Global Warming?

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

  • GreatbigHippo wrote:

    oceanhawk wrote:

    GreatbigHippo wrote:

    oceanhawk wrote:

    GreatbigHippo wrote:

    oceanhawk wrote:

    Killing 20million citizens, well done Stalin
    If I count deaths caused by the capitalist world the same way the west counts deaths caused by communism, there have been more than 500,000,000 deaths worldwide as a direct result of capitalism.
    Go on, lets hear this then...
    My point is that the methods used to count the deaths caused by Stalin are flawed, and I'm using those same methods. This statement is flawed.

    Quasi-duck wrote:

    oceanhawk wrote:

    Go on, lets hear this then...
    WWI and WWII alone is pretty bad. Then the Brits in India and the like.
    I'm not even counting wars.Mostly deaths due to peoples inability to pay for food or medicine in capitalist countries over the last 50 years.
    Hahaha, best medicine and doctors in the world come from USA, UK, Austria,Sure wasnt it an American machine that was keeping some soviet leader, alive during the last few days of his life?
    I'm not questioning the effectiveness of the medicine. I'm questioning the availability.
    It was pretty available, see in the free market, there is lots of competition, and lower costs to produce. So if companies want to do well, they innovate the market and compete with other competitors



    If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists
    -Friedrich von Haye


  • Jacey521 wrote:

    You guys just keep getting mad at each other, this argument is going nowhere. stop pls ;(
    That aint true, Quasi cant even think of a decent argument, and what he is talking about is really just spam..

    Hippo to be fair is putting up an argument, so its an actually discussion, and we are going somewhere with it.
    Unfollow this thread, cos yea it gonna go on for a while hehe



    If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists
    -Friedrich von Haye


  • oceanhawk wrote:

    It was pretty available, see in the free market, there is lots of competition, and lower costs to produce. So if companies want to do well, they innovate the market and compete with other competitors
    Ocean, you are a fool.

    dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3…ice-refuses-say-much.html
    :00000441: Forum Gang Commissar :00000441:

    Black Lives Matter!!!!! All Lives Matter!!!!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:



  • Quasi-duck wrote:

    Pablo22510 wrote:

    Please tell me about how it worked in the USSR.
    Take rich people's land and money -> divide amongst the poor.
    Simple as, really.
    One very simple concept for you: if you take from the rich, they'll just leave the country, leaving you nothing except poor people.

    Oh, and could you tell me about how it worked so well in the USSR?
    The past is a foreign country.

  • Yeah, I feel like you guys like to get OT too much, so I took it upon my hand to create you a Thread about nothing so you can chat about stuff there :D . :thumbsup: A Topic About No Topic. here's the link. CHEERS :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer:
    :00008356:

    "May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't"
    -George S. Patton

    "The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination"
    - Albert Einstein

  • Quasi-duck wrote:

    oceanhawk wrote:

    It was pretty available, see in the free market, there is lots of competition, and lower costs to produce. So if companies want to do well, they innovate the market and compete with other competitors
    Ocean, you are a fool.
    dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3…ice-refuses-say-much.html
    Hahaha, didnt you read the part where there was public outlash, huge drop in the drug usage. I see they have a breakthrough, which means they have a monoply, this wont last for ever,

    besides, although I am a hard core conservative, I have mixed feelings about healthcare, and havent really made up my mind.



    If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists
    -Friedrich von Haye


  • Pablo22510 wrote:

    Quasi-duck wrote:

    Pablo22510 wrote:

    Please tell me about how it worked in the USSR.
    Take rich people's land and money -> divide amongst the poor.Simple as, really.
    One very simple concept for you: if you take from the rich, they'll just leave the country, leaving you nothing except poor people.
    Oh, and could you tell me about how it worked so well in the USSR?
    Also, the rich dont invest their money in banks and in small business, which means poorer people, cant try start a business or if they work for a small business, they may be a less chance of a raise, or that business expanding.



    If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists
    -Friedrich von Haye


  • oceanhawk wrote:

    Hahaha, didnt you read the part where there was public outlash, huge drop in the drug usage. I see they have a breakthrough, which means they have a monoply, this wont last for ever,
    So? It still happened, and shows how corrupt the system can be. Look at the M247 Sergeant York DIVAD project.

    oceanhawk wrote:

    Unfair
    Stupid
    Doesnt work
    Worked well under Stalin, bringing the USSR from having serfdom to being one of the most advanced nations in the world.
    :00000441: Forum Gang Commissar :00000441:

    Black Lives Matter!!!!! All Lives Matter!!!!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:



  • @oceanhawk, the problem with capitalism is that a surplus is a bad thing. It's even good to not have enough of a product to supply the entire population, because that keeps the value up. Objectively, this makes no sense. In communism a surplus can be produced because the value stays the same, because the market is controlled by the government. Take the mining industry for example. A common practice in it is to extract raw materials but not sell them. Over time the markets will be lacking the raw materials needed so people will pay a higher price to get them. This is good for business, but it is almost counter-productive in the big picture. How can you create a massive public works project when the value of the materials you need is being intentionally driven up? It is true that competition helps to ease this, but businesses have been known to co-operate in such actions to maximize their profits, at the expense of society. There's also something called monopolies.
    Forum Gang Premier

    you are a balls

  • GreatbigHippo wrote:

    But for the right reasons.

    Did I just defeat oceanhawk?
    Look. Greed, envy and competition are NATURAL human feelings. Capitalism tries to harness them, and turn it into a good thing. Capitalism is good. Capitalism is the system that allows you to be there, at home, on a computer talking to some random guys online, complaining about the very system that allows you to do that. Capitalism generally has free speech, no Communist country has had free speech so far.
    The past is a foreign country.

  • GreatbigHippo wrote:

    @oceanhawk, the problem with capitalism is that a surplus is a bad thing. It's even good to not have enough of a product to supply the entire population, because that keeps the value up. Objectively, this makes no sense. In communism a surplus can be produced because the value stays the same, because the market is controlled by the government. Take the mining industry for example. A common practice in it is to extract raw materials but not sell them. Over time the markets will be lacking the raw materials needed so people will pay a higher price to get them. This is good for business, but it is almost counter-productive in the big picture. How can you create a massive public works project when the value of the materials you need is being intentionally driven up? It is true that competition helps to ease this, but businesses have been known to co-operate in such actions to maximize their profits, at the expense of society. There's also something called monopolies.
    AAhh, usually bill just shouts out random stuff that makes no sense. I look forward to slamming this idea, to the ground. Although it isnt the worst thing with Communism.

    No it is bad to have a deficit of supply, because this will cause the price to rise. If demand stays the same, and supply falls, price rises. Or is Demand stays the same, and Supply increases Prices fall. As there is a surplus.

    What you are talking about there, is white collar crime, that is a crime, and a discrace. And a lot of Conservatives are harsh on this stuff. That is a crime, and is dealt with elsewhere. Although the government controlling the price and production of the mining may sound great. The improvements in Mining technology as well as the motive for hard work, is almost non existant. Competition does more than simply drive down the price. It also encourages Innovation. Yes this is due to the money incentive. Real economic growth comes from increasing quality and quantity of the factors of production. The government doesnt have that ablility to take risks and look into other mining methods, or even invest in a organic replacement of raw materials!


    Now onto the gold The problem with the government holding the factors of production, is that the government cant take into account every single need of the people. There cannot ever be 100% Government control
    In a free market, under the protection of a limited government individuals are free to express their preferences as consumers. By their purchases or refusals to purchase. They help to determine the prices of consumer goods and services. There needs to be a balance. I value you mowing my garden at 10$ and you value the 10$ more than work of mowing the lawn. Now, as for the production in a command economy. The government would never be able to to plan and control everything. They wouldn't know enough, be powerful enough or be able to cope promptly enough with new and unexpected changes as they took place. Every day, citizens would be making decisions and doing things, in the process of living and surviving. No central planner could hope to take into account every single needs.



    If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists
    -Friedrich von Haye