Socialism

[psikeyhackr]

Is this an endless debate about the economic  future of technological society?

Adam Smith: Download Wealth of Nations, it has been in Project Gutenberg since 2001, and search it for "and account" you will find multiple instances of "read, write and account". Why doesn't the right or the left advocate mandatory accounting/finance in the schools?

Karl Marx: Search Das Kapital for depreciation. Marx mentioned depreciation of money and machinery multiple times. There were no steam trains when Adam Smith died. Marx road in trains and saw machinery that was modern for his time.
But what sophisticated consumer technology was there to depreciate in his day?

Today: Planned obsolescence has been going on for decades. What has happened to the DEPRECIATION of durable consumer goods? How many automobiles have Americans trashed since Sputnik? There were 200,000,000 motor vehicles in the US in 1994.

Economists: Do not mention NDP, Net Domestic Product. They subtract the depreciation of Capital Goods from GDP like industrial robots and 18-wheel trucks but Joe Blow's car can fall apart and not get noticed. Can economists tell the difference between a banana and an air conditioner?

NDP = GDP - Dcap (official economic delusion)
NDP = GDP - (Dcap + Dcon)   (reality)

Dcap == Depreciation of Capital Goods
Dcon == Depreciation of Durable Consumer Goods

GDP == Grossly Distorted Propaganda

I guess intellectuals and pseudo-intellectuals cannot figure out that economists cannot do algebra.

Science Fiction: Daemon & Freedom by Daniel Suarez

[reason10]

Is this an endless debate about the economic  future of technological society?

Adam Smith: Download Wealth of Nations, it has been in Project Gutenberg since 2001, and search it for "and account" you will find multiple instances of "read, write and account". Why doesn't the right or the left advocate mandatory accounting/finance in the schools?

Considering that blue states like California have actually claimed math is RACIST, I think you give Nazis way too much credit for an intelligent curriculum in public schools, involving finance and accounting. High schools DO have accounting courses, along with a lot of career classes (ROTC, Firefighting, auto mechanics, etc. I  subbed for these classes so I know.) Frankly, blue states are lucky if their public schools graduate kids who can read and write at all. Just look at the m0rons they elect to public office. 

Karl Marx: Search Das Kapital for depreciation. Marx mentioned depreciation of money and machinery multiple times. There were no steam trains when Adam Smith died. Marx road in trains and saw machinery that was modern for his time.
But what sophisticated consumer technology was there to depreciate in his day?

I'm still not sure what point you're trying to make. The Industrial Revolution did more to educate the common man and keep him from starving. Technology moves faster than most economists can imagine. Could you see Adam Smith walking onto a commercial jet and FLYING to the other side of the world?

Even the short period of time of my life span has seen items come into our world that no one in the 50s could imagine. Back then, if you needed help with simple mathematical functions, there was the slide rule, which was almost as complicated as the math processes themselves. The first calculator (which hit the stores in the early Seventies) cost $80, and only did addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. By the end of the 80s, a calculator in a store cost around $5, and the  packaging cost more than the unit. Today nobody buys calculators because they are included in the cheapest laptop computers.

Time and technology move on. The earliest economists would be shocked and terrified at what we take for granted today.

 

[impartialobserver]

13 hours ago, Rebound said:

Really? It’s a long book, but the criticisms are easily understood, particularly if you understand that it was written at a time when workers had absolutely no rights or protections. For example, if a factory worker lost his arm because factory machinery malfunctioned, the factory owner would just say, “Sorry, but you can’t work here anymore because I can’t employ a one-armed worker.”  That was that. The poverty of factory workers was extreme. 

It is not some easy reader like a John Grisham novel. Also, it is 594 pages with no narrative or suspense that keeps you intrigued as to what is coming next. 

[Rebound]

25 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

It is not some easy reader like a John Grisham novel. Also, it is 594 pages with no narrative or suspense that keeps you intrigued as to what is coming next. 

Well, yeah, it’s not a piece of entertainment. But I’ve certainly read much denser books.  
 

What stood out for me is that he spent 592 pages making very justifiable criticisms and proposing reasonable solutions (which have since been implemented in Western countries). Then, in the last two pages, he sort of says, “Therefore, communism is the answer!” That aspect of the book never made sense to me. 

[Deluge]

On 6/4/2023 at 2:02 PM, Rebound said:

Any time the government helps the people, conservatives attack it and call it socialism. 

They called Social Security Socialism. 
They called Medicare Socialism. 
They called public electrification Socialism. 
The Boulder Dam was Socialism (then they re-named it after Republican Herbert Hoover).

They called bank deposit insurance, and farm price supports, and public power socialism.  
ObamaCare? Socialist. 

These programs work. They have lifted America’s poor out of poverty and caused America to be a world leader.  When we invest tax dollars in our people, we all thrive.  

What if that "help" turns citizens into dependents? Do you think it's a good idea for the government to increase its help as citizens become more and more dependent? 

Do you think the government should control healthcare? Or do you think government should demand that the private sector control healthcare while they just make sure citizens aren't getting screwed by crooked healthcare providers? 

[Rebound]

48 minutes ago, Deluge said:

What if that "help" turns citizens into dependents? Do you think it's a good idea for the government to increase its help as citizens become more and more dependent? 

Do you think the government should control healthcare? Or do you think government should demand that the private sector control healthcare while they just make sure citizens aren't getting screwed by crooked healthcare providers? 

I believe that single payer healthcare is the correct solution. 

[Deluge]

20 minutes ago, Rebound said:

I believe that single payer healthcare is the correct solution. 

OK, so basically you're another government slut. 

What you're proposing is more or less communism.

You see, comrade, the best way for government to "help" citizens is to defend their rights and then gtfo of the way. 

 

 

[herbie]

Discussing socialism with American is like talking to your dog about Java script.

The general consensus is that anything that benefits society as a whole is socialist and therefore evil incarnate.

[Rebound]

1 hour ago, Deluge said:

OK, so basically you're another government slut. 

What you're proposing is more or less communism.

You see, comrade, the best way for government to "help" citizens is to defend their rights and then gtfo of the way. 

 

 

What I’m proposing is comparable to the healthcare systems of Canada, UK, France, Italy, Spain, Germany, Japan, Korea, Australia, Austria, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Finland, Denmark, The Netherlands, Portugal…

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Deluge said:

What if that "help" turns citizens into dependents? Do you think it's a good idea for the government to increase its help as citizens become more and more dependent?

there is no more effective way to enslave a man than to provide for his every need.

[psikeyhackr]

14 hours ago, reason10 said:

 Considering that blue states like California have actually claimed math is RACIST, I think you give Nazis way too much credit for an intelligent curriculum in public schools, involving finance and accounting. High schools DO have accounting courses, along with a lot of career classes (ROTC, Firefighting, auto mechanics, etc. I  subbed for these classes so I know.) Frankly, blue states are lucky if their public schools graduate kids who can read and write at all. Just look at the m0rons they elect to public office.

How did the NAZIs get into it?

The Catholic high school I attended required an entrance exam and they stuck me into college prep which did not include accounting. I do not actually know if they had it at the time so obviously it was not MANDATORY which is what I said. 

4 years of English literature was mandatory but only 2 years of math. I took 4 years of math and would have traded 2 of EngLit for 2 of accounting.

[psikeyhackr]

14 hours ago, reason10 said:

Karl Marx: Search Das Kapital for depreciation. Marx mentioned depreciation of money and machinery multiple times. There were no steam trains when Adam Smith died. Marx road in trains and saw machinery that was modern for his time.

But what sophisticated consumer technology was there to depreciate in his day?

I'm still not sure what point you're trying to make. The Industrial Revolution did more to educate the common man and keep him from starving. Technology moves faster than most economists can imagine. Could you see Adam Smith walking onto a commercial jet and FLYING to the other side of the world?

Even the short period of time of my life span has seen items come into our world that no one in the 50s could imagine. Back then, if you needed help with simple mathematical functions, there was the slide rule, which was almost as complicated as the math processes themselves. The first calculator (which hit the stores in the early Seventies) cost $80, and only did addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. By the end of the 80s, a calculator in a store cost around $5, and the  packaging cost more than the unit. Today nobody buys calculators because they are included in the cheapest laptop computers.

Time and technology move on. The earliest economists would be shocked and terrified at what we take for granted today.

Since you did not copy the equations I entered I am inclined to suspect that you are deliberately being obtuse. The alternative is even more disparaging of your intellectual acuity.

The point is that the economics profession has used incorrect algebra since the end of WWII by ignoring the depreciation of durable consumer goods. And pointing out that Marx mentioned depreciation but these consumer technologies did not exist before 1884. Planned obsolescence did not start until the 1920s. John Maynard Keynes probably never saw a television commercial for automobiles.

There were 200,000,000 motor vehicles in the US in 1994. How many were consumer goods? Where did the depreciation go?

[psikeyhackr]

8 hours ago, herbie said:

Discussing socialism with American is like talking to your dog about Java script.

The general consensus is that anything that benefits society as a whole is socialist and therefore evil incarnate.

The stupid Americans. Although they are probably the majority.

[robosmith]

On 6/5/2023 at 7:34 AM, reason10 said:

I understand the FCKING LIES you (and other retards) continue to spew every day here. I just put you in your place, with facts and logic, (something you lost when you dropped out of school in the third grade.)

You apparently think ALL GOVERNMENT SPENDING IS SOCIALISM. Your fellow retard here even tried to peg military spending as socialist.

And you wonder why everybody calls you liberals m0r0ns.

You're the m0ron because you believe your OPINIONS are FACTS. They're NOT.

[robosmith]

On 6/5/2023 at 9:16 PM, CdnFox said:

when socialists lie it's fact.  When conservatives tell the truth it's a lie.

Yeah. We know how it works with you socialists.

 

You've just ^PROVEN you DON'T KNOW JACK.

[reason10]

7 hours ago, psikeyhackr said:

Since you did not copy the equations I entered I am inclined to suspect that you are deliberately being obtuse. The alternative is even more disparaging of your intellectual acuity.

The point is that the economics profession has used incorrect algebra since the end of WWII by ignoring the depreciation of durable consumer goods. And pointing out that Marx mentioned depreciation but these consumer technologies did not exist before 1884. Planned obsolescence did not start until the 1920s. John Maynard Keynes probably never saw a television commercial for automobiles.

There were 200,000,000 motor vehicles in the US in 1994. How many were consumer goods? Where did the depreciation go?

You keep trying to change the subject. This thread is not about math. It is about some LIAR accusing mainstream conservatives of calling all government spending socialism.

[robosmith]

On 6/6/2023 at 12:53 PM, reason10 said:

Obamacare has made doctors even RICHER, forced a RECORD NUMBER of insured folk OFF THEIR POLICIES with skyrocketing premiums, and generally made things worse.

You replace Obamacare by OVERTURNING IT. Simple as that.

(And we all know that SIMPLE is all your pea brain can handle)

 In other words, NONE of you goose stepping retards know the meaning of Socialism.

It is NOT all government spending.

It is NOT dumbass welfare programs.

It is NOT public funding of highways, military, etc.

 

Socialism is the ABOLITION of private property and complete government control of the means of production.

By YOUR ^definition there is NO SOCIALISM in the US.

[robosmith]

17 hours ago, Deluge said:

OK, so basically you're another government slut. 

What you're proposing is more or less communism.

You see, comrade, the best way for government to "help" citizens is to defend their rights and then gtfo of the way. 

 

 

Of course your scenario has been tried and found to be an UTTER FAILURE, which is why we no longer have it.. Duh.

[reason10]

27 minutes ago, robosmith said:

You're the m0ron because you believe your OPINIONS are FACTS. They're NOT.

So far, you have given ZERO facts. Only opinions.

I have provided reliable sources for my views. You have not. You don't have the brains to do that.

11 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Of course your scenario has been tried and found to be an UTTER FAILURE, which is why we no longer have it.. Duh.

The closest free market capitalism has come to being a daily reality was the Reagan years and the Trump years. During each time, America enjoyed the GREATEST expansion of the economy and the best prosperity for everyone involved. They were the two GREATEST presidents of all time.

[reason10]

23 minutes ago, robosmith said:

By YOUR ^definition there is NO SOCIALISM in the US.

You don't even know what socialism is. You have the education of a Florida third grader.

Socialism is NOT a political term so much as it is a design of government. There is left wing Nazi liberalism in America. We've seen plenty of that with the blue state inner city ghettos. (Modern plantations for the new generation of black SLAVES for the DemoNazi Party).

America is a Republican Democracy with probably the most prevalent free market economy in the world. A Socialist model would be Venezuela, and pretty soon your goose stepping DemoNazis are going to convert this great country into this.

 

 

THAT'S socialism. It is a form of government that equalizes the misery everywhere.

There are pockets of that kind of HELL in America, (all in blue states.)

[Rebound]

9 hours ago, psikeyhackr said:

Since you did not copy the equations I entered I am inclined to suspect that you are deliberately being obtuse. The alternative is even more disparaging of your intellectual acuity.

The point is that the economics profession has used incorrect algebra since the end of WWII by ignoring the depreciation of durable consumer goods. And pointing out that Marx mentioned depreciation but these consumer technologies did not exist before 1884. Planned obsolescence did not start until the 1920s. John Maynard Keynes probably never saw a television commercial for automobiles.

There were 200,000,000 motor vehicles in the US in 1994. How many were consumer goods? Where did the depreciation go?

I think the answer to your observation lies in the words Consumer and Consumption.  
 

Economically, once a consumer good is purchased, it is consumed, and it has no value. This is generally true of most consumer purchases besides real estate.  
 

A business product depreciates because it is considered an asset purchased for the purpose of Production, not Consumption. Of course, it’s absurd that the same automobile purchased for an Executive is an implement of Production; it is not.  But, in the abstract, that is the distinction: Asset of Production vs Consumption. 

[BeaverFever]

17 hours ago, CdnFox said:

there is no more effective way to enslave a man than to provide for his every need.

Literally no government on earth or in human history has a government ever provided or attempted to provide any person’s “every need,” especially not the so-called “socialist” countries.  The few basic public services provided in capitalist countries including modest welfare programs hardly qualify as providing for “every need”. 

Edited June 8, 2023 by BeaverFever

[psikeyhackr]

1 hour ago, reason10 said:

You keep trying to change the subject. This thread is not about math. It is about some LIAR accusing mainstream conservatives of calling all government spending socialism.

ROFLMBAO

Where does the government get its money?

If you are talking about government spending then you are talking about economics. Math is going to apply to economics whether it is conservative or socialist. I am merely pointing out that neither side can do the math.

Lots of depreciation is the result of physics. Physics wears things out. Do the math, or do you lack the brains?

[psikeyhackr]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

I think the answer to your observation lies in the words Consumer and Consumption.  
 

Economically, once a consumer good is purchased, it is consumed, and it has no value. This is generally true of most consumer purchases besides real estate.  
 

A business product depreciates because it is considered an asset purchased for the purpose of Production, not Consumption. Of course, it’s absurd that the same automobile purchased for an Executive is an implement of Production; it is not.  But, in the abstract, that is the distinction: Asset of Production vs Consumption. 

So you mean cars purchased by consumers to drive to work and use the same cars for 3 years or more, those cars are not implements of production?

I am saying that we are playing word games. It does not matter whether a machine is used for production or not. A window air conditioner is added to GDP when purchased. It wears out over 12 years of use. It has to be replaced eventually. The replacement is added to GDP.  The process of wearing out should have been subtracted.

Whether this is under capitalism or socialism is irrelevant. But if planned obsolescence is part of this process then it is very significant. That creates unnecessary work, waste and pollution. I would think that socialists would make a big deal about it.

Edited June 8, 2023 by psikeyhackr
grammatical error

[Rebound]

39 minutes ago, psikeyhackr said:

So you mean cars purchased by consumers to drive to work and use the same cars for 3 years or more, those cars are not implements of production?

I am saying that we are playing word games. It does not matter whether a machine is used for production or not. A window air conditioner is added to GDP when purchased. It wears out over 12 years of use. It has to be replaced eventually. The replacement is added to GDP.  The process of wearing out should have been subtracted.

Whether this is under capitalism or socialism is irrelevant. But if planned obsolescence is part of this process then it is very significant. That creates unnecessary work, waste and pollution. I would think that socialists would make a big deal about it.

I’m simply answering your question. 
 

Whenever we discuss macroeconomic concepts, we can drill down to the weeds and uncover all sorts of flaws, but macroeconomics studies economies in the aggregate.  
 

In the aggregate, manufacturers Produce products which Consumers consume.  The depreciation of Consumer assets isn’t considered in the equation as to whether it is durable or whether it has utility.  It was Produced once and Consumed once. A car and a hamburger are equals.