Socialism reminds me of a religion.

[Dele]

*snip*
Basocially Finlad is a very socialist country (there are no western countries based completely on socalism or capitlasim) just like most countries in Western Europe (the richest, most functional nations in the world). The country you are from, as well as it's neighboring countries, are the proof that systems based on socialism can work effectively.
*snip*
It avoids the whole cycle of "I come from a rich family and will therefore be a sucess" and "I'm poor and will indefinately remain so"

I am sorry but our system, althought it has many socialistic ideas, is very much based on capitalism. If you still disagree, please clarify what you mean.
On the second part, you seem to confuse absolute poverty and relative poverty. Looking at a capitalistic economy, when A has a car and B has ten cars, A is relatively poor compared to the B. This is an inherit part of a capitalistic system and often under criticism. However comparing to our next example, this system has no absolute poverty.

Looking at a socialistic economy C and D both have a broken car (Lada). There is no relative poverty as both are equally rich and thus one can claim that there is no poverty in the system. Then again, comparing to A and B, both are extremely poor in absolute numbers.

Constant economic growth ensures that a relatively poor person in a capitalistic system has a higher standard of living than in the past, even though he may seem poor compared to the more well-off in the system. This is something stagnated socialistic economies lack. Poor people in a socialistic system will have the same, or less standard of living in the future and are doomed to absolute poverty.

 

[Dele]

Hey, good thread Dele. Well, the concept is intelligent, but you seem to have ignored the potential for a more advanced analysisof your sound initial concept, in favour of propping up a strawman and shooting 7.62x54mm NATO rounds into it's body - ironically, something that is commonplace amongst extremists of both parties.

I think a better term would be 'Economics has proven that Capitalism is the better system for the majority of economic activity'. More cumbersome, true, but the fact is that there are some things capitalism does not do all that well, and, quite ironically, fanatical capitalists do not like to admit this either.

I dont try to deny that my first post was more provoking than thought provoking, yet it served it's purpose in starting a discussion. While your statement is absolutely most correct, you can propably see from the context of my post that I was talking about broad concepts and large differences in the system, essentially claiming that a system based on capitalism is better than a system based on socialism, not that it is perfect. I have made no claims that a free market cannot have some socialistic elements, only that it's better than a planned economy containing capitalistic elements.

I personally find your, as well as others, view of Socialism quite (for lack of a better word) Ignorante. *snip*
The views of Socialism by you and others are the typical ignorant American sentiments. This last point is not your fault however, as propaganda has caused most people to view Trditional Socialism as the same as Russian Communism (dictatorship), which is a Perversion of the ideals of Karl Marx & other fine, respectful Socialists.

You make the the assumption that I give a damn about political system of a socialist state. Whenever socialistic state has democracy (unlikely) or dictatorship, it makes no difference as following blatantly wrong theories of Marx will lead to a failure. Hell, many high school students understand more about the economy than Mr. Marx.

All right, Mr. Empiricist, this is a phrase you're going to need to defend the fuck out of because as it stands it doesn't even make proper logical sense. Show us some emprical evidence that capitalism is a better way of handing the economy than socialism, and maybe let us know what definitions you're using for "socialism" and "capitalism."

Okay, in the spirit of the scientific method, I'll ask that you follow it. If you have the proof, please present it. Also, please present details of the experimental method used to derive this proof in the spirit of allowing others to check your work for possible errors or for further implications that could be derived from the proof.

Obviously I could send you to read some papers by Mises and Hayek (google it up), but for the purposes of this discussion I will underline some basic problems here.

Lets define Capitalism as "Market economy" and Socialism as "Planned economy".
Lets assume that supply and demand in a Market economy is mostly at economic equilibrium and call the resulting output Ymax.

In central planning, economic decision are made by a central planner, who owns. His position is guaranteed by the law and he cannot go bankrupt, thus he has no profit motive. Futhermore, there is no accounting system for profits and losses under central planning so he no feedback system about the effiency of his production.
Worse, he cannot get any information out of prices at all due SETTING instead of RECEIVING the market price. The only information he receives is surplus of goods, or lack of such. Ironically, surplus/shortage of goods imply ineffiency by definition. Since prices do not give him any information, a shortage of goods can suggest anything from need to increased production, to non-optimal wrong price or even that he should close the factory.

As our central planner has no method of tracking the optimum price and amount the production and whenever to stop old business or to open new ones in the faces of shifting demand, ineffiency is bound to exist. Ineffiency by definition means that centrally planned economy has an output lower than Ymax and as such, overall a lower standard of living.

To explain why centrally planned countries tend to have a very low standard of living over time, we only need to look at Solow growth model. For better demonstration, let's assume that raw materials, population growth and technological development are fixed and thus amount of Capital (K) determines the Output (Y). We will also assume that Investment (I) starts at equal to Depreciation (D) and thus economy is at steady state and will not grow.

Due ineffiency, our central planner receives less income and to maintain the current level of production, he must reduce the savings rate. Since Savings (S) = Investment (I) this also reduces the amount of new capital introduced, which is not enough to support the current steady state due Depreciation (D). (New K = I-D). Thus the amount of K(=Y) sinks to a new steady state that is lower than the orginal one. In this new state, central planner receives even less income and must futher reduce the savings rate to maintain the current level of consumption. This is a very deadly spiral that has been seen in many socialistic countries. As the central planner receives little to no information from the market, he really has no reason to lower the current level of consumption, which leads to greatly reduced standard of living as the old capital depreciates and it is not replaced with new one.

 

[Dys]

*snip*
Basocially Finlad is a very socialist country (there are no western countries based completely on socalism or capitlasim) just like most countries in Western Europe (the richest, most functional nations in the world). The country you are from, as well as it's neighboring countries, are the proof that systems based on socialism can work effectively.
*snip*
It avoids the whole cycle of "I come from a rich family and will therefore be a sucess" and "I'm poor and will indefinately remain so"

I am sorry but our system, althought it has many socialistic ideas, is very much based on capitalism. If you still disagree, please clarify what you mean.

Your system is based on both. Science does not, and has never shown in any way, shape or form that capitalism is in any way a more functional system. You seem to be claiming that capitalism is the superior economic policy, that contradicts the current state of the world, the most wealthy countries in the world are those that effectively introduced socialist policies.

On the second part, you seem to confuse absolute poverty and relative poverty. Looking at a capitalistic economy, when A has a car and B has ten cars, A is relatively poor compared to the B. This is an inherit part of a capitalistic system and often under criticism. However comparing to our next example, this system has no absolute poverty.

Looking at a socialistic economy C and D both have a broken car (Lada). There is no relative poverty as both are equally rich and thus one can claim that there is no poverty in the system. Then again, comparing to A and B, both are extremely poor in absolute numbers.

I'm not confusing absoloute poverty and relative poverty, rather you seem to be confusing economic extremes with systems used in the real world. In a pure capitalist society, the poor have no cars (unless those in with money decide they should, and create a market for affordable cars). They are poor and therefore at the mercy of the rich, money is power and those who control it have absolute control over what is and is not available to those without money.

Common sense dictates that a system where only those with enough money can afford adequate services (such as schooling, transport) is fundamentlally inferior to a system where basic services are more attainable for everyone. It avoids the whole cycle of "I come from a rich family and will therefore be a sucess" and "I'm poor and will indefinately remain so"

The point I am making there is that those who lack access to effective schooling (like say, those who cannot afford private schooling in the U.S.A and to a lesser extent Australia) are far, far less likely to be as sucessful as those that could. While an economy with capitalist traits can be effective long term, a pure capitalist system will inevitably create a cycle wherein nobody outside of the wealthy minority can have afford anything independantly, if that wealthy minority is greedy (as history has taught us will inevitably happen) the poorer classes will be exploited and will, in fact, have a reduced standard of living. This is, of course, why countries like Britain and France have not maintained the strict capitalist models they adopted in the past, because they are fundamentally flawed

Constant economic growth ensures that a relatively poor person in a capitalistic system has a higher standard of living than in the past, even though he may seem poor compared to the more well-off in the system. This is something stagnated socialistic economies lack. Poor people in a socialistic system will have the same, or less standard of living in the future and are doomed to absolute poverty.

Constant economic growth will almost always lead to a higher standard of living, the only time it isn't a garuntee is when that wealth is controlled/earned by a small group who keep it for themselves and do not promote similar growth within society. I don't even understand what you're trying to claim in that last point, but I've tried to argue it as best I can. In a socialist society during a time of economic growth, the standard of living of everyone will increase, whether their are any economies in the world that could handle such growth while being purely socialist is a different issue completely. I'm not claiming that socialism works (especially in the world as it is today), but that capitalism doesn't either.

 

[Dele]

Your system is based on both. Science does not, and has never shown in any way, shape or form that capitalism is in any way a more functional system. You seem to be claiming that capitalism is the superior economic policy, that contradicts the current state of the world, the most wealthy countries in the world are those that effectively introduced socialist policies.

It seems we have hugely differencing definitions of a socialist economy. If we take my definition above, Finland is hugely learning towards capitalism and thus can be claimed to be based on it. Since you dont accept such definition, I need the definition you are using.

While ignoring your argumenting error (Current state is X, therefore X is best), the most successful nations on Earth are those using an economy based on capitalism. Socialistic policies are exactly the reason why countries such as Germany or Finland have such low output per amount of capital

I'm not confusing absoloute poverty and relative poverty, rather you seem to be confusing economic extremes with systems used in the real world. In a pure capitalist society, the poor have no cars (unless those in with money decide they should, and create a market for affordable cars). They are poor and therefore at the mercy of the rich, money is power and those who control it have absolute control over what is and is not available to those without money.

Your claim demonstrates that you miss one basic component that is vital when analyzing economical growth. Time. Fifty years ago somebody could have made a similiar claim about poor not having cellphones, yet currently cheapest cellphones cost as much as a meal in McDonalds. Economics is not a zero-sum game. Poor can gain wealth in absolute numbers evenif there is no increase to their own productivity (which is bound to rise too due technological development though). This is something you must understand.

The point I am making there is that those who lack access to effective schooling (like say, those who cannot afford private schooling in the U.S.A and to a lesser extent Australia) are far, far less likely to be as sucessful as those that could. While an economy with capitalist traits can be effective long term, a pure capitalist system will inevitably create a cycle wherein nobody outside of the wealthy minority can have afford anything independantly, if that wealthy minority is greedy (as history has taught us will inevitably happen) the poorer classes will be exploited and will, in fact, have a reduced standard of living. This is, of course, why countries like Britain and France have not maintained the strict capitalist models they adopted in the past, because they are fundamentally flawed

I agree with the first claim and the social problem it causes, but strongly disagree with the second. Pure capitalistic system (theoretical) will ensure that poorer 'classes' will earn exactly as much as their labor is worth and with increasing productivity, it's impossible for them to lose standard of living in the long run.

Constant economic growth will almost always lead to a higher standard of living, the only time it isn't a garuntee is when that wealth is controlled/earned by a small group who keep it for themselves and do not promote similar growth within society. I don't even understand what you're trying to claim in that last point, but I've tried to argue it as best I can. In a socialist society during a time of economic growth, the standard of living of everyone will increase, whether their are any economies in the world that could handle such growth while being purely socialist is a different issue completely. I'm not claiming that socialism works (especially in the world as it is today), but that capitalism doesn't either.

It is impossible for a small group to 'highjack' gains from a constant economic growth unless they have a weird theoretical political system purely designed for that purpose. My point here has been that capitalism encourages for economical growth that helps everyone. Socialism encourages negative to nearly zero economic growth and keeps everyone worse off.

If capitalism doesn't work and socialism doesn't work, what does?

 

[Dys]

It seems we have hugely differencing definitions of a socialist economy. If we take my definition above, Finland is hugely learning towards capitalism and thus can be claimed to be based on it. Since you dont accept such definition, I need the definition you are using.

Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended.

Traits such as minimum wage, state owned facilities etc are considered to be socialist traits.

While ignoring your argumenting error (Current state is X, therefore X is best), the most successful nations on Earth are those using an economy based on capitalism. Socialistic policies are exactly the reason why countries such as Germany or Finland have such low output per amount of capital

It is also the reason why the have the highest standard of living.

Your claim demonstrates that you miss one basic component that is vital when analyzing economical growth. Time. Fifty years ago somebody could have made a similiar claim about poor not having cellphones, yet currently cheapest cellphones cost as much as a meal in McDonalds. Economics is not a zero-sum game. Poor can gain wealth in absolute numbers evenif there is no increase to their own productivity (which is bound to rise too due technological development though). This is something you must understand.

Being able to afford heavily marketed crap (due to processes making products cheaper) is VERY different from having a high standard of living. The basic necissities, especially housing, school etc become harder to obtain and therefore more expensive as state control lessens. Wealth isn't represented by the number of whatever given currency you earn, but rather your disposable income relative to your needs, as well as general quality of life
(life expectancy etc). There is no shortage of cheap electronic equipment in the Philippines yet people still seem to struggle.

I agree with the first claim and the social problem it causes, but strongly disagree with the second. Pure capitalistic system (theoretical) will ensure that poorer 'classes' will earn exactly as much as their labor is worth and with increasing productivity, it's impossible for them to lose standard of living in the long run.

History seems to imply economic growth is in no way proportional to standard of living, the theory that workers will earn as much as their labor is worth is, in itself, implicit that the employer has an unspoken advantage over the employee. This implication is consistant with common civil law (present in most, if not all, Western countries) that give the worker minimum rights that cannot be contracted away (pure capitalism does not allow for such laws).

It is impossible for a small group to 'highjack' gains from a constant economic growth unless they have a weird theoretical political system purely designed for that purpose. My point here has been that capitalism encourages for economical growth that helps everyone. Socialism encourages negative to nearly zero economic growth and keeps everyone worse off.

I don't see how socialism encourages poor economic growth, even under horrendous conditions the USSR managed to survive the best part of a century, Cuba is still going, France seems to be doing rather well

France's economy combines extensive private enterprise (nearly 2.5 million companies registered) with substantial (though declining[citation needed]) government intervention . The government retains considerable influence over key segments of infrastructure sectors, with majority ownership of railway, electricity, aircraft, and telecommunications firms.

Not a pure strain of socialism (obviously) but as close to it as any Western country is to pure capitalism (even America has a lot of very socialist systems in place, though they like to pretend they are not so).

If capitalism doesn't work and socialism doesn't work, what does?

Compromise. Both are theoritical extremes, what does work is a system tailored correctly to suit the needs and economic power of each individual country at the time. This is why our economic plans are constantly evolving and changing (moreso in the more sucessful countries than others). When the country is doing well and there are surpluses, governments tend to push for more socialist policies, when in defosit and wealth is needed to be generated quickly a more capitilast approach is adopted. It is not static and that is why we can maintain our wealth and increase the standard of living

 

[IrishBerserker]

I personally find your, as well as others, view of Socialism quite (for lack of a better word) Ignorante. *snip*
The views of Socialism by you and others are the typical ignorant American sentiments. This last point is not your fault however, as propaganda has caused most people to view Trditional Socialism as the same as Russian Communism (dictatorship), which is a Perversion of the ideals of Karl Marx & other fine, respectful Socialists.

You make the the assumption that I give a damn about political system of a socialist state. Whenever socialistic state has democracy (unlikely) or dictatorship, it makes no difference as following blatantly wrong theories of Marx will lead to a failure. Hell, many high school students understand more about the economy than Mr. Marx.

(I apologize for making any assumptions)

It is true that Marx may not have understood the economics of the system but others such as Freidrich Engels did and publish works pertaining to it.

It is your opinion, but I don't believe Socialism is doomed to failure every it is implimented. I hope that one day it will work, because it does have good Ideas.

There is more than one type of socialism, surley not all will be inevitable fsilures as you suggest.

 

[jboking]

It has yet to be attempted, capitalize on the mistakes Microsoft has made throughout their existence; they are numerous, and you may well succeed at launching a company. If you desire is to compete with Microsoft and IBM however you must anticipated a long venture that may stretch well in excessive of a decade. Is it feasible? Certainly if it is attempted; as of this current date none have risen to the task.

It guarantee it has been attempted, but you never heard of the company trying to compete while they were in operation because they inevitably failed.

Poor management
Poor accounting
Inability to appeal to consumers
Over indulging
Tax evasion
Poor employee supervision
Conflict amongst partners
Inconvenient location
Lack of proper marketing
Lack of originality

Those are just a portion of reasons that ultimately amass a considerable amount of failed company percentile. It is exceptionally easy to decimate a business to the point of no return with reckless tactics as the aforementioned portrays. Of course direct competition is an equally large factor in the world of entrepreneurship. Why not attempt a system to appease all? Because appeasing all is a fantasy. The only possibility would be socialism in its purest of form, which would be catastrophic for the country. You have requested an idealistic fantasy where no one can lose, which is just as stated, a fantasy. This is not a children's sports game in which we do not keep score so seemingly everyone has fun.

Basically you have stated that 90% of us are too incompetent to succeed. Fine, advocate that if you wish. You also stated that you can wreak a company by using reckless tactics. A reckless tactic is also known as a risk. You said earlier we should be willing to take the risk to compete against giants even though it could end in our financial ruin. Now you say we shouldn't take any large risks. You already did by entering the market.

Finally, I never advocated socialism over capitalism, I advocated the use of both in conjunction to make one working system. The fact that you see it in such a black and white nature is incredibly disturbing. Fact is, things can be gray, and gray works.

A defeatist attitude is the essential reason few will ever prosper. "I was born into mediocrity, I cannot achieve much beyond mediocrity" is a common belief and undeniably a truthful statement to whomever utters it. If you believe that nonsense, it will amount to your reality; you cannot succeed if you cannot be bothered to believe you actually are capable. If you spend your finances wisely a gamble for your success will not result in bankruptcy. College itself is the initial stage to attempting to become something better, is that a waste if you have no other resources to acquire such knowledge?

Do you believe in the American Dream? Do you believe it still(or ever) occurs?(feel free to make the response to that a PM question). Also, we move into you stating that we should gambling for our success. You already stated that we should not follow reckless tactics, gambling by nature is reckless. Sorry, I can't follow your line of thought on that one, mostly because it is contradictory. College isn't necessarily a risk to become something better, but rather simply an attempt to avoid reality for a few years. I've met people for whom this is very, very true.

Oh, and yes, of course it is your defeatist attitude that caused you to fail. It couldn't have been any physical reason that you couldn't prevent. Sorry, I don't see that.

You can compete with Wal*Mart, you however must come up with something unique. Why would anyone pay any attention to your store if it was basically a copy of Wal*Mart? Sell what Wal*Mart doesn't, offer consumers better service, something, anything that drives in business. Wal*Mart is popular however if you do research they are not a well liked establishment. Find a hook and you are on your way. I already have my own although Wal*Mart is not my competition.

So I have to come up with a new idea and new products to sell that walmart doesn't? I asked you if I could compete with walmart using the same products, you've stated I need different products. Thanks for agreeing there in saying I can't directly compete with them.

I agree Medicare and wages could be equivalent to the system run in Canada, however that is the extent really. It is not something I would go out of my way to support admittedly, just as I would not oppose it either. I have no reason to, when you begin to ride along the socialist trail where everyone should be an equal, then is when I start to have qualms. It is harmful because people who blindly support socialism to the degree I have described, they ignore the ramifications brought on because it.

Not saying you have to oppose Medicare and Medicaid, I'm simply saying they are socialist policies that we employ today. Once again, I'm not a radical socialist. Just feel it needs to be restated.

The recession was caused because of idiotic president and continues now because large conglomerates are warring with the government as to who should suffer a financial loss. Wage increasing hurts their profit, which for a sizable number is already hemorrhaging, thus they raise prices attempting to force taxes to decrease. Granted that is my own assessment of the economics; just a hypothesis, so do not hold me to it.

Personally, I would argue that it is not a stupid president but rather stupid presidents. I feel that Clinton had his own unique way of not looking to the future of the economy and only trying to fix the current economy. I could see him as the stem of the housing market's problems. We can continue that over PM if you want, because that is getting a bit off topic I suppose.

Capitalism works to encourage a "work for success" mentality. You have and are entitled to nothing unless you earn it. I support it because it allows me to establish what I have aspired to do for six years and am only now within reach of beginning that. I will forever oppose any concept which prevents my goals from becoming a reality. Business is akin to a battlefield; a dog eat dog world. Where some succeed, others will falter, just like in any competition. It isn't easy to be a success, nor should it and not everyone will, although a vast majority only because they never try.

Your right, the business world is dog eat dog. Have fun in your venture when you are a poodle and the other dog is a doberman. However, you have yet to state what fosters the defeatist attitude, which is really what I would want to know from your perspective. Everything has to come from somewhere, where did it come from.

Side note: Some socialist policies instituted into the market actually wouldn't automatically make it impossible for you to reach for your dream. That is a faulty assumption.

(I'm mildly feeling like continuing this as a PM in general, if you would like to do that, respond appropriately).

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

((I do not see the need to take it to PMs. We are still on topic for the most part and I personally like to think it is a good read... if anyone cares. I suppose we could although there isn't much left to say at this point.))

It guarantee it has been attempted, but you never heard of the company trying to compete while they were in operation because they inevitably failed.

And there is inherently something wrong with this? I suppose I should have specified "successful attempts" however the point remains; competing with a company of this proportion is something that could demand a life time; intentionally exaggerated, and is not simply made simple as you seemingly believe. I will address with following in response to another quote.

Basically you have stated that 90% of us are too incompetent to succeed. Fine, advocate that if you wish. You also stated that you can wreak a company by using reckless tactics. A reckless tactic is also known as a risk. You said earlier we should be willing to take the risk to compete against giants even though it could end in our financial ruin. Now you say we shouldn't take any large risks. You already did by entering the market.

Finally, I never advocated socialism over capitalism, I advocated the use of both in conjunction to make one working system. The fact that you see it in such a black and white nature is incredibly disturbing. Fact is, things can be gray, and gray works.

One you completely misinterpreted my post and second you have placed words in my mouth to convey your position. There is a significant difference being risking everything including the shirt on your back and opting for a calculated gamble or risk if you prefer. An example of a risk I was referencing to is would be akin to gambling ten thousand dollars on a Vegas vacation when you know absolutely well that while losing ten grand would might be damaging, it is not even remotely within reach of bankrupting you.

Another example and one I intend to follow is to consistently bank portions of your earnings. In time when I earn large figures I might take as much as 10-15% of it and toss it in a savings account. The rest is to do as I please, which ultimately would be put to further my own ambitious (read: success.) For all intended purposes I could essentially play recklessly with that money however I have a nest egg, thus I have a calculated risk, not reckless abandonment.

I never once said "we should be willing to take the risk to compete against giants even though it could end in our financial ruin." That would be a foolish and before you go and claim that is the only way possible that is nonsense. If opportunity does not come knocking impede its path so to speak. What that means is bank money, do what you have in order to build. You will have to eventually risk something as no reward, no reward however it is those who do is intelligently that amount to something.

As of 90% of people being incompetent; while that is an over inflated percentage, an unfathomable amount of business men and women are indeed drastically over their head; many believing it is a quick way to earn a buck while others accumulated a ludicrous amount of debt. There are those who simply lose the war and those who surrender. All that is factored into the aforementioned 90% mentioned.

Do you believe in the American Dream? Do you believe it still(or ever) occurs?(feel free to make the response to that a PM question). Also, we move into you stating that we should gambling for our success. You already stated that we should not follow reckless tactics, gambling by nature is reckless. Sorry, I can't follow your line of thought on that one, mostly because it is contradictory. College isn't necessarily a risk to become something better, but rather simply an attempt to avoid reality for a few years. I've met people for whom this is very, very true.
Oh, and yes, of course it is your defeatist attitude that caused you to fail. It couldn't have been any physical reason that you couldn't prevent. Sorry, I don't see that.

I have already exampled the difference of proper and intelligence gambling in comparison to reckless abandonment and need not do so further. It is not contradictory; you simply believe that success can only be obtained through the possibility of financial ruin. I have stated and no first hand that belief is incorrect.

Suffice to say you have met mediocrity. That is a blunt response I admit however it is truthful for the solitary reason those people you referred to did nothing with the knowledge they learned. Personally I am a vast advocator against college education and recommend courses because the price is considerably less and you generally learn at a better pace (my opinion.) That has not mean I discredit public colleges, I just find them overpriced when there are other avenues.

Anyhow I digress. If people are attending college to avoid reality, they deserve the hand which is dealt to them. Once you finish high school and even before if you desire to amount to something worthwhile, you ought to be seeking out whatever sources available. If you skate, which is precisely what those people did, you have nothing to complain about. Opportunity came and you watched it passed by instead of rushing after it.

So I have to come up with a new idea and new products to sell that walmart doesn't? I asked you if I could compete with walmart using the same products, you've stated I need different products. Thanks for agreeing there in saying I can't directly compete with them.

And we have reached the post I was most looking forward to as it ties into every one of the previous posts I have replied to. You want an easy road to success, a silver platter and if not your post certainly insinuates that. Why in the world should you succeed as a competitor of Wal*Mart if you offer exactly the same product, absent of a hook of some degree? That escapes any frame of logic. You want to compete with a company, a large company no less and want to be their copy? Let me ask you, on a general average how many Gran Theft Auto clones are successful? Of the hundreds made I can only name Saints Row. Ever play Dynasty/Samurai/Gundam/Who gives a damn? Warriors? If so do you notice the same repetitive gameplay, which is why the game is constantly panned by reviewers?

In order to compete you have to offer something unique and this is a fundamental rule of business regardless of whether it is Wal*Mart, Blockbusters or a local game store. I use to frequent a video/game rental place near my house. The employees were all gamers for the most part, the rental price was a dollar for old games, two for new releases. Compare that to Blockbuster and you realize why the owner reeled in a sizable profit.

If you create a second rate clone, you will be treated like a second rate clone. A new business is not a game, it is difficult, time consuming; in excess of decades depends what you are pursuing. You want an straightforward "everyone cane open a business and compete with large companies" which is delusional. "A hook" as I stated earlier can be anything for a fancy layout, to friendly customer service to lower prices. The hook can be simple although you have more luck with creativity however there has to be something or the universal thought should people walk into your store will be, "Why don't I just go to Wal*Mart? It's the same store." You have to get people into your store.

Not saying you have to oppose Medicare and Medicaid, I'm simply saying they are socialist policies that we employ today. Once again, I'm not a radical socialist. Just feel it needs to be restated.

I never stated you were, although you do come across as one given what I have replied to just recently. Additionally I never stated all socialism aspects were poor. Canada has managed with free Medicare, albeit as I am Canadian you soon realize it is not all they allege it to be. So long as the primary focus of capitalism is not assaulted; this would be the competitive nature it dictates, I haven't as much a qualm with it. I prefer to take everything on a case by case basis and challenge what I perceive needs to be challenged. Wages to match Canada's and better Medicare do not harm anything.

Personally, I would argue that it is not a stupid president but rather stupid presidents. I feel that Clinton had his own unique way of not looking to the future of the economy and only trying to fix the current economy. I could see him as the stem of the housing market's problems. We can continue that over PM if you want, because that is getting a bit off topic I suppose.

You do understand Bill Clinton left the United States in one of the greatest financial states the Country has ever seen since its founding while George W. Bush went to war, accomplished nothing because of idiotic tactics and wasted over thirteen trillion dollars, non? Clinton may not have been the perfect president and others who preceded him would have been flawed but this recession is primarily because of Bush's stupidity.

Your right, the business world is dog eat dog. Have fun in your venture when you are a poodle and the other dog is a doberman. However, you have yet to state what fosters the defeatist attitude, which is really what I would want to know from your perspective. Everything has to come from somewhere, where did it come from.

Side note: Some socialist policies instituted into the market actually wouldn't automatically make it impossible for you to reach for your dream. That is a faulty assumption.

I shall, especially when I devour that Doberman. That attitude derived from numerous examples, people are generally afraid to risk anything because few can comprehend that it is possible to reach that degree of success. This is made even worse should those who attempt and fail; for any reason, most of which fall under the list in my previous post. It just cannot happen in their mind, there is no rationality behind it except they are afraid and a comforting feeling is saying you could never do it anyway instead of saying you've never tried.

You have those who believe it is easy and get over their head; deciding either to give up or to remain commonplace. That video rental I mentioned, the owner would be the latter. He had a gold mine if properly marketed and to this day, now close to fourteen years since I have been a customer, he has done nothing and unfortunately the store is a messy nowadays, which is another component; laziness. Living the high life is a luxury few will have and most will envy, however reaching the life of luxury is a grueling process and as stated many give up or cannot be bothered.

 

[Dele]

Traits such as minimum wage, state owned facilities etc are considered to be socialist traits.

Yet they are only a minor part of the economy, an exception, not the rule.

It is also the reason why the have the highest standard of living.

I would like to see proof on that. Show me some statistics claiming that we have more consumption per capita (real standard of living) compared to less socialistic countries.

Being able to afford heavily marketed crap (due to processes making products cheaper) is VERY different from having a high standard of living. The basic necissities, especially housing, school etc become harder to obtain and therefore more expensive as state control lessens. Wealth isn't represented by the number of whatever given currency you earn, but rather your disposable income relative to your needs, as well as general quality of life
(life expectancy etc). There is no shortage of cheap electronic equipment in the Philippines yet people still seem to struggle.

Being able to buy more (or better) than before means that your standard of living has increased, nothing more and nothing less. If you want to make your own definition, by all means do it, but you will find it hard to compare heightened life expectancy vs more material goods. For example: If someone lives in a mud sucking eels and has the life expectancy of 100 years, and you have a middle class worker earning 3 grands a month but only lives 60 years due obesity, which one has higher standard of living and how much more?

Your definition of wealth is also a bit lacking as it is generally accepted in economics that needs of an invidual are unlimited. Even so, a poor of today can buy more basic necessities than a poor invidual before as real prices of basic goods have gone down a lot.

History seems to imply economic growth is in no way proportional to standard of living, the theory that workers will earn as much as their labor is worth is, in itself, implicit that the employer has an unspoken advantage over the employee. This implication is consistant with common civil law (present in most, if not all, Western countries) that give the worker minimum rights that cannot be contracted away (pure capitalism does not allow for such laws).

Statistics show that economic growth has improved standard of living (definition).
Considering theories of capitalism, I would suggest you make yourself familiar with the concept of market power (labor markets). Workers gain income equal to the value of their work (some would call this just income, myself included, but not socialists) because neither has any market power. If companies were to offer lower salaries, nobody would work there because other companies pay more.

Western laws are there to give workers more stability to their lives (actual results can be argued, PM me). Most people are risk aversive, want steady income and a job that stays.

I don't see how socialism encourages poor economic growth, even under horrendous conditions the USSR managed to survive the best part of a century, Cuba is still going, France seems to be doing rather well

France's economy combines extensive private enterprise (nearly 2.5 million companies registered) with substantial (though declining[citation needed]) government intervention . The government retains considerable influence over key segments of infrastructure sectors, with majority ownership of railway, electricity, aircraft, and telecommunications firms.

Not a pure strain of socialism (obviously) but as close to it as any Western country is to pure capitalism (even America has a lot of very socialist systems in place, though they like to pretend they are not so).

Lets see...

GDP per capita (PPP) 2008
United States 46,900
The Bahamas 29,600 (Bit north of Cuba)
Romania 12,200 (Sending beggars to EU!)
Cuba 9,500 (Running out of toilet paper!)
North Korea 1,800 (Cuba would be here without tourism)

GDP Per Capita ($) (not PPP) 1990
Soviet Union 9,211 (+Huge amount of shortages!)
United States 21,082

Many capitalistic countries maintain public control of sectors where privates would more or less get a practical monopoly or strategic sectors of great importance. This is not done because of ideology, but due practicality of it. These are just really minor drops in the economy based on private companies doing all the real work.

Compromise. Both are theoritical extremes, what does work is a system tailored correctly to suit the needs and economic power of each individual country at the time. This is why our economic plans are constantly evolving and changing (moreso in the more sucessful countries than others). When the country is doing well and there are surpluses, governments tend to push for more socialist policies, when in defosit and wealth is needed to be generated quickly a more capitilast approach is adopted. It is not static and that is why we can maintain our wealth and increase the standard of living

<img src="http://neatorama.cachefly.net/images/2008-06/new-synthesis-evolution-creationism.gif" img>
You dont do compromises when the other theory is unscientific.

The economical policy you described is not socialism, but keynesianism (although it's sometimes hard to tell the difference ) and is not relevant in socialistic countries who lack the ups and downs of a business cycle.

 

[Dele]

(I apologize for making any assumptions)

It is true that Marx may not have understood the economics of the system but others such as Freidrich Engels did and publish works pertaining to it.

It is your opinion, but I don't believe Socialism is doomed to failure every it is implimented. I hope that one day it will work, because it does have good Ideas.

There is more than one type of socialism, surley not all will be inevitable fsilures as you suggest.

Generally the marxists (and other type of socialists) have been laughed out of the economics and those with socialistic tendencies have become keynesians. I feel that you should ask yourself why do you want socialism to succeed so much and when you have an answer, ponder if it is possible to do such with modifications of the current economical framework. It's also much easier and realistic than trying to completely rebuild the economy based on another radically different system.

 

[AceDiamond]

I think the real problem is that everybody is trying to hit the idealized form of a system, not realizing that it cannot ever be accomplished. True free-market capitalisim will never work, because corporations and monopolies would run rampant. True socialism and communism wouldn't work, because humans are greedy. Anarchism wouldn't work, because humans without any sort of binding control would destroy themselves in minutes. And some of the hybrid systems are stupid as well. Take for example, my favorite, anarcho-capitalism. Proponents claim this would be great. Of course these are the people who believe in things like not paying taxes, no alturism, and wanting to sue anybody who does anything remotely close to violating an intellectual property right. Of course, the anarcho-capitalists do not believe in IP at all, among other things. And it wouldn't work. Anarcho-Capitalism would just be a system not unlike the current one wherein the weasels of the world would hold all the wealth and power, only difference being our governments would be more broke. (SIDE NOTE: I am certain I have gotten some things wrong in the preceding paragraph, and that's fine by me, I'm willing to be corrected on it)

My point is that compromises have to be made, and that's ok. America's current social and economic model is a lot more socialist than some would like, and yet we need it to be that way, perhaps moreso, if we want to prevent things like out of control monopolies, which we've had to bring down before (Standard Oil, Ma Bell, etc.). If you use the literal interpretation of a social or economic model, you're just going to bang your head against a wall until you get a cerebral hemorrhage. If you're willing to find ways to take what works best and combine it, you'll still get people really pissed off, but on the whole it would work. That is not to say, that America's current system is working even. The "American Dream" as it is envisioned, is not attainable by everyone, and will never be under any system. You can't have everybody be rich and successful because then society wouldn't work properly. You can however have people be able to get along well enough with what they have, which right now is not what's happening.

Oh and one more thing

There is a significant difference being risking everything including the shirt on your back and opting for a calculated gamble or risk if you prefer

The problem is that a lot of people do not have the means to make such a calculated risk, and they probably never will. I myself do not have the means to make a calculated risk in making any sort of business venture right now, and it'd probably be years until I'd be able to. I also like how a lot of your arguments hinge on things you think are going to happen to you in your future, conveniently forgetting that you're not clairvoyant. In fact I'm willing to believe more likely that you aren't going to go anywhere fast, if anywhere at all. Not because you lack the drive or anything, but simply because you believe your confidence alone will somehow get you the success you believe you deserve. You can't pass off a lot of things that "might be" as proof your way is better because they haven't happened yet. Sure they've happened for some people, but it's not always going to happen.

 

[IrishBerserker]

Generally the marxists (and other type of socialists) have been laughed out of the economics and those with socialistic tendencies have become keynesians. I feel that you should ask yourself why do you want socialism to succeed so much and when you have an answer, ponder if it is possible to do such with modifications of the current economical framework. It's also much easier and realistic than trying to completely rebuild the economy based on another radically different system.

I did think about why I would want it to succeed when I was choosing a Political Party/Idea to back. The reason I chose Socialism is that 1) it supports the worker and the common man/woman, 2) All the others seem to just make the rich pricks who don't deserve the money even richer and poor people who do the work even poorer, I find there is generally no middle ground (I fall into the latter catagorey).

Though it is not a practical thing to do, I could really care less about the economic system a country uses or the economy/economics in genreal (until my pay or family is effected majorly)

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

The problem is that a lot of people do not have the means to make such a calculated risk, and they probably never will. I myself do not have the means to make a calculated risk in making any sort of business venture right now, and it'd probably be years until I'd be able to. I also like how a lot of your arguments hinge on things you think are going to happen to you in your future, conveniently forgetting that you're not clairvoyant. In fact I'm willing to believe more likely that you aren't going to go anywhere fast, if anywhere at all. Not because you lack the drive or anything, but simply because you believe your confidence alone will somehow get you the success you believe you deserve. You can't pass off a lot of things that "might be" as proof your way is better because they haven't happened yet. Sure they've happened for some people, but it's not always going to happen.

I have stand it may take years, some are in a superior standing financial or have a better opportunity while others have to create their own opportunities. If it takes years so be it, attempting to start a business is not an easy process nor should it be. There are numerous avenues available, at least in Canada although acquiring some is difficult at this immediate time because of the recession.

You are entitled to believe whatever you wish however I am already well on my way, it is not a matter of predicting my success because I believe I deserve to be, it is a matter of fact. The progression was slow and we have fallen from the preverbal latter a few times throughout the years; four in total however the significant difference is we kept trying whereas others gave up and now the determination is paying off.

It is not confidence alone, I have help in this venture and the required knowledge to both establish and manage what I seek to create. I will also have the finances to press onward, albeit it took time to obtain them. By rough estimation 2010 is the year I launch my own company and I shall go from there. The beauty is certainly mom and I have little in the way of money, essentially the paycheck to paycheck salary for this household and despite the prior setbacks there popped in an opportunity we forced and here we are just about ready.

I have not passed anything as ?might be?, I have cited why people in vast majority never amount to what is perceived as a level of success. The reasons are numerous and if you wish to believe it is impossible, feel free. I do not because I know it is possible to start with little and eventually have everything one could desire. I am the son of that very person who lived that life. It is unfortunate her success fell through because of idiotic decisions from a husband who knew nothing of what he was doing after his mentor passed on. She was young and did not divorce when she should have. Amusingly after all the years which have passed and that I am now in the picture, she is months way from starting on that path once again, we both are. Most would have given up which is precisely why most are not successful.

I realize that story is somewhat vague however I strongly believe no one here cares for a life story, one that is not even my own.

 

[jboking]

Sniped for the fact that I'm getting tired of restating my point a thousand times over.

Do you believe in the American Dream? Do you believe it still(or ever) occurs?(feel free to make the response to that a PM question). Also, we move into you stating that we should gambling for our success. You already stated that we should not follow reckless tactics, gambling by nature is reckless. Sorry, I can't follow your line of thought on that one, mostly because it is contradictory. College isn't necessarily a risk to become something better, but rather simply an attempt to avoid reality for a few years. I've met people for whom this is very, very true.
Oh, and yes, of course it is your defeatist attitude that caused you to fail. It couldn't have been any physical reason that you couldn't prevent. Sorry, I don't see that.

I have already exampled the difference of proper and intelligence gambling in comparison to reckless abandonment and need not do so further. It is not contradictory; you simply believe that success can only be obtained through the possibility of financial ruin. I have stated and no first hand that belief is incorrect.(Really? How long has your business been in action? What is it's name? Is it a 'household name'? I'm genuinly interested to see how your company is doing and how you have measured success.-Jboking)

Suffice to say you have met mediocrity. That is a blunt response I admit however it is truthful for the solitary reason those people you referred to did nothing with the knowledge they learned.(Enormous assumption that still seems to reject the idea that there are external forces in business.-Jboking) Personally I am a vast advocate against college education and recommend courses because the price is considerably less and you generally learn at a better pace (my opinion.) That has not mean I discredit public colleges, I just find them overpriced when there are other avenues.

Anyhow I digress. If people are attending college to avoid reality, they deserve the hand which is dealt to them. Once you finish high school and even before if you desire to amount to something worthwhile, you ought to be seeking out whatever sources available. If you skate, which is precisely what those people did, you have nothing to complain about. Opportunity came and you watched it passed by instead of rushing after it.

In response to the final paragraph. I never advocated that they didn't deserve what they got, I said that there is another reason to go to college for some people. You seemingly do not deny this point.

snip from walmart section

Once again, my only point in this argument was to say that Walmart as well as a few other companies have cornered that market. It's to get the idea out there that you cannot compete with large established businesses using similar tactics they did. You seemingly agreed. I never said you couldn't have a hook. My only point is that you couldn't compete with them directly.

Personally, I would argue that it is not a stupid president but rather stupid presidents. I feel that Clinton had his own unique way of not looking to the future of the economy and only trying to fix the current economy. I could see him as the stem of the housing market's problems. We can continue that over PM if you want, because that is getting a bit off topic I suppose.

You do understand Bill Clinton left the United States in one of the greatest financial states the Country has ever seen since its founding while George W. Bush went to war, accomplished nothing because of idiotic tactics and wasted over thirteen trillion dollars, non? Clinton may not have been the perfect president and others who preceded him would have been flawed but this recession is primarily because of Bush's stupidity.

Who made it easier to get a loan for a house? The government under the Clinton Administration. This made it easier for people go get houses and move into a great financial state because of the relative ease with which they received the loan, leaving them with the ability to spend on other things and help the market. Granted, this wasn't all he did, and I'm not arguing he wasn't great for the country in the shot term. I'm arguing that he did not look ahead as any good president should. He didn't take the time to realize that he was making it easier for people to get houses when they couldn't afford them. They end up not being able to fulfill the monthly payments on the house and the loan combined. This set the foundation for the mortgage crisis in the USA. Then he passed the torch to a president who doesn't fucking think. Both Clinton and Bush are to blame. Admittedly, Bush has more to answer for.

Your right, the business world is dog eat dog. Have fun in your venture when you are a poodle and the other dog is a doberman. However, you have yet to state what fosters the defeatist attitude, which is really what I would want to know from your perspective. Everything has to come from somewhere, where did it come from.

Side note: Some socialist policies instituted into the market actually wouldn't automatically make it impossible for you to reach for your dream. That is a faulty assumption.

I shall, especially when I devour that Doberman. That attitude derived from numerous examples, people are generally afraid to risk anything because few can comprehend that it is possible to reach that degree of success. This is made even worse should those who attempt and fail; for any reason, most of which fall under the list in my previous post. It just cannot happen in their mind, there is no rationality behind it except they are afraid and a comforting feeling is saying you could never do it anyway instead of saying you've never tried.

I'm only going to say that I find it alarming that you seem to have some sort of aversion to even thinking that a company can be run out of business due to an external cause. Small companies don't always go out of business because they were mismanaged. Sometimes they are just unlucky or beat out of the market. You're a startling optimist. I can respect that. Please just tell me that there is at least one person working with you that is a pessimist that is preparing for the worst case scenario. trust me, you need one pessimist in any business.

Also, there was no response to the proposition about socialism at the end there. Would a few socialists policies stop your plans for success in their tracks? Must we avoid these socialist ideas all together? Because in the end, this entire thread and what should be the point is socialist policies being enacted in the business world.

 

[Dele]

The problem is that a lot of people do not have the means to make such a calculated risk, and they probably never will. I myself do not have the means to make a calculated risk in making any sort of business venture right now, and it'd probably be years until I'd be able to.

If a regular student can get a 100% debt leverage, I find it hard to believe that the majority of the working people can not.

I did think about why I would want it to succeed when I was choosing a Political Party/Idea to back. The reason I chose Socialism is that 1) it supports the worker and the common man/woman, 2) All the others seem to just make the rich pricks who don't deserve the money even richer and poor people who do the work even poorer, I find there is generally no middle ground (I fall into the latter catagorey).

Not suprisingly, advocates of different ideas tend to try to claim the superiority of their ideas by numerous claims, such as support for a certain group or a better lives for another. For example, I could argue that capitalism can be used as a tool to reach 1 and socialism can easily lead to 2.

It is usually very prudent to compare the claims to empirical evidence and see if the results are even nearly as good as claimed. 1 can be more or less tested and the latter part of 2 as well (proving that poor actually get poorer would mean demise of capitalism though), but the former is an opinion reflecting your values.

Does a man born wealthy deserve to grow more wealthy? Does it matter if he is hard working or lazy? What if his father was a poor working through a painful life to make that fortune? Maybe he won it from a lottery. Justice is a very dangerous and powerful thing, hopefully only wielded by those powerful enough to bear it's burden.

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

Company wise it is still in the developmental stage because of unfortunate delays that have set us back some. Thus I do not have one at this time however the ground work, most specifically finances is has been established, so as I mentioned previously it is likely a 2010 project, albeit in the first quarter. Barring a sudden unexpected crash, it is a guarantee I will be pursuing the aforementioned and should the unexpected take place, well it is not the first time and yet we have managed to bounce right back to climbing the ladder and I will continue to do so.

I concede I made an assumption in regards to the people you mentioned and you are correct, I did and do not deny some attend college solely to escape reality, although such is time for numerous people and college may not be their choice of escape; personally video games use to be mine. Nonetheless my point was running is a fruitless endeavor; reality will be waiting upon the finish line every single time. They chose to run by doing nothing with the knowledge they acquired. I do not reject the idea of external forces, it is entirely possible a company may fail purely as a result of direct competition however my view is the company should have been better prepared beforehand.

Once again, my only point in this argument was to say that Walmart as well as a few other companies have cornered that market. It's to get the idea out there that you cannot compete with large established businesses using similar tactics they did. You seemingly agreed. I never said you couldn't have a hook. My only point is that you couldn't compete with them directly.

And my point was to refute that claim because it is inaccurate. You can indeed use similar tactics depending on the amount of difficulty their tactics were. It is akin to reusing a strategy in war and there exist countless explains of one being deceived by their own tactics. You have essentially built a straw man?s argument in stating that it is an impossibility to compete with a company similar to Wal*Mart because we cannot copy them and succeed. Using the tactics they used to success is not mimicking their company and you have seemingly not realized this.

Having a hook is competing with them directly. Once again you are altering the meaning of words. Competing directly with Wal*Mart would be something such as Best Buy, Future Shop, Zellars, Target, Kmart, Costco. Actually the last four are written as direct competition for Wal*Mart. They do not earn as much however they drive away business, which in turn is how to compete.

Who made it easier to get a loan for a house? The government under the Clinton Administration. This made it easier for people go get houses and move into a great financial state because of the relative ease with which they received the loan, leaving them with the ability to spend on other things and help the market. Granted, this wasn't all he did, and I'm not arguing he wasn't great for the country in the shot term. I'm arguing that he did not look ahead as any good president should. He didn't take the time to realize that he was making it easier for people to get houses when they couldn't afford them. They end up not being able to fulfill the monthly payments on the house and the loan combined. This set the foundation for the mortgage crisis in the USA. Then he passed the torch to a president who doesn't fucking think. Both Clinton and Bush are to blame. Admittedly, Bush has more to answer for.

So we are to blame Bill Clinton because people foolishly purchased homes they could not afford because of improper budgeting? A convenient scapegoat if you ask me. If you apply for a loan you should be prepared to pay it back with the interest required if necessary or suffer the losses should you be unable to appease the debt. Furthermore the financial state Clinton left America in as mentioned previously was ridiculous, in a good way. You seemingly dodged the portion I referenced that the war in Iraq has cost over thirteen trillion dollars. While I hardly believe Clinton is perfect, I cannot cite him for blame when his presidency left the US in grand financial success and Bush decimated it. I suppose it is something we never will know for certain.

I'm only going to say that I find it alarming that you seem to have some sort of aversion to even thinking that a company can be run out of business due to an external cause. Small companies don't always go out of business because they were mismanaged. Sometimes they are just unlucky or beat out of the market. You're a startling optimist. I can respect that. Please just tell me that there is at least one person working with you that is a pessimist that is preparing for the worst case scenario. trust me, you need one pessimist in any business.

Also, there was no response to the proposition about socialism at the end there. Would a few socialists policies stop your plans for success in their tracks? Must we avoid these socialist ideas all together? Because in the end, this entire thread and what should be the point is socialist policies being enacted in the business world.

I have already previously stated in prior posts that companies may well fall by the wayside however that is the course the entrepreneurship takes. It is a competition and those who seek to climb the ladder might step on other establishments to achieve their own individual goals. It is arguably a selfish market however if you cannot handle it (generalizing here), do not enter it. Mind you not all companies climb the preverbal ladder in this manner but many do. If you company is so easily topple, it is my opinion it was inevitable that business would falter, if not by me, by another.

I appreciate the respect, I have played the negative role throughout half my teenage life and it amounted to nothing but dark path. So I forced myself to be optimist and much preferred the end result. Tis been six years since I made that decision and it has done wonders. Actually no, while I am working with my mother in this neither of us are at all very pessimistic. We both are realistic though and have well prepared for the worst case scenario; I have had a backup plan should that happen for years. If I have to use it and work hours on end, I shall.

As for socialism, that is a vague inquiry as it depends on what socialism aspects are to be implicated. Medicare or an increase in wages to match Canada is not something I am against. I have no qualm with ideas being tossed around on the subject. The only time I debate socialism is when it directly effects and or prevents my goals for being reachable, such as people stating everyone should make equal wages.

 

[jboking]

walmart argument

Sorry, my wording got a bit confusing. However, I still say you cannot directly compete with walmart. Also, that isn't a strawman. Your getting your logical fallacies confused. Bust Buy and others can compete with Walmart because they have a different look on what they are selling. For example, best buy sells technology, but not groceries. Walmart does both. I'm kind of done with this argument because everything I said earlier is what refutes what you just said, and you would refute that with something you've already said. It will just be a giant circle.

Who made it easier to get a loan for a house? The government under the Clinton Administration. This made it easier for people go get houses and move into a great financial state because of the relative ease with which they received the loan, leaving them with the ability to spend on other things and help the market. Granted, this wasn't all he did, and I'm not arguing he wasn't great for the country in the shot term. I'm arguing that he did not look ahead as any good president should. He didn't take the time to realize that he was making it easier for people to get houses when they couldn't afford them. They end up not being able to fulfill the monthly payments on the house and the loan combined. This set the foundation for the mortgage crisis in the USA. Then he passed the torch to a president who doesn't fucking think. Both Clinton and Bush are to blame. Admittedly, Bush has more to answer for.

So we are to blame Bill Clinton because people foolishly purchased homes they could not afford because of improper budgeting? A convenient scapegoat if you ask me. If you apply for a loan you should be prepared to pay it back with the interest required if necessary or suffer the losses should you be unable to appease the debt. Furthermore the financial state Clinton left America in as mentioned previously was ridiculous, in a good way. You seemingly dodged the portion I referenced that the war in Iraq has cost over thirteen trillion dollars. While I hardly believe Clinton is perfect, I cannot cite him for blame when his presidency left the US in grand financial success and Bush decimated it. I suppose it is something we never will know for certain.

We are to blame Bill Clinton for what he did. What he did in the long term was set it in the minds of the American public that getting a loan was easy, even if you couldn't afford to pay it back. Even if his administration was shouting "Hey people who can't afford a house, go for it!" they were still allowing for it to happen, even making it easier than it was before. It was setting up for the mortgage crisis. Also, I'm not arguing that bush doesn't have more to answer for, in fact if you look at my last post you will see that I argue the exact opposite. Also, you say that I'm using Clinton as a scapegoat. What are you doing with bush? The fact is, as I said before, Clinton was great for the people in the short term. He never took the time to predict the repercussions of what he was doing. Also, I'm completely comfortable with blaming someone for something they did even thought they did something else that was awesome.

I'm only going to say that I find it alarming that you seem to have some sort of aversion to even thinking that a company can be run out of business due to an external cause. Small companies don't always go out of business because they were mismanaged. Sometimes they are just unlucky or beat out of the market. You're a startling optimist. I can respect that. Please just tell me that there is at least one person working with you that is a pessimist that is preparing for the worst case scenario. trust me, you need one pessimist in any business.

Also, there was no response to the proposition about socialism at the end there. Would a few socialists policies stop your plans for success in their tracks? Must we avoid these socialist ideas all together? Because in the end, this entire thread and what should be the point is socialist policies being enacted in the business world.

I have already previously stated in prior posts that companies may well fall by the wayside however that is the course the entrepreneurship takes. It is a competition and those who seek to climb the ladder might step on other establishments to achieve their own individual goals. It is arguably a selfish market however if you cannot handle it (generalizing here), do not enter it. Mind you not all companies climb the preverbal ladder in this manner but many do. If you company is so easily topple, it is my opinion it was inevitable that business would falter, if not by me, by another.[/quote]
So a normal person shouldn't enter the market. Wonderful. The business market is not for the common man, spread the word.

I appreciate the respect, I have played the negative role throughout half my teenage life and it amounted to nothing but dark path. So I forced myself to be optimist and much preferred the end result. Tis been six years since I made that decision and it has done wonders. Actually no, while I am working with my mother in this neither of us are at all very pessimistic. We both are realistic though and have well prepared for the worst case scenario; I have had a backup plan should that happen for years. If I have to use it and work hours on end, I shall.

Working hours on end to recuperate likely isn't the worst case scenario. This is why you need a pessimist.

As for socialism, that is a vague inquiry as it depends on what socialism aspects are to be implicated. Medicare or an increase in wages to match Canada is not something I am against. I have no qualm with ideas being tossed around on the subject. The only time I debate socialism is when it directly effects and or prevents my goals for being reachable, such as people stating everyone should make equal wages.

What would a socialist policy that hinders your goals even look like? If it doesn't destroy the free market in one swoop then what is the most harmful a socialist policy could get to you?

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

Sorry, my wording got a bit confusing. However, I still say you cannot directly compete with walmart. Also, that isn't a strawman. Your getting your logical fallacies confused. Bust Buy and others can compete with Walmart because they have a different look on what they are selling. For example, best buy sells technology, but not groceries. Walmart does both. I'm kind of done with this argument because everything I said earlier is what refutes what you just said, and you would refute that with something you've already said. It will just be a giant circle.

It is a straw man?s argument because what you have refuted is false, yet you continue to apply it and ignore the basic principle of what ?directly competing? with a company means. As I stated early, directly competing does not translate into mimic them. Your own response states ?Best Buy can compete because they have a different look.? That is direct competition with another company; selling the exact same products and doing everything the same as a company is not directly competing with them. It only proves you lack originality and ultimately will doom your company. You can argue the point all you want however Zellars, Target, Kmart, Costco are all listed as direct competitors to Wal*Mart.

We are to blame Bill Clinton for what he did. What he did in the long term was set it in the minds of the American public that getting a loan was easy, even if you couldn't afford to pay it back. Even if his administration was shouting "Hey people who can't afford a house, go for it!" they were still allowing for it to happen, even making it easier than it was before. It was setting up for the mortgage crisis. Also, I'm not arguing that bush doesn't have more to answer for, in fact if you look at my last post you will see that I argue the exact opposite. Also, you say that I'm using Clinton as a scapegoat. What are you doing with bush? The fact is, as I said before, Clinton was great for the people in the short term. He never took the time to predict the repercussions of what he was doing. Also, I'm completely comfortable with blaming someone for something they did even thought they did something else that was awesome.

That is paranoid nonsense. The economy was at an all time high and future prediction held a likelihood of a continual raise because of the Clinton administration. This all preceded the war in Iraq, which you continue to ignore the thirteen trillion dollars spent on that worthless campaign. That was the primary reason the United States has declined at this time. During Clinton tenure acquiring a loan was easier however neither he, nor anyone could have foreseen the disaster caused by Bush that was Iraq. Nonetheless it ultimately is the responsibility of the people attempting to acquire a loan. If they were so easily influenced despite not having a proper financial standing; it was their own stupidity that inevitably cost them. Do not seek credit unless you are either willing to accept the consequences or can pay it back in full without much concern.

Suffice to say if the war never happened, this economic recession would not have happened either.

So a normal person shouldn't enter the market. Wonderful. The business market is not for the common man, spread the word.

Your continuous attempts to put words in my mouth are getting rather tiresome. I never stated a normal person should not enter the market and you know that. I said that if you cannot handle the competition and the war like mentality competing in the business war can muster, you have no place in it, not if you intend to reach the success of a millionaire or beyond. It is akin to trying to sing in spite of lacking a talented voice in which to do so. In this case entrepreneurship is not your forte, thus seek new endeavors.

Working hours on end to recuperate likely isn't the worst case scenario. This is why you need a pessimist.

No working endless hours is a means to save the necessary finances to rectify a worst case scenario; that scenario being what we have in the works now falling through. One never requires a pessimist; pessimists are negative, somber people who cannot believe in the possibility of success without constantly expecting the worst. You are confusing a pessimist with a realist; the latter being someone who prepares should something falter along the way. I am that type of person.

What would a socialist policy that hinders your goals even look like? If it doesn't destroy the free market in one swoop then what is the most harmful a socialist policy could get to you?

Extreme socialist policies would be attempting to balance everyone?s salaries. A more realistic example would be something Hilary Clinton desired to implicate; requirement of health benefits for all business establishments in the United States. This would make it exceptionally difficult for small companies to survive because of the excessive costs and the likely abuse should that type of system be implicated. I am not against having benefits, however being that it is my company and my money being used. I should have the right to decide how I wish to manage such a system.

 

[jboking]

Walmart Argument

I'm ending this, because whether it was a strawman or not you agreed to the point of the argument about three posts ago. Also, I already apologized for my confusing wording, however you should have got the idea when I continually asked, "So you need a hook to compete." You can respond if you like, but I'm not arguing this any further.

That is paranoid nonsense. The economy was at an all time high and future prediction held a likelihood of a continual raise because of the Clinton administration. This all preceded the war in Iraq, which you continue to ignore the thirteen trillion dollars spent on that worthless campaign. That was the primary reason the United States has declined at this time. During Clinton tenure acquiring a loan was easier however neither he, nor anyone could have foreseen the disaster caused by Bush that was Iraq. Nonetheless it ultimately is the responsibility of the people attempting to acquire a loan. If they were so easily influenced despite not having a proper financial standing; it was their own stupidity that inevitably cost them. Do not seek credit unless you are either willing to accept the consequences or can pay it back in full without much concern.

Suffice to say if the war never happened, this economic recession would not have happened either.

You seem to have it stuck in your head that I said Clinton was the sole reason for the recession. That isn't at all what I said. I'm not ignoring the 13 trillion, in fact I stated that Bush as far more to answer for than Clinton. The Iraq war had no direct effect on the housing crisis, it was going to head that way because of the type of spending being done by citizens during the Clinton administration. Also, there is one thing that any government has to do, consider the stupid people. We protect our constituents because that is what a government is made to do. Putting forth a policy that was unnecessary and directed to get people to buy houses on loans is not protecting your constituents future. This could actually be viewed as why we have medicare and medicaid. It is watching out for people who did not properly save their money for the inevitable.

Finally, I'm not arguing that Clinton was the sole cause of the recession, and I will not argue that. I am arguing that his administration was one of the leading causes of the housing crisis.

Your continuous attempts to put words in my mouth are getting rather tiresome. I never stated a normal person should not enter the market and you know that. I said that if you cannot handle the competition and the war like mentality competing in the business war can muster, you have no place in it, not if you intend to reach the success of a millionaire or beyond. It is akin to trying to sing in spite of lacking a talented voice in which to do so. In this case entrepreneurship is not your forte, thus seek new endeavors.

and we've already proved 90% of the people who failed couldn't compete in the market. This would tell me that 9/10 people interested in entering the market simply shouldn't, because they are too incompetent(according to the reasons you listed earlier as to why they failed) to compete. This would look to me as meaning that the market is not for the common man. Also, I didn't claim you said that. That isn't a case of putting words in your mouth, this is a case of my evaluation of what has been said.

No working endless hours is a means to save the necessary finances to rectify a worst case scenario; that scenario being what we have in the works now falling through. One never requires a pessimist; pessimists are negative, somber people who cannot believe in the possibility of success without constantly expecting the worst. You are confusing a pessimist with a realist; the latter being someone who prepares should something falter along the way. I am that type of person.

Believe what you will. However, I will say that all pessimists are not somber, that is a stereotype. It's also a stereotype that pessimists can't see any good, they just prepare and believe that a negative outcome is more likely, which as we've proven in the rest of this argument, is true of the market. This is pessimism, not realism. I still believe realists do not see the worst case scenario, because quite honestly, the worst case scenario is rarely realistic, but can often happen.

Extreme socialist policies would be attempting to balance everyone?s salaries.

I haven't seen anything to this nature being pushed in America. Is it being pushed in Canada?

A more realistic example would be something Hilary Clinton desired to implicate; requirement of health benefits for all business establishments in the United States. This would make it exceptionally difficult for small companies to survive because of the excessive costs and the likely abuse should that type of system be implicated. I am not against having benefits, however being that it is my company and my money being used. I should have the right to decide how I wish to manage such a system.

I actually heard her plan was only in relation to larger companies. Well, good she didn't become president then, ay.