Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 58

Thread: Каддафи хотел заменить доллар золотом

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Hanna
    Guest
    Ramil you are talking about Bretton Woods, right? And how the US started having money that was backed up by NOTHING.... And then others started following suit. Surely Crocodile knows about this! I can't believe how anyone could think it's a good idea for one country to be able to run the rest of the world off it's own currency, which additionally is backed by nothing, allowing them to create more value out of thin air, simply by printing more money.
    Unless you are a citizen of that country, of course.

  2. #2
    Новичок
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2
    Rep Power
    0
    Исправление замеченных ошибок: Сам-то я верю, что бомбардировка Ливии сделана(как-то не по-русски звучит) глобальными банкирами(кто такие "глобальные банкиры"?). Зачем(либо Почему) Обама беспокоится? У него нет никаких оснований тревожиться. Он просто работает на своего верховного владыку. Что вы думают об зтом?

  3. #3
    Старший оракул Seraph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    782
    Rep Power
    18
    One problem that both fiat and commodity backed currencies have is exponential debt growth. This always leads to debt deflation when the overburden of debt gets so large that it sucks all the money out of the economy. All the different 'isms' have this problem. The only solution is debt cancellation. With private control of credit creation, management never allows their assets (the bonds they hold) to be torn up. And so they demand public assets when the nation's debts cannot be paid. Thus the problem with private monopoly control of credit at the national level. Transfer of publicly held lands, infrastructure, etc to private oligarchs simply by the inevitable consequences of monopoly private credit creation. It is dysfunctional to operate economies this way. The nations must retain or recover their sovereign right to public credit creation. This allows publicly held debt to be cancelled, when it grows so large that it sucks all the money out of the economy in interest payments. But currently this is not the case, and so we see massive problems in Europe at the present, precisely because of private control of credit creation at the national level.
    Usurpation of democratic, public national control by private interests, in the form of banking legislation.

  4. #4
    Завсегдатай Crocodile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    село Торонтовка Онтарийской губернии
    Posts
    3,057
    Rep Power
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Seraph View Post
    One problem that both fiat and commodity backed currencies have is exponential debt growth. This always leads to debt deflation when the overburden of debt gets so large that it sucks all the money out of the economy. All the different 'isms' have this problem. The only solution is debt cancellation. [...] Usurpation of democratic, public national control by private interests, in the form of banking legislation.
    I agree to some extent, but what are the alternatives?

  5. #5
    Старший оракул Seraph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    782
    Rep Power
    18
    The alternatives are true sovereign control of currency and credit creation by actual representative governments, with firm regulation and enforcement of domestic and international banking/finance sectors. Some laws and regulations are in place now, but are not enforced. The current deregulated plutocratic systems with un-enforced laws/regulation, in which special interests are above the laws, and also dictate legislation will always be dysfunctional. The finance sector displays the faults of unrestrained privilege. They are having their cake, and eating yours too.

  6. #6
    Завсегдатай Crocodile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    село Торонтовка Онтарийской губернии
    Posts
    3,057
    Rep Power
    20
    I would probably say it's inevitable to some extent, as the "public interests" are always being managed by the individuals. However, the degree of that extent makes all the difference. I think there is a certain critical point at which people totally lose faith in existence of their interests as part of the public interests, and everyone would openly throw the "public" consideration down the drain so as pursue his own short-term interests. In my opinion, that process was largely responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union. So, what mechanism could be effective to tame that process? The mere presence of the governing laws is not enough, as you said. (And as many in Russia would assert, I believe.) Perhaps, the only reliable way is to assume the plutocrats are rational players and offer them something they would appreciate, but that would also serve the public interest. That might encourage the plutocrats to invest into the public interests. I think things like innovation and development of the new markets can do some of the work. After all, the plutocrats like the big screens TVs and perhaps a private space shuttle as much as everybody else, but at the same time the investing into such innovations could help the plutocrats make more relative (=money) value. So, even if the relative income gap is getting wider, the absolute value of the public markets is still growing making the public richer. So, the fiat currency makes that happen faster than the backed currency. What do you think of that?

  7. #7
    Старший оракул Seraph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    782
    Rep Power
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Crocodile View Post
    ... the absolute value of the public markets is still growing making the public richer. So, the fiat currency makes that happen faster than the backed currency. What do you think of that?
    It appears that perhaps I haven't made clear the significance/ramifications of debt deflation.
    Perhaps we could liken the situation to public health. Centuries ago we did not know what were the causative agents responsible for cholera, plague, yellow fever, polio etc. But people gained more and more knowledge about these kinds of things until the 19th and 20th centuries when it became possible to prevent many such things by having sanitation laws, clean municipal water supplies, medical support treatments, etc. We know now what to do in many such cases to reduce the incidences of various diseases, not all of them of course, but huge strides have been made.
    Likewise in finance, we know what causes a great many problems, but we let the disease , the dysfunctional agents, actually run things. We know how to prevent problems. Enough is known, but crazy doctrines are promulgated, like false religions, leading people over the cliffs. If you want medical care, you know who to go to. If you want economic health do not go to economic witch doctors.

    Maybe this can help you see the tip of the iceberg: http://www.zerohedge.com/article/ecb...ean-central-ba

  8. #8
    Завсегдатай Crocodile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    село Торонтовка Онтарийской губернии
    Posts
    3,057
    Rep Power
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Seraph View Post
    If you want economic health do not go to economic witch doctors.
    Yes, that sounds reasonable. The only problem is that there seems to be no mutual agreement as to what evil is lesser at each point in time. Say, you're a government and you want to reduce the deficit. One of the simple and clear recipes is to cut the spendings. And one of the major annual bills is the payment to the government-supported unprofitable enterprises. So, you stop paying those enterprises which would effectively have those enterprises closed and the employees fired. But, hey, you have the lesser bills to pay. Yay! Right? Not quite. As a government, you have the further responsibility to provide social security to those people paying them money directly and at the same time you have less tax revenues coming as well as less GDP produced to back up your currency. So, in the end you'll have to pay even bigger bills than before. So, which evil was the lesser at that point? Alternatively, you might decide not to cut the deficit that way, but you have to cut it somehow or borrow even more, right? And the problem is that almost each and every measure of the deficit cut creates some well-known adverse side-effects which come and bite you from behind. So, using your analogy with the health providers, if you have a headache you can take the pill and the headache will go away, but the pill would hurt the liver. Of course, you might do lots of outdoor sports and you won't ever have headaches, but that's not easy too: because of your busy schedule you would have to sacrifice some quality time with your wife and kids, so your wife might leave you for someone else "who cares" and your kids would grow up and won't care about you as you've "never been there for them". And so on...

  9. #9
    Старший оракул Seraph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    782
    Rep Power
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Crocodile View Post
    The only problem is that there seems to be no mutual agreement as to what evil is lesser at each point in time.
    There is sufficient data to provide quantitative answers to these issues. And actually solve the problems. Unfortunately, various groups ranging from well intentioned and well informed, to well intentioned but misinformed, to mal-intentioned and well informed, to mal-intentioned and misinformed, and everything in between are continually arguing passed each other. Some are trying to solve the problems and know how. Some are trying to confuse the issue to keep dysfunctional systems in place because they are so lucrative. And so there is not much more to say about it.

    От Луки 6
    43 Нет доброго дерева, которое приносило бы худой плод; и нет худого дерева, которое приносило бы плод добрый,

    44 ибо всякое дерево познаётся по плоду своему, потому что не собирают смокв с терновника и не снимают винограда с кустарника.

  10. #10
    Завсегдатай Crocodile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    село Торонтовка Онтарийской губернии
    Posts
    3,057
    Rep Power
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Seraph View Post
    There is sufficient data to provide quantitative answers to these issues. And actually solve the problems.
    I agree with you. However, the whole thing looks to me more like Тришкин Кафтан.

    Quote Originally Posted by Seraph View Post
    Maybe this can help you see the tip of the iceberg [...]
    As someone who witnessed the fall of the Soviet Union, I would respectfully disagree that could qualify to be named iceberg. As usual, when the debt would go out of control, they would just cancel it and make us all pay for it. That's all. It's not like there would be no veggies in the corner store except for the pickled tomatoes in the 5-liter jars.

    «Сестрица! знаешь ли, беда!—
    На корабле Мышь Мыши говорила,—
    Ведь оказалась течь: внизу у нас вода
    Чуть не хватила
    До самого мне рыла.
    (А правда, так она лишь лапки замочила.)
    И что диковинки — наш капитан
    Или с похмелья, или пьян.
    Матросы все — один ленивее другого;
    Ну, словом, нет порядку никакого.
    Сейчас кричала я во весь народ,
    Что ко дну наш корабль идет:
    Куда!— Никто и ухом не ведет,
    Как будто б ложные я распускала вести;
    А ясно — только в трюм лишь стоит заглянуть,
    Что кораблю часа не дотянуть.
    Сестрица! неужли нам гибнуть с ними вместе!
    Пойдем же, кинемся скорее с корабля;
    Авось не далеко земля!»
    Тут в Океан мои затейницы спрыгнули
    И — утонули;
    А наш корабль, рукой искусною водим,
    Достигнул пристани и цел и невредим.

    Иван Крылов, 1832

  11. #11
    Старший оракул Seraph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    782
    Rep Power
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Crocodile View Post
    ... I would respectfully disagree that could qualify to be named iceberg. As usual, when the debt would go out of control, they would just cancel it and make us all pay for it. ...
    It's not the whole iceberg: just a small tip of it. The iceberg has a lot of underwater hidden mass. They certainly have been making us pay for it. But that is not the whole story.

  12. #12
    Завсегдатай Crocodile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    село Торонтовка Онтарийской губернии
    Posts
    3,057
    Rep Power
    20
    Hey Ramil, I thought a little bit about what you said, and I should say I totally understand (although not share) your point of view. Indeed, if the Russian currency is backed by the natural resources and the US currency is fiat, then exchanging the rubles for USDs may not sound like a good idea. You seem to give up a 'real' thing for an 'imaginary' thing. The natural resources are finite and the USDs are infinite. So, that does not sound like a fair deal. The situation seems even worse because you can't really save USDs as the FRS can produce them at will. Did I get you right? If yes, you should also take a wider look at the situation and realize that the US is not an evil genius, but simply has no choice. The US economy (as much as of many other countries) is run in large by the Monetarists (Monetarism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). That had happened historically and that approach seems to guide many modern economists today. If you have a currency that's not worth to be passively saved, you would be OBLIGED TO INVEST it. That motivates the set up of the new enterprises and creates more goods and services (=the value) as well as the employment. That generates the government income (=taxes) which officially support the currency. The more business activity is happening, the better the government income is. And what matters to people is that they ultimately can consume those goods and services (=exchange among each other) and nothing else. That's how the US is evading another Great Depression. That's neither casuistry nor sophistry. Any resource-exporting country would dream to sell their resources for the backed currency and not for the fiat currency because it can be accumulated more efficiently. But the goods-producing countries simply have little choice as the shortfall of currency is considered to be one of the major causes of the Great Depression. On the other hand, the resource-exporting countries know the value of their resources (no matter how scarce) is going down in the long run. So, they need to accumulate the value right now or they would lose everything (both the resource and the value as well as making their country sick with the Dutch disease) in the long run. And they know that. So, if the goods-exporting countries would be obliged to pay with the golden standard, their goods production would decline ultimately hurting even the average consumer of the resource-exporting countries. There would be less absolute value - less goods - less comfort for you personally. Nowdays, the stores are stuffed with goods (perhaps being expensive or low quality), but going to the golden standard would effectively eliminate those goods from the stores. There would be lots of seemingly fair money, but the deficit of goods. (Back to the USSR.) And less goods mean less resources would need to be mined. So, less jobs in the resource-exporting countries as well. That's neither casuistry nor sophistry, but the very real conflict of interests with the subsequent military consequences. So, my entire point was: please be aware that by advocating golden currency you actually advocating economic decline for the whole world. Please, try to think it through objectively before you call me a sophist.

  13. #13
    Завсегдатай Ramil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Other Universe
    Posts
    8,499
    Rep Power
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by Crocodile View Post
    Did I get you right?
    Sorry for the late answer, was off-line for some time.
    Yes, you did get me right, but the situation is a bit more general than you describe and it's not limited by USA/Russia.


    Quote Originally Posted by Crocodile View Post
    but simply has no choice.
    Perhaps, but why this should be a problem of mine?

    Quote Originally Posted by Crocodile View Post
    The US economy (as much as of many other countries) is run in large by the Monetarists (Monetarism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). That had happened historically and that approach seems to guide many modern economists today. If you have a currency that's not worth to be passively saved, you would be OBLIGED TO INVEST it. That motivates the set up of the new enterprises and creates more goods and services (=the value) as well as the employment.
    That's the problem, yes. The fact that I'm obliged to invest money. Can't agree that this is a fair practice.

    That generates the government income (=taxes) which officially support the currency.

    Quote Originally Posted by Crocodile View Post
    The more business activity is happening, the better the government income is. And what matters to people is that they ultimately can consume those goods and services (=exchange among each other) and nothing else. That's how the US is evading another Great Depression. That's neither casuistry nor sophistry.
    Sophistry is using this rhetoric while printing dollars. Again, why other countries should be concerned about US economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Crocodile View Post
    So, if the goods-exporting countries would be obliged to pay with the golden standard, their goods production would decline ultimately hurting even the average consumer of the resource-exporting countries...
    Nowdays, the stores are stuffed with goods (perhaps being expensive or low quality), but going to the golden standard would effectively eliminate those goods from the stores.
    I missed you at this turn. No matter how scarce the good-production would be - it would remain and sell those goods to those who's able to pay. Besides, a real goods-producing country is China, not USA or some other West-European country. China too has doubts about using US dollar as a reserve currency. What makes USA unique? What USA really produces for export except printed dollars?

    Quote Originally Posted by Crocodile View Post
    So, my entire point was: please be aware that by advocating golden currency you actually advocating economic decline for the whole world. Please, try to think it through objectively before you call me a sophist.
    Not the whole world, just the north-western part of it. Besides, they would have a choice of either to try to continue living the way they've been living for the past several decades or try to do something about their economies.

    Also, I think you'll find this link very interesting:
    http://www.vz.ru/economy/2011/5/30/495567.html

    E
    nglish version here:
    Utah House Passes Bill Recognizing Gold, Silver as Legal Tender - FoxNews.com
    Send me a PM if you need me.

  14. #14
    Завсегдатай Crocodile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    село Торонтовка Онтарийской губернии
    Posts
    3,057
    Rep Power
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Ramil View Post
    Теперь выпущенные Монетным двором золотые и серебряные монеты можно использовать для оплаты товаров и услуг не по номиналу, а по реальной стоимости содержащихся в них драгметаллов.

    Так, золотая монета весом в 1 унцию соответствует номиналу в 50 долларов, однако ее стоимость, согласно текущим котировкам 1 унции золота, составляет 1,5 тыс. долларов. Серебряная монета весом в 1 унцию соответствует номиналу в 1 доллар, однако за унцию серебра дают сегодня 38 долларов. [...]

    Under the bill, the coins would not replace the current paper currency but would be used and accepted voluntarily as an alternative.
    Ok, so the exchange by the price of the raw material is just a barter exchange. That should theoretically not have the adverse impact on the economy on a large scale because it's being done IN ADDITION (!) to the paper tender. If some people would start hoarding raw metals, that would not seriously impact the business activity because the state can still print more paper tender.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ramil View Post
    Perhaps, but why this should be a problem of mine?
    The economy of the various countries these days is tightly coupled and any kind of drastic change would have tremendous adverse implications for Russian economy as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ramil View Post
    That's the problem, yes. The fact that I'm obliged to invest money. Can't agree that this is a fair practice.
    You know what? I agree with you here. It's not intuitively fair. But the ghost of the Great Depression is always looming over the FAIR market economy. The periods of the slow economy. The FAIR deficit of goods as well as the FAIR great surplus of labour. Very few new enterprises are open whilst the old enterprises are closing at a regular pace. The FAIR high unemployment and FAIR low purchasing power. From a standpoint of a regular person, you don't care how the state should act, but you feel it would be FAIR for the state to interfere. So, the neoclassical economists would say: in this fair situation of the total fairness, but low living standards, let's stimulate the creation of the new enterprises first, and the employment and the purchasing power would follow. So, what do the new enterprises need? Money to start their business. Let's give them money UNFAIRLY AT THIS POINT. And when the new enterprises succeeded and covered the UNFAIR printed paper with FAIR goods and services, that effectively made that printed notes the FAIR money worth something. As a matter of fact, that is probably sophistry, but it works. The bottom line of each and every economic policy is to make the people work hard. You can motivate them by painting a pretty picture of them working hard now, but in the future them working somehow and have whatever they might need (=> from everyone according to his abilities, to everyone according to his needs => Communism), or you're painting a pretty picture of them working hard always and by that having a house, a family, a car, nice clothes, etc. (=> American dream => Capitalism). A golden standard is just another way of "putting a carrot before the donkey to make him run" as people believe the hard-earned money is theirs forever. The first food scarcity would make a wake-up call rather bluntly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ramil View Post
    Sophistry is using this rhetoric while printing dollars. Again, why other countries should be concerned about US economy?
    I think it should be a bit more specific than the "other countries". But, a short answer is the same: the financial system is tightly coupled with the US economy (as we could all have witnessed recently).

    Quote Originally Posted by Ramil View Post
    I missed you at this turn. No matter how scarce the good-production would be - it would remain and sell those goods to those who's able to pay.
    Exactly. That was is called the "purchasing power". Before any goods or service is produce an entrepreneur should answer himself a basic question: will anybody be purchasing it at all? Then he should answer another question of: HOW MUCH of it he should produce? If there are less working people outside, he would plan for less and lay off the extra workers he would not need. Those who were fired do not have money now to purchase other enterprises goods and services which make the other enterprises plan for less and lay off their workers as well. When the purchasing power is low, the amount of produced goods and services is low as well. Say, you're a manager of a developer team in Russia which exports oil and you purchase Chinese goods. Why should you care about the US economy, right? Because, the US is a major consumer of the Chinese goods as well. If the US economy is slowing down, it would create high unemployment and reduce the purchase power of the US consumers and the production in the US goes down. The US reduces consumption from China which causes China to produce less and deteriorate their consumer purchasing power. As a result, the US and China would need less energy to produce less goods and they would purchase less oil from Russia. That would mean firing some Russian oil miners and paying less taxes to the Russian government. That would mean the whole public sector in Russia would require a bigger slice of the budget and the Russian Government would cut their expenses subsidizing other enterprises and governmental contracts which would deteriorate Russian citizens purchasing power. Your company be it public or private would feel it does not have that much contracts anymore (either directly from the government or rolled down from that) and it would fire some of the developers. Your team would be smaller and other teams would be smaller. The higher management would think they could combine the two small teams into one and plant only one manager to oversee them. Thus, you've lost your job. Of course, I simplified things because Russia does not sell oil to the US directly, but to Europe, so they would be much more economical chains, but eventually they will hit each of us. The deficit of goods caused by the surplus of labour. Fair enough?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ramil View Post
    China too has doubts about using US dollar as a reserve currency. What makes USA unique? What USA really produces for export except printed dollars?
    Now, I could call that sophistry, but I wouldn't because I like you. Using the USDs as a most traded currency does add some value to it, but it definitely does not turn it into the preferred reserve currency. It's a choice of each country how they are to save their capital. If they want to purchase the US bonds - it's their choice. If they want to purchase gold and keep it in the vaults - it's their choice. If they want to build more infrastructure like roads - it's their choice. It's a free market.

  15. #15
    Завсегдатай Ramil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Other Universe
    Posts
    8,499
    Rep Power
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by Crocodile View Post
    If the US economy is slowing down, it would create high unemployment and reduce the purchase power of the US consumers and the production in the US goes down. The US reduces consumption from China which causes China to produce less and deteriorate their consumer purchasing power. As a result, the US and China would need less energy to produce less goods and they would purchase less oil from Russia.
    etc, etc, etc. China is NOT the main importer of Russian hydrocarbons, for one thing. Secondly, there are industries that WILL consume hydrocarbons (for heating and transportation, if nothing else, there are talks about alternatives but oil will remain the main source of energy for quite a number of years). There will be some decrease in oil consuption perhaps, but not as dramatic as you try to show me here. Besides, there are suprisingly few people working for oil and gas industry in Russia and I don't think the slowdown of the US's economy would seriously impact their well-being.

    Quote Originally Posted by Crocodile View Post
    It's a choice of each country how they are to save their capital.
    It's not much of a choice. I can't save in gold or anything else, because if I want to buy something from abroad I must buy dollars first. Well, Euros in some rare case. That's the problem. Dollar must have an alternative. For competition if nothing else.
    Send me a PM if you need me.

  16. #16
    Завсегдатай Crocodile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    село Торонтовка Онтарийской губернии
    Posts
    3,057
    Rep Power
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Ramil View Post
    Besides, there are suprisingly few people working for oil and gas industry in Russia and I don't think the slowdown of the US's economy would seriously impact their well-being.
    Have you had a chance to notice the other consequence of the less oil export - less taxes to the Russian Government?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ramil View Post
    It's not much of a choice. I can't save in gold or anything else, because if I want to buy something from abroad I must buy dollars first.
    You're saying you won't be able to close balances with other freely converted currency or the currency of the importer country exchanged as per the current market price?

  17. #17
    Hanna
    Guest
    Not sure Crocodile, if less consumption would be such a bad thing. Do you really think that consumerism as it is at the moment is a good and fair thing? Look at what it is doing to the environment and at how unfair it is!

    If I look objectively at my wardrobe for example, I can see that I only need at most 10% of the clothes that are in there. People don't NEED massive houses, or a car if they live in a city. We don't NEED a gazillion gadgets and luxury designer items. We only think we need it because of advertisments.

    I am sure there were lots of seriously frustrating problems in the USSR and personally I would not want to live in the way that people did there. But at least noone was starving and everyone had a roof over their head, and there was no exploitation or globalism needed to keep that economy going. But frankly I would not want to live like a working class person in Britain or the USA either, and certainly not like a regular person in the third world.
    So far as I am concerned, globalist economy is both unfair and unsustainable in a longer perspective.

    Fixing the currency to gold would be a step in the right direction according to me. And if there should be a currency to tag others to, it seems that the Chinese Yuan would be more reasonable although I don't favour that myself.

  18. #18
    Завсегдатай Crocodile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    село Торонтовка Онтарийской губернии
    Posts
    3,057
    Rep Power
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Hanna View Post
    Not sure Crocodile, if less consumption would be such a bad thing. Do you really think that consumerism as it is at the moment is a good and fair thing? People don't NEED massive houses, or a car if they live in a city. We don't NEED a gazillion gadgets and luxury designer items.
    I can understand where you're coming from. The only problem is that to tell people they don't need this and that is no fundamentally different from telling them you do need this and that. Both are the acts of brain washing. I would say let the people decide what they need and in what quantities. Don't make that decision for them. In the market economy the balance of the demand is regulated through the price mechanism and in the planned economy it is regulated by the government. The government would tell you what you want and what you don't want. Can you see the difference?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hanna View Post
    Look at what it is doing to the environment and at how unfair it is!
    OMG. We've been through that like a hundred times. It's not the consumption that's doing the damage to the environment, but in order to keep up with the consumption and the population growth we need a better technology. Compare the way we produce the food these days (farming) with what we used to do in the Paleolithic Age - hunting. It wasn't renewable back than and it's renewable now. As a result, we adversely affect the environment MUCH LESS (in this respect alone) than those guys who allegedly live in harmony with the Nature. And there are many more of us too. Viva to the technogaianism!

    Quote Originally Posted by Hanna View Post
    But at least noone was starving and everyone had a roof over their head [...]
    Huh? When? There were times that LOTS OF PEOPLE died from hunger in the Soviet Union. Are you talking about the 1980s? How many starving people there were in the US at that time? How many hadn't had roof over their head (and not on any kind of the relief like Welfare)? I'm not sure you realize that a person in the US could live on the street and would be visible to everybody, but in the USSR if you chose not to work, you would be imprisoned and forced to work anyways. Also, people like the street cleaners in the USSR worked but lived no better than those on welfare in the US who chose not to work at all. Can you see the difference? The total employment does not necessarily imply the high living standards.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hanna View Post
    and there was no exploitation or globalism needed to keep that economy going.
    Don't get me started. The planned economy implies the exploitation of everybody by the state. By doing that it strives to eliminate the social injustice caused by the exploitation of a person by a person. All the decisions are made by the state officials. That's like an ABC. As to the globalism... have you ever heard the USSR was a country which purpose was to become global? Have you ever heard about the World Revolution? Things are relative, please judge them in comparison. (We could probably have a separate discussion about the Lenin's work of the Imperialism as the highest stage of the Capitalism and start comparing it to the globalization. That might be interesting discussion, but I'm not sure you're familiar enough with Lenin's publications. )

    Quote Originally Posted by Hanna View Post
    But frankly I would not want to live like a working class person in Britain or the USA either, and certainly not like a regular person in the third world.
    Let's compare apples with apples, working class people in various countries, and the North Korea to the South Korea.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hanna View Post
    So far as I am concerned, globalist economy is both unfair and unsustainable in a longer perspective.
    We have a fundamental disagreement here. I mean, do you at all support the cause of the free trade? Did you have a chance to read Adam Smith and other classical economy guys?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hanna View Post
    Fixing the currency to gold would be a step in the right direction according to me.
    Why? Have Karl Marx ever mentioned the golden standard is the must?

  19. #19
    Hanna
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Crocodile View Post
    I would say let the people decide what they need and in what quantities.
    That's because you are extremely suspicious against "the state" and I believe the state can be good.
    I'd say 'let's force people to consume less, before it is too late... " We have only one planet.
    I'd trust the state a lot more than I trust a privately owned company to take decisions about how much people can consume anyway. Corporations will always choose the most profitable option over the most moral or ecologically sustainable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Crocodile View Post
    Huh? When? There were times that LOTS OF PEOPLE died from hunger in the Soviet Union. Are you talking about the 1980s?
    Yes, I was talking about modern times 60s, 70s, 80s.

    Quote Originally Posted by Crocodile View Post
    How many starving people there were in the US at that time? How many hadn't had roof over their head (and not on any kind of the relief like Welfare)?
    Plenty, Depression and general poverty in the South and other rural areas. Plus, the USA was richer at the time that the revolution happened in Russia, so the starting points are not the same. Additionally, the USA was not annihilated by the war like large parts of the USSR were.


    Quote Originally Posted by Crocodile View Post
    Don't get me started. The planned economy implies the exploitation of everybody by the state.
    Well the IDEA is that the state is the people, right? So it's exploiting itself in that case, which can be argued, is fair.
    It just depends on how you look at it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Crocodile View Post
    As to the globalism... have you ever heard the USSR was a country which purpose was to become global? Have you ever heard about the World Revolution?
    Yes, but not for the purpose of "liberating people" etc, etc as far as I know. It wanted to be global, but for totally different reasons than the kind of capitalism that the US represents. Plus I think the USSR was fairly realistic about the "world revolution".

    Quote Originally Posted by Crocodile View Post
    I'm not sure you're familiar enough with Lenin's publications. )
    Not familiar with them at all - what is the relevance? I only know that he made some modifications to communism to fit Russia's situation, and thereby deviated a bit from what Marx had envisaged - and some people who were communists rejected the USSR because of it. Other than that I only know a few one liners that he allegedly said in his speeches.

    Quote Originally Posted by Crocodile View Post
    We have a fundamental disagreement here. I mean, do you at all support the cause of the free trade? Did you have a chance to read Adam Smith and other classical economy guys?
    Yes I have read Adam Smith and other economic philosophers and I think Smith's writings have been hijacked by modern liberalists who are using it to further their own agenda. Fundamentally I think he has many good points. Unfortunately it was over 15 years ago that I read him and my memory of it is a bit hazy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Crocodile View Post
    Why? Have Karl Marx ever mentioned the golden standard is the must?
    I have no idea what he thought of it, if anything. I am not a Marxist. I just personally think that money that is based on real value is safer than money which can be manipulated to serve an individual country's needs

  20. #20
    Завсегдатай Crocodile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    село Торонтовка Онтарийской губернии
    Posts
    3,057
    Rep Power
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Hanna View Post
    That's because you are extremely suspicious against "the state" and I believe the state can be good.
    Well, we have different experiences. By the way Ramil is so suspicious with "the state" that he wants to eliminate it all together. I maintain a much more moderate standpoint. You see, speaking in the IT terms, if the state controls everything, you might compare it to the mainframe with the resource-sharing OS: in theory it could manage the resources efficiently because it has a planner (=scheduler), but it has the known disadvantages as well. One of the very noticeable consequence is that the sysadmins become very arrogant and you have to get their approval on pretty much anything you need. Also, all kinds of upgrades are very problematic and are naturally postponed as long as possible on the ground of the unknown consequences and the single point of failure. Regardless of the initial design, the mainframe systems become very expensive and unproductive comparing to the distributed systems. On the contrary, in the distributed environment it might seem like the waste of the resources, however the overall stability is better, the average users are more educated and could do some administrative tasks, they could take risks and upgrade and customize their personal systems (with some risks and failures) and thus improve their performance contributing to the overall system performance. The net result is that over time the overall output of the distributed system would outperform the large, centric system. Of course, that is only visible when you could compare the two systems over time. That's why the World Revolution was required. That's why the USSR became specialized in weapons design and production (and sports). Everything that could improve its chances to spread globally, eliminate the competitive systems and become the sole monopoly over the globe. The sysadmins would decide what your account needs and what it doesn't need. They would easily allocate more CPU and disk quotas for those they like and wouldn't for those they dislike. You would be obliged to work with the old text version of Emacs for the rest of your life, because the sysadmins think it's enough for you. No laptops at home or at the coffee-house, no GUI, no mouse, no context-menu right-clicks, no icons. It would be the small monochromatic text monitor and Esc-X-K / Esc-X-Y for the rest of your life. I don't like that. Do you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hanna View Post
    Plenty, Depression and general poverty in the South and other rural areas.
    Apples with apples, remember? Depression in the South at the 80s? An average of family of five people (two elders, a young couple, and a child) in a one-bedroom apartment in Washington and New York? The devastation of the kolchoz where the majority of the young people either left for the cities (and took them a lot of efforts and bribes because officially they weren't entitled to move anywhere!) or became chronic alcohol addicts because they had no prospects in their lives? The wheat was purchase (for gold - yes! - the ruble was supported by the golden standard, but did it help people to be richer?) from Canada. Why the USSR rural areas of the great country (sport-wise and weapons-wise) failed to produce enough food? Try to compare that with the "devastation of the rural areas in the US" at the same time - the 80s. Then you'll get apples with apples.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hanna View Post
    Plus, the USA was richer at the time that the revolution happened in Russia, so the starting points are not the same. Additionally, the USA was not annihilated by the war like large parts of the USSR were.
    OMG. Again the same thing. Compare the East Germany with the West Germany. The North Korea with the South Korea. Previously, the same countries. By the 80s, there were a couple of decades past the devastation of the war. I would say, provide the better living conditions, build better cars and not so many excellent tanks (truly the state of the art) and don't blame the devastation of the previous war. The war was also in Germany, England, Spain, Italy, France, Holland, Japan. By the 80s the Soviet Union imported goods from all of them and only exported natural resources. And gold.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hanna View Post
    Well the IDEA is that the state is the people, right?
    Wrong. The corporation is the people, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hanna View Post
    So it's exploiting itself in that case, which can be argued, is fair. It just depends on how you look at it.
    Regardless of the way you look at it, it's the officials in either case. The state officials have more power than the corporate officials (or, perhaps, it's the same thing). So, no fairness in either case. However, the capitalism also allows other people (not only the officials) to live well. Make your informed decision.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hanna View Post
    Yes, but not for the purpose of "liberating people" etc, etc as far as I know.
    For the exact same purpose. The exact same liberation/freedom rhetoric.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hanna View Post
    It wanted to be global, but for totally different reasons than the kind of capitalism that the US represents.
    Yes, and I think I mentioned earlier the reasons. But the net result is the same, so why would the ordinary people care?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hanna View Post
    Plus I think the USSR was fairly realistic about the "world revolution".
    Not only realistic, but very practical. That's why they called it the Cold War, my young padawan learner.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hanna View Post
    Not familiar with them at all - what is the relevance?
    As much as Marx was the theoretician, Lenin was the practitioner. He explored with the trial and error what worked and what not. That had tremendous implications for the development course of the Communism. The "deviation from what Marx had envisaged" happened because Marx hadn't had the situation at hand and was only able to make some theoretical predictions, but didn't have the power to practically try it. And what Marx had envisioned had never happened. So, his sound scientific theory was falsified by that and therefore remain what it is - a scientific model of the past that became obsolete by the newer discoveries. Lenin's publications are much more important than Marx's.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hanna View Post
    Yes I have read Adam Smith and other economic philosophers and I think Smith's writings have been hijacked by modern liberalists who are using it to further their own agenda. Fundamentally I think he has many good points. Unfortunately it was over 15 years ago that I read him and my memory of it is a bit hazy.
    It's interesting that you don't really remember that he was advocating the really free trade - like no tariffs, no barriers, no protectionism whatsoever, essentially one of the fundamental aspects of the globalisation, but you do remember his writings have been hijacked by modern liberalists. Yeah... Apparently, all it takes to forget one of the brightest minds is just 15 years. Sic transit gloria mundi...

    Quote Originally Posted by Hanna View Post
    I have no idea what he thought of it, if anything. I am not a Marxist.
    Oh, I was under impression that you are based on the fact you liked the Socialism and stuff like that. I apologize for the misunderstanding. Than who are you? Do you support the notion of the private property? Do you support the notion of the exploitation of a person by a person?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hanna View Post
    I just personally think that money that is based on real value is safer than money which can be manipulated to serve an individual country's needs
    Would you be able to clarify what you mean by the "real value"? I mean, I'm aware of only two fundamental definitions of value: the subjective one and the one defined in the labour theory. Gold is not a requirement in either of those, but a commodity as much as wheat or sugar used to clear open balances. So, what "real value" are you talking about?

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. здравствуйте! Хотел познакомится!
    By Tekee in forum Getting Started with Russian
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: November 24th, 2009, 12:30 PM
  2. я хотел ехать туда на машине чтобы
    By Mordan in forum Grammar and Vocabulary
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: October 25th, 2006, 09:27 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Russian Lessons                           

Russian Tests and Quizzes            

Russian Vocabulary