Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
if communism causes inflation, then why can't the govt just increase the supply of things to keep prices down?
Ah in Communism the price of a good(inflation) and the supply are not linked. The government decides how many will be produced and who will get them.
In a capitalist system they are. Let’s say that milk is currently selling for $2.00 a gallon. If the supply of milk drops for some reason the price should go up(Drought in an area). As the price goes up it becomes attractive to invest more in milk production(or transport milk from farther away) and thus the price may fall.
Conversely if the supply increases (in the 90ies the hormone BHT increased the supply of milk) price drops and that will force some farmers to stop producing milk (and do something else more profitable).
Additionally consumers may make other choices: Use less milk or use something else
(soy milk, dried milk, goat milk). Which can lower demand and make the price fall.
In a communist system the linkage is not so strong. i.e. The government decides if there is or is not enough milk for the populace. The government decides how much and how to increase the supply and so on. Communist systems are the only systems in the world that can have a bountiful harvest and starvation going at the same time because some link in the chain broke down.
What's funny is we wouldn't even have this thread if the economy weren't in the ****ter. But, in the system of Capitalism, no one cares about anyone, they just want theirs. That's why you have companies shipping jobs overseas like it's going out of style and paying people laughable wages, because Capitalism left unchecked causes unhealthy levels of greed. We all know that CEO's today make much much more than they used to. It wasn't enough to have one mansion and a boat and rolls royce. They needed to have 10 of each.
now here is the thing: I can see that communism would be slightly more inefficient but is that really such a big issue anyway?
after all, as long as everyone has enough to live a modest lifestyle we should all be happy, right?
because since when did we actually need 50 varieties of breakfast cereal, a plasma screen tv and the latest 5G i-phone;
our parents were happy enough without them so why can't we be?
doesn't capitalism just promote greed, envy and avarice......whereas communism does not?
Ah yes you do need 50 varieties of breakfast cereal. Breakfast cereal is a quick handy meal. Inexpensive, No refrigeration needed, just add milk. However taste is everything. There are types that I can't stand the flavor of. I would hate to be limited to say Apple jacks, Total(and any vitamin heavy cereal), Corn puffs, raisin bran(or any cereal with raisins or any dried fruit in it). Other people love those kinds. Capitalism puts the choice of fitness for purpose closer to the user of the product. If the state decided that they would only produce three kinds of cereal, what if I didn’t like the taste of any of them? What if I were allergic to them? I would totally lose the benefit of having cereal. With variety I can find what works best for me (cost/size/taste/ect….).
Plasma TV’s for instance take up less space than the CRT and give a higher quality picture. What if the state decided against plasma production for some reason? I would lose the benefit of having more space in my house, better picture quality ect.
Our parents like the thousands of generations before us advanced technology. It was not that they were happy without. It is just that a cell phone is impossible with 1940ies vacuum tube technology (it would be the size of a skyscraper). I remember the time before the internet and trust me the things a 5G phone can do are useful. I mean in the days B.C. before cell phones you had to know where someone was in order to call them. While public phones were more plentiful, you still had to walk to get to one (in all kinds of weather) and while using it you were a good target for crime and there was no guarantee that the phone would work (could be vandalized, could be full of quarters, could need to wait for some teenage girl to get off the phone so that you can make an important call).
E-mail communication is much cheaper than by mail (more efficient) and a lot more handy (in the old days to send a file by mail, you sent a disk which could take days not minutes to get there). You carried a film camera if you wanted to take a picture and the film had to be developed if it were not an instant camera not to mention you needed a photographer to make copies. There would be no such thing as being able to send pictures of your newborn to all your relatives within minutes of the child being born to people around the world with a few clicks of a UI. In the old days you could not compose a memo without whipping out a laptop on an airplane. You could not carry an unlimited amount of music or video to entertain you (in fact there were separate devices for each in the 80ies).
In the 80ies to get the equivalent of a modern 5g cell phone, You would have to carry:
A. Mobile phone that is larger, heavier, less battery power and less range/call quality
B. An electronic organizer like the Casio Boss as your cell phone does not keep contacts, appointments ect.
C. An Atlas cause you don’t have GPS(or today a separate GPS device)
D. An Camera cause you don’t have any camera in the cell phone
E. A tape recorder(and even then it would hold less music)
F. A very expensive portable TV but even then you would not be able to watch any prerecorded video and even with today’s portable DVD players you would never be able to carry around as many DVDs as Netflix.
G. Instead of apps about the only you could match would be games and at best maybe a game boy?
H. Both a yellow and a White page book.
Cell phones got all those neat abilities because consumers demanded them. As cell phone company put the ability in, sells increased and it became standard. They got smaller because again consumers were willing to pay more for a smaller lighter cell phone.
But sometimes it has required the US CIA to assassinate the communist elected in a free election.
Castro outlasted ten US presidents, who all tried to destroy him. Define "fail". Since Castro's takeover, the purchasing power of the basic wage of US workers has declined by almost half, but has increased for Cuban workers. Define "fail". Cubans have a longer life expectancy than Americans, and a nearly 100% organic diet. And free health care, with more doctors per capita than the USA. Define "fail".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenneth-Kaunda
how about Cuba and Venezuela?
.
Venezuela is less socialist than most northern European countries.
Which means its not much different from capitalism given the common phrase:
"All world empires crumble eventually"
So then what?
ah I took a course on communism and it is based on some imposiblites or near impossiblies. The idea that both bounty and scarcity should be shared for instance. I don't know about you but if it is between my infant getting enough to eat then I would not be sharing the scarcity. I also don't think people share bounty unless their needs are meet first.
Ah in Communism the price of a good(inflation) and the supply are not linked. The government decides how many will be produced and who will get them.
Would it be too much trouble to read some of the posts that state very clearly that it is completely false. There is no central planning of all product that conforms to the theory. Its socialism.
Quote:
In a capitalist system they are. Let’s say that milk is currently selling for $2.00 a gallon. If the supply of milk drops for some reason the price should go up(Drought in an area). As the price goes up it becomes attractive to invest more in milk production(or transport milk from farther away) and thus the price may fall.
The price may also go up if they form a cartel, control the price and dump the excess down the drain. To increase value, you increase marginal utility, to do that you make it scarce for pricing power. Sort of a problem with laissez-faire capitalism.
Quote:
Conversely if the supply increases (in the 90ies the hormone BHT increased the supply of milk) price drops and that will force some farmers to stop producing milk (and do something else more profitable).
But not as profitable as what they did before. Another central tenet of wealth is division of labor which is created by an acquired skill they no longer have and now become a pool of common labor unless they have a capital reserve.
Quote:
Additionally consumers may make other choices: Use less milk or use something else
(soy milk, dried milk, goat milk). Which can lower demand and make the price fall.
A convenient elastic resource which allows for substitutions. Try that with tenants who have to pay rising rents.
Quote:
In a communist system the linkage is not so strong. i.e. The government decides if there is or is not enough milk for the populace. The government decides how much and how to increase the supply and so on. Communist systems are the only systems in the world that can have a bountiful harvest and starvation going at the same time because some link in the chain broke down.
No it doesn't decide the product people are to have. Not from the theory labeled as communism as expressed by its chief exponent Marx. Socialism...
Not trying to say capitalism does not have its good points, but those efficient market examples are pretty rigged and have the same naive idealism of a Marxist. Capitalism does work well when the market system is maintained and the resources are free for productive use....but market systems must be maintained much like a sporting event needs refs.
Would it be too much trouble to read some of the posts that state very clearly that it is completely false. There is no central planning of all product that conforms to the theory. Its socialism.
True in true communism there would be no central planning, but central planning is what makes society of any type work period. It would be impossible to despense with government without despensing with society and all it benfiets.
Quote:
The price may also go up if they form a cartel, control the price and dump the excess down the drain. To increase value, you increase marginal utility, to do that you make it scarce for pricing power. Sort of a problem with laissez-faire capitalism.
Which is best addressed via laws and remember a cartel only works if all memebers do so. If the price goes up and one memeber sells more than his share then the price will never go up as high as they all drove the price up. Opec members tend to pump more oil than opec wants at times.
Quote:
But not as profitable as what they did before. Another central tenet of wealth is division of labor which is created by an acquired skill they no longer have and now become a pool of common labor unless they have a capital reserve.
They do have a capital reserve(the cows, eqiument , even raw manpower can all be sold to generate cash) and why not a profitable as before? There are all sorts of industries today that didn't exsist 10, 20, 30 years ago. Why not change from being a farmer to a programmer? Why not get a job at some other industry?
Quote:
A convenient elastic resource which allows for substitutions. Try that with tenants who have to pay rising rents.
Well my city lacks rent controls(for better or for worse). If you raise the rent the tenants can move out and you will need to replace them with higher paying tenents. Housing is elastic too. Where I live rent can run as low as $500 to thousands per month. Tenants can also shack up(i.e. share the housing resource which splits the bill among a larger group). Property owners can choose to build more units(to increase profits) or take in renters. Most things are elastic. There are a few like healthcare are not but most resouces can be either subistuted or done with less/out.
Quote:
No it doesn't decide the product people are to have. Not from the theory labeled as communism as expressed by its chief exponent Marx. Socialism...
That is the part of Marx I never figured out. How can any society work without some sort of goverment and once you have government you by default have some degree of control over what gets produced. From say the USSR total central planning to US tax policies(along with rules and regulations) all to some degree control what is produced.
Quote:
Not trying to say capitalism does not have its good points, but those efficient market examples are pretty rigged and have the same naive idealism of a Marxist. Capitalism does work well when the market system is maintained and the resources are free for productive use....but market systems must be maintained much like a sporting event needs refs.
Oh I agree about unregulated markets(a bad idea).
Last edited by chirack; 08-17-2012 at 11:53 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
