majority of people withint that society will be wanting a communist society? now, since they will be wanting this society, they would have already thought about the implications of this movement. if they have, then they obviously the "incentive problem." now, it seems that these people, wanting this movement, are not going to make products not as well because they arent going to be competing with another, but rather for the incentive of making them for people.

now, if you can, please explain to me why capitalism is so great and tell me about how "well" it has worked.

[antieverything]

The incentive is a very real thing...that's one of the areas in which Europe is better than America. In America, the incentive to work is the knife of globalization and downsizing at the throat of the worker...perhaps it is now that way in Europe now. But European management techniques have long tended towards the "carrot" method (as opposed to the "stick" method). The "carrot" is stuff like bonuses for increasing production and (even more) payed vacation time.

[Anonymous]

Quote: from antieverything on 7:00 pm on April 29, 2003

Yeah, GDP is bullshit


GDP is all I got. If you want to compare apples and apples then GDP is really your standard indicator. I agree it sucks, but it is all you got.

GPI as you have stated is about other factors. It is more a quality of life than measure of production muscle.

The example I like to use is the difference between a ditch digger in Japan and in the USA. A ditch digger in Japan and USA both burn the same calories digging a ditch in eight hours. The ditch digger in Japan uses a shovel and because he is a highly certified and trained ditch digger; he produces a very small but very well crafted ditch.

The USA ditch digger uses a backhoe. In the sametime he digs an enormous ditch that is just good enough.

Who has produced more?

If you value the artistic quality of a ditch then you can place more value on the mass produced ditch.

Unfortunately there is no race or comparison you can put two factories against each other to see who wins. Plus I have the hinderance of having to prove everything within the scope of the internet. I try not to present data and ask people to take my word for it.

I am open to learning about other indicators of productivity if you have them.

[hazard]

thanks everybody for posting. in order, then.

ck1(kelvin):

that was the same explanation of 6sigma that I received. that it is a process of cutting costs. but I still don't have any clue what that means. last time I checked, all capitalist production works under the basis that in order to increase revenue, you must cut costs. my gripe is that the six sigma zombies are told that their job is to "cut costs" as opposed to "increase profit", which is what they are actually doing. I have no manufacturing experience, but have been in various positions to get a very close and personal look at how industry operates at a level of management as well as production.

erl:

the incentive argument has been addressed a million times and I will not address it one more time. sorry.

as for your opening statement, I reply with this. on a basis of the numbers, your counter to my argment is falsifiable. let me take you through it, as I break the numbers down more. lets say out of every component of country A, twenty percent is devoted to R abd D. thats five million per segment. unfortunately for country A, their draft pool is much smaller and thus less functionable. meaning that the five million in each segment need not necessarilly be the best in that country able to perform the job at hand. when the country is then combined as a total reserve of research ability, it necessarilly suffers a penalty because of this variance. for example, one division of 25 million may have the twenty million of that countries best R and D people in it, but because of the competitive mode, only five million are able to contribute to that countries R and D. country B, in contrast, has their countries total population pool from which to draft heir R and D representatives. as such, they are clearly better able to develop scientific advances than country A.


anti:

some interesting stuff. however, I see what you call logical assumptions as logical necessities. whether or not actual communist nations operate as such is irrelevant to the conclusion that free compeition is an inferior productive mode.

my personal view on "the" economy is very similiar to my view on the gdp. pure bullshit that copies and pastes factoids to create an illusion of capitalist supremacy. in other words: propaganda. I cringe whenever a political party brings the economy into their election platforms. the sheep invariably will begin to tremble as the capitalists use the threat of job loss to force the herd into voting for their pupett leaders. as for the economists themselves, a total waste of a life. I mean in ahundred years, what difference will that person have made? nothing. its like being an expert on the television sit com. the historical and political relevance of knowing these things are only relevent to the current society in the curent age. when it is replaced, such knowledge will have zero use.

[Anonymous]

Or same story: more lies.

From Anti recent post, I will up date my posture that decentralized production is superior to centralized production. Since he pointed out that socialist are now adopting decentralized ideas.

Yes TQM produces more profit. It also reduces cyle time, lowers defects, and increases productivity. TQM is not a lie, it produces measureable results by many different assembly lines. It has been copied and it's results reproduced, or the whole western world isplotting together and faking it.

As far as being superior to communist modes of production. I am sure that you don't know enough to answer the question how do communist measure productivity and reduce defects. So even posing you the question to prove it to me is moot. You don't know enough.

[hazard]

ck1:

are you out of your mind? I guess we all know the answer to that. YES.

agaiin, six sigma(tqm) does these things. correct? how does it do them? and you, again, like every other brainwashed idiot, says that it does the things it is supposed to do BY DOING THEM.

what is six sigma?

its a process that cuts costs by reducing defects and increasing productivity.

how does it do that?

by cutting costs through the reduction of defects and the incremental acceleration of productivity


sheer, utter, ridiculous NONSENSE

I know enough to know when somebody has been brainwashed. you fucking idiot. wake the fuck up.

you again mention decentralization when the entire western world is centralizing. what is the EU? a decentralization process? or a centralization process?

six sigma is laughed at by everybody, mostly management. one production facility I encountered had six, six sigma fools. all got paid 50,000 a year for their bogus position. yet their department only claimed like onehundred thousand dollars in savings a year. THEY COST MONEY. complete morons of a completely moronic system that makes no sense and cannot even hope to accomplish its own goals as it has been set out.

[Anonymous]

Quote: from hazard on 6:27 am on April 30, 2003
ck1:

THEY COST MONEY. complete morons of a completely moronic system that makes no sense and cannot even hope to accomplish its own goals as it has been set out.

Factories that use TQM practices and six sigma, were not going broke. Six sigma does not promise your job will get easier or that it is easy to implement. It promises the things posted above.

You still have not shown me how do communist measure production at thier factories? You still have not shown me a case example of an industry increasing in production in direct relationship to the amount of centralization.

Centralization = Monopoly. No matter how ineffecient a factory gets, or how bad it's quality, if it is the sole producer of a product, then it will stay in business.

How is EU centralization? I see the removal of trade barriers that encourage compeitition of multiple business across many borders. I see small companies market expand beyond a home border. I see large companies under pressure to compeat from forgein neighbors. How is the EU centralization? Must be non-sense.

The religious application of TQM by Japanese auto makers and thier success must also be non-sense.

It probably makes no sense to you, because why? Maybe again, your just a chimp trying to hard to reach a banana. You have proven yourself to be supreme in your arrogance and the superiority of your logic and model, which is clearly flawed by it's simplicity.

Your not the only one reading this thread. I have given up on you. I am sure the more you simply call my propostions lies, you will continue to shoot yourself in the foot.

[hazard]

calvin klein:

now you've done it. I've indulged your little parlay from what my model intended for long enough. you knew, all along, that I was simply being nice in granting this repose, didn't you? probably not. mostly becuause there is no incentive involved in reaching the correct conclusion.

six sigma, TQM, has absolutely nothing to do with my model and this thread. nothing. NOTHING! I simply wanted to furthur defend my position that it is complete horsehit and capitalist style brainwashing / doublespeak. I cannot grasp it for the same reason that one cannot grasp air. there is nothing to grasp. now before you start o argue with me and say that YOU CAN grasp air, shut the fuck up. I don't care. you are an idiot.

where the fuck do you get off asking me, AGAIN, for real world models? that sounds an awful lot like me asking, justifiably, for you to discuss my lgical model. no, it sounds EXACTLY like it. noob, don't ever try and flip this around again. you suck. the discussion is in regards to my logical model, and despite my NUMEROUS attempts to get you to discuss it, you are incapable of it. end of discussion.

[antieverything]

tsk tsk now, hazard.