Jump to content

chenGOD

Moderators
  • Content Count

    17253
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

chenGOD last won the day on December 10

chenGOD had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

108 Excellent

1 Follower

About chenGOD

  • Rank
    chen is all u need
  • Birthday 09/09/1974

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Heard and McDonald Islands

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    a dream within a dream

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Pick one. Since you are determined to take everything literally, let me rephrase the original statement for you. A post-scarcity economy is unlikely to be realized due to the prohibitive cost of extracting resources from extra-terrestrial sources, and the lack of available technology in a cost-effective manner (for example, ion drives only work in space, conventional rockets are still needed to escape earth atmosphere, conventional rockets require massive amounts of fuel which is not abundant), combined with uncertainty around resource availability from extra-terrestrial sources (e.g. unlikely to be many dead dinosaurs (read: available biological material (mostly plants, krill and other biomass) to create oil) in space, meaning plastic production will be limited to material found here on earth), results in a significant risk to any corporation willing to take on such a project. So yes, 100% you are correct. It is possible. It is however, highly improbable.
  2. I agree that it's a worthwhile development project - but the issue is when communism is implemented, many of the incentives that led to the success in the first place get removed. Private property, markets (including financial markets), and choice are important components that led to the success of developing nations. Market-based socialism is probably the optimal outcome. This includes private property, but on a social scale rather than a societal scale like in communism. Markets are still involved in deciding which products succeed, and choice (or the illusion thereof if you prefer, @Zeffolia) is still an element in the consumption of goods and services. Profits are returned to the owners and investors, but also distributed more equitably (through properly enforced taxation) to social services like health care and education, as well as essential infrastructure like water/sewage/electricity/telecommunications/ etc. This is different than communism, as the means of production is owned by a variety of models, including private ownership, social ownership, and state ownership. Maybe more similar to communalism, but with more efficient markets in place. Wish I could dedicate more time to these responses, but busy at being a slave to my society.
  3. Right, so in the terms of communism as its been implemented (and I'm not referring even to the regimes of terror that existed in Stalinist Soviet Union, Maoist China, and North Korea), communism has been an utter failure economically. Our ability to to extract resources and energy from the rest of the solar system is essentially nil. As such, the Earth is objectively a closed system.
  4. Ah the old "no true communism" chestnut. I've already said that Marx provided a valuable analysis of capitalism, but his analysis was flawed because he could not foresee the adaptability of capitalism. Weber was a good sociologist but a lousy economist. The Protestant Ethic is interesting for its sociological contributions, but not so much for its economic contribution.
  5. A lot to unpack here. The fraudulent accounting happened not just in the Soviet Union, but was widespread across Soviet-bloc/Communist countries. It is a major indictment of communism, and you need to address that point. Providing the correct incentives to humans is a tricky business. "It would be better if Apple's intellectual assets were plundered and distributed globally,...it would be a net gain for humanity, if everyone has this knowledge and anyone could compete with Apple" If everyone had the same knowledge, there would be no need to compete. Cooperative competition is just cooperation, companies engaged in the process of cooperation while competing are still doing it to enhance efficiencies and increase profit margins. You might be interested to learn that Apple does give back to the Open Source community. Do they give as much as they should, probably not, but they give back. I have no issues with private property - it is the bedrock of modern western civilization. Even commons (assuming they are managed) are essentially private property, as they are private to members of the managing community. Supply chains are not the private property of a particular corporation, they can (and do) supply multiple entities concurrently. I don't believe I referred to any bottleneck caused by human workers, rather that efficiencies can be found at all levels. Bottlenecks in production/supply chains are generally determined by supply, rather than control over private property. Abstract legal entities are still run by people. You are exploiting people by proxy. Corporations can, and should pay more tax, there is no doubt. Is communism the best model to extract resources for the good of the entire community? No, because it doesn't allow for specialization or create efficiencies. On the other hand, neither is neo-liberal capitalism. Trickle-down economics is an insult to any thinking person. Post-scarcity societies sound wonderful, but cannot exist, because, entropy is real.
  6. Ummm you need supply chains to manufacture, be that in capitalist or communist economies. And some supply chains need to be optimized for efficiency. Workers are exploited in all economies. If you read about the Soviet economy, you will find that there was widespread accounting fraud in the factories, which was a major factor in the shit level of their products. The other major contributor was the system of quasi-autarky of only trading with other communist-bloc countries. You really only have to look at the difference in development between East and West Germany to see how terrible that model really was. As for the idea that under capitalism it's only pseudo-choice because of planned obsolescence, yes there are examples of planned obsolescence. But there are also real advantages to newer technology, and many products are only made possible to produce as a result of technological advancement. The iPhone is an example of both sides of the argument (as well as the Galaxy phones and others): their built-in batteries are a trade-off between design and useful lifespan; their incredible cameras and other technology was only made possible through advancements in miniaturization and other tech. If you want to see how well communism didn't advance technology - the Lada is a good example. Yes products extract profit from me - but I also profit from the products. Only now, instead of me milking a cow, and trading some poor schmuck milk of questionable quality (standardization of supply chains and economies of scale mean improved quality control) I'm able to specialize my labour and apply my skills (as meager as they are) to maximize my own profit. Thanks, that is much clearer than all the nonsense I just typed.
  7. That was my take too - I read it and I was like "white straight males made club music popular..uhh what?"
  8. You do understand that supply chains still exist under communism right? It's just you have shittier products and less choice. At least with this model people have the option to buy handmade goods (which the G-wagen is). Also, I'm glad you're taking on some Marx, he is an important part of economic critical thinking. However, as good an analysis of capitalism as he produced, Marx failed to take into account the adaptability of capitalism, and thus his ultimate conclusion will likely be unrealized (I think he also failed to take into account how dumb large crowds of people are, but that's a different topic).
  9. I was definitely thinking of Calgary when I posted that 😉
  10. Oh yeah for sure I agree with that. even regular trucks now. People are dropping 60k on a truck to ride it around the city. Madness.
  11. You think Mercedes engineers aren’t paid well? Those cost around 200,000. What usefulness does that money have, assuming I pay a fair share of taxes and live in a country that tries to look after its citizens? Living in the city though I’d actually almost rather get the Audi RS6 Avant. A wagon that does 0-60 in 3.7 seconds? Phenomenal.
  12. I love those. I drove a few of them when I was a valet and they are the bomb. Plus they can actually go off road, not like 95% of SUVs out there. If I was rich I’d buy one of those. Functional and luxurious, sign me the fuck up.
  13. I guess they figure if the president can be a criminal, no problems for congress. What a joke.
×
×
  • Create New...