Political Test - Page 3

[EnderX]

Quick question, Sturm.

If we (Americans) are all so stupid, then why do the individuals you just mentioned come here to enter the academic world?

[Sturm]

If we (Americans) are all so stupid, then why do the individuals you just mentioned come here to enter the academic world?

Because America used to be the best. It used to be driven, not arrogant. At one point, the pinnacle of science was in America, but not anymore. Don't get me wrong, America is a nice place to live, it still publishes the most scientific papers. But china, japan, and India will soon overtake america is both standard of living, and scientific papers.

[jbennet]

Japan yes, china and india no. i doubt the 3rd world will ever overtake the 1st world in standard of living

[Sturm]

China and India will not be 3rd world for long.

[sk8ndestroy14]

Although the standard of living here is decreasing, I highly doubt the standard of living in China will ever get better than ours any time soon. Japan, definitey. I don't know a lot about India but I don't think they'll pass us up any time soon either.

What makes you think communism is a good idea? I'm interested in knowing.

And as for capitolism, no I'm against it. It supports child labor, outsourcing of jobs, monopolizing etc. Although there are good things about it, I myself think that the negatives outweigh the positives, but at the same time I've yet to see a true nationalized economy that has been successful without depriving its citizens of their rights. That may be because I don't know a lot about foreign governments though. I know more about America's government. I also think a transition would be difficult, but not impossible.

[Sturm]

What makes you think communism is a good idea? I'm interested in knowing.

I believe that communism supports equality and opportunity, while capitalism is a vicious system that supports immorality, crime, child labor, employee abuse, among others. Since the majority of the population is poor, I believe that we should help the poor the most.

[Narue]

>I believe that communism supports equality and opportunity, while
>capitalism is a vicious system that supports immorality, crime, child
>labor, employee abuse, among others.
Has communism ever been successfully achieved? It's great in theory, but every attempt I know of has failed due to corrupt leadership.

[jbennet]

but then again the same can be said for democracy ;)

[Sturm]

and Fascism

[Narue]

So that's a no then? I wasn't asking a hypothetical question.

[Sturm]

er..I do not have time to respond..Ill get back to that question.

[EnderX]

And as for capitolism, no I'm against it. It supports child labor, outsourcing of jobs, monopolizing etc. Although there are good things about it, I myself think that the negatives outweigh the positives, but at the same time I've yet to see a true nationalized economy that has been successful without depriving its citizens of their rights. That may be because I don't know a lot about foreign governments though. I know more about America's government. I also think a transition would be difficult, but not impossible.

I'll give you the outsourcing, because it's a way to quickly reduce the available price. However, I'm willing to take umbrage at the others.

Child Labor is an interesting, somewhat finicky term. You do realize that, until relatively recently, the average child put in a great deal of labor simply as part of their everyday life? And that in many places, this is still the case, and would be even if the people of America or any other industrialized nation had never heard of the location? Or, for that matter, how about 'adolescence', a concept that really didn't even exist until the last several decades, yet now seems to get grandfathered into the discussions on child labor? I'd appreciate it if you'll please define what you mean by 'child labor' rather than simply tossing out a semi-loaded phrase.

And as to monopolization, a capitalist structure is about the best way to avoid such. There are really only two ways a company or corporation could gain a monopoly on a field; the second is used more often.

1. Being so efficient at what they do that they are always leading the field, and being the first individual to enter the field. The combination means they'll have had time to hone their techniques, and can produce goods (often better than their competitors') at reasonable market prices.

2. Being part of, or tied with, the government, which allows the corporation or company to heavily pressure for laws forbidding their competition to compete.

As I said, the second is used more often, with end results of shoddy and/or inefficent output.

[EnderX]

Has communism ever been successfully achieved? It's great in theory, but every attempt I know of has failed due to corrupt leadership.

As far as I can tell, an apparently socialist government of any form appears to have successfully existed exactly once in human history, and it's one that Sturm will probably refuse to accept.

[Aia]

Has communism ever been successfully achieved? It's great in theory, but every attempt I know of has failed due to corrupt leadership.

So that's a no then? I wasn't asking a hypothetical question.

The answer dependents of how you define "succesful achievetment".
China, Noth Corea, and North Vietnam, probably would answer to you
with an outstanding yes.

[christina>you]

I'm not a supporter of communism.

[Aia]

I'm not a supporter of communism.

Are you sure?.
Check every little piece of hardware in your computer.
I bet you some it would say "Made in China".

[christina>you]

Are you sure?.
Check every little piece of hardware in your computer.
I bet you some it would say "Made in China".

Almost everything is made from China. But I just don't like that form of government.

[joshSCH]

Because America used to be the best. It used to be driven, not arrogant. At one point, the pinnacle of science was in America, but not anymore. Don't get me wrong, America is a nice place to live, it still publishes the most scientific papers. But china, japan, and India will soon overtake america is both standard of living, and scientific papers.

Japan yes, china and india no. i doubt the 3rd world will ever overtake the 1st world in standard of living

China and India will not be 3rd world for long.

Sorry guys, but Japan has reached its full potential. People used to think Japan would some day overtake America. But the fact is, their country is too small, and their resources limited. They have reached their maximum efficiency.. their gdp has pretty much leveled off. But, it's true about China. They are going through both the industrial and technological revolutions at the same time.. and much quicker than us. This is the millennium of China.. they will overtake the United States as the world's super power. Not India.. They have way too many people, and their government is inefficient.

And as for capitolism, no I'm against it. It supports child labor, outsourcing of jobs, monopolizing etc. Although there are good things about it, I myself think that the negatives outweigh the positives, but at the same time I've yet to see a true nationalized economy that has been successful without depriving its citizens of their rights. That may be because I don't know a lot about foreign governments though. I know more about America's government. I also think a transition would be difficult, but not impossible.

Capitalism supports maximum efficiency of resources.. Capitalists view everything as a resource, and try to exploit it.. how is this bad? Child labor laws are in place in America.. however, we are the hardest working economy in the world. No other country works as many hours and as many days a week as we do.. We strive for perfection, and we enjoy work. Capitalists do not deprive citizens of their rights.. they just work around the rules and laws in order to find loop holes in the system..

>I believe that communism supports equality and opportunity, while
>capitalism is a vicious system that supports immorality, crime, child
>labor, employee abuse, among others.
Has communism ever been successfully achieved? It's great in theory, but every attempt I know of has failed due to corrupt leadership.

She is correct. The idea of communism is great in theory, but it never has, and probably never will be achieved.

As for monopolies, why are they bad? Almost every monopoly that has existed in America (before the trust busters) has actually had better prices for the people. Think about it, there is no competition in that specific industry and therefore the company can charge a smaller fee to all of its customers. Monopolies are not inherently bad, but they can become so.

[jbennet]

monompolies are good for america but bad for me

goddamn MS and Apple just stick a pound sign on the dollar price over here. Vista ultimate is like £375 (thats $750) here

[joshSCH]

gawd damn.. that sucks..

[sk8ndestroy14]

I'll give you the outsourcing, because it's a way to quickly reduce the available price. However, I'm willing to take umbrage at the others.

Child Labor is an interesting, somewhat finicky term. You do realize that, until relatively recently, the average child put in a great deal of labor simply as part of their everyday life? And that in many places, this is still the case, and would be even if the people of America or any other industrialized nation had never heard of the location? Or, for that matter, how about 'adolescence', a concept that really didn't even exist until the last several decades, yet now seems to get grandfathered into the discussions on child labor? I'd appreciate it if you'll please define what you mean by 'child labor' rather than simply tossing out a semi-loaded phrase.

And as to monopolization, a capitalist structure is about the best way to avoid such. There are really only two ways a company or corporation could gain a monopoly on a field; the second is used more often.

1. Being so efficient at what they do that they are always leading the field, and being the first individual to enter the field. The combination means they'll have had time to hone their techniques, and can produce goods (often better than their competitors') at reasonable market prices.

2. Being part of, or tied with, the government, which allows the corporation or company to heavily pressure for laws forbidding their competition to compete.

As I said, the second is used more often, with end results of shoddy and/or inefficent output.

Well, one example is our free trade economy in a capitolist society. It allows for outsourcing to places like China where child labor is used, and although it might still exist without our help, it is better that we are not advocates of such a thing. Those children are paid pennies a day for back breaking labor in factories and warehouses.

A noncapitolist society would have to exist under a leadership that isn't corrupt, unlike the current United States government. Unfortunately for some that means not having a democracy, where corruption has the ability to flourish and leaders feel the need to lie to the people, influence their opinions with propaganda, and change policies to receive public support for an unpopular idea (such as entrance to the Vietnam War with the Tonkin Gulf Incident). How many times have we as a people been lied to, we cannot even know, but I'm getting off the subject. I admit the biggest difficulty is finding leadership that isn't corrupt, like most socialist nations have been thus far (but not all) while at the same time, doing what's best for the people of the country. Even a democracy can't accomplish that task all the time. One recent example is that the large majority of people in the country want this war in Iraq to be over, but our leader (who lost the majority of votes by the people) refuses to end this unpopular War.

[sk8ndestroy14]

Monopolies are bad because they prevent small businesses from becoming involved in the industry. They also can charge whatever price they want but why would they? They have no competition so they can dramatically overprice their products and/or servieces and consumers will have no other choice.

I also want to know where you got the information that says Americans work more hours than other countries, etc. Unemployment is on a great rise and there aren't many people that unwillingly work more than 8 hours a day, whereas in other countries the only way to stay alive is to work days much longer than 8 hours.

[joshSCH]

Monopolies are bad because they prevent small businesses from becoming involved in the industry. They also can charge whatever price they want but why would they? They have no competition so they can dramatically overprice their products and/or servieces and consumers will have no other choice.

..or they could have prices that are cheaper than when the company had competition. The company could charge less, and make a higher profit if their competition is eliminated.

I also want to know where you got the information that says Americans work more hours than other countries, etc. Unemployment is on a great rise and there aren't many people that unwillingly work more than 8 hours a day, whereas in other countries the only way to stay alive is to work days much longer than 8 hours.

Unemployment? Inflation is the biggest threat to America.. not recession/unemployment.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/CAREER/trends/08/30/ilo.study/

The United States is one of the most productive countries in the world.. and the average hours worked was ranked 4th in 2002:
http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/06/pf/work_less/

However, I am quite certain that we are #1 or #2 today. Look at surrounding countries: In Mexico, people are lazy as hell and even celebrate a 'sieste' in the middle of the day (That's right, they go home to sleep!).

Japan is a strong competitor with the United States, because of their employment system.. Most people, when hired, are offered lifetime positions, and thus are more dedicated and loyal to that company. They work harder to try to get promoted within the company..

[sk8ndestroy14]

More and more outsourcing occurs everyday. Unemployment is hitting big where I live. They just outsourced the Ford plant. My cousin is in the Fire Academy and will be forced to move somewhere else to find a job, and my mom is a registered nurse and there aren't even many available jobs for that here. Unemployment is definitely something that is on the rise right now, even if inflation is on the rise as well.

[joshSCH]

Outsourcing is not necessarily bad.. I mean, we do lose American jobs, but mostly they are factory and manufacturing jobs.. nothing that pays large salaries. The outsourced jobs usually enable the companies to make more money, and considering the way Ford has performed over the past few years, I am not surprised that they are moving more jobs across the seas.

If I am not mistaken, unemployment is about 5%.. which is very near virtual full employment. There may be a few areas in the country that suffer a bit from unemployment, but overall unemployment is not a big problem in the U.S. today.

Inflation is the problem.. which can easily be seen from the fact that the Fed has raised the discount rate 13(?) times in the past few months.

[Aia]

>In Mexico, people are lazy as hell and even celebrate a 'sieste' in the middle of the day.
This kind of generalizations can get you in trouble. Certanly, you are
entitle to think whatsoever you want, however expressing your opinion in that form can only lead to contention.

> 'sieste'
Here's is your spanish lession for today: "Siesta". meaning little nap in the middle of the day.

The reason that they have that custom comes all the way from Spain.
Both Spain and Mexico gets very hot in the middle of the day, and performing a task is very difficult in that circustances, especially if your are working the ground, like most people were at the beginning of that custom.
In any case the amount of hours inputed are many times in the over time here in USA.

[sk8ndestroy14]

Outsourcing is not necessarily bad.. I mean, we do lose American jobs, but mostly they are factory and manufacturing jobs.. nothing that pays large salaries. The outsourced jobs usually enable the companies to make more money, and considering the way Ford has performed over the past few years, I am not surprised that they are moving more jobs across the seas.

If I am not mistaken, unemployment is about 5%.. which is very near virtual full employment. There may be a few areas in the country that suffer a bit from unemployment, but overall unemployment is not a big problem in the U.S. today.

Inflation is the problem.. which can easily be seen from the fact that the Fed has raised the discount rate 13(?) times in the past few months.

So for those people who are already getting paid low salaries should have their jobs taken away? And just so the big companies can make more money? I don't see how you justify that at all. And car companies a lot of times just outsource to Mexico rather than overseas, where they are too lazy to work but can still make our "American" cars for us.

[EnderX]

Monopolies are bad because they prevent small businesses from becoming involved in the industry. They also can charge whatever price they want but why would they? They have no competition so they can dramatically overprice their products and/or servieces and consumers will have no other choice.

No, they can't. If they tried to do so at a price high above the true market value, someone else would come in and undercut them. It might take time, but eventually they would have to do one of the following:
1. Get the other company put out of business somehow. (Usually by 'violation' of some absurd business law. For example, too much sand on the premises; at least at one point [don't know about today, sadly] sand was considered to be an OSHA hazardous material. No, I don't know why.)
2. Cut prices to a reasonable level in order to stay competitive. After all, if Company 'A' is selling, say, kumquats at $50.00/lb, and Company 'K' comes along and sells them for $17.00/lb, then people will buy from Company 'K' whenever they need kumquats. If 'A' doesn't meet or beat the $17.00/lb price, 'A' eventually will go out of business for lack of customers.
3. Attempt 'Predatory Pricing', the usual reason given that monopolistic corporations are bad. 'Oh, they'll sell for pennies on the dollar until nobody else can compete, then once everyone else is gone, they'll jack the prices sky-high!' For a bit of history on why that wouldn't work, do some research on the historical prices of Bromine in North America and Europe. Alternately, PM me about it, and I'll track down the information and send it to you. Might take a while; I've got to get back to my original reference first.

I also want to know where you got the information that says Americans work more hours than other countries, etc. Unemployment is on a great rise and there aren't many people that unwillingly work more than 8 hours a day, whereas in other countries the only way to stay alive is to work days much longer than 8 hours.

I don't know about his 'more hours' bit, but unemployment is quite close to 5%. This is usually considered to be a sign of a robust economy, not a broken one. Would you, perhaps, prefer the unemployment levels of the Carter Era?

[joshSCH]

So for those people who are already getting paid low salaries should have their jobs taken away? And just so the big companies can make more money? I don't see how you justify that at all. And car companies a lot of times just outsource to Mexico rather than overseas, where they are too lazy to work but can still make our "American" cars for us.

The big companies usually pass the savings on to us. And yea, those people working at manufacturing plants don't make much at all so it doesn't really hurt our economy when they get laid off. Lay offs simply encourage more and more people to attend college and earn at least a 4 year degree. And of course, in a thriving economy such as we have, there is always work to be found :)

No, they can't. If they tried to do so at a price high above the true market value, someone else would come in and undercut them. It might take time, but eventually they would have to do one of the following:
1. Get the other company put out of business somehow. (Usually by 'violation' of some absurd business law. For example, too much sand on the premises; at least at one point [don't know about today, sadly] sand was considered to be an OSHA hazardous material. No, I don't know why.)
2. Cut prices to a reasonable level in order to stay competitive. After all, if Company 'A' is selling, say, kumquats at $50.00/lb, and Company 'K' comes along and sells them for $17.00/lb, then people will buy from Company 'K' whenever they need kumquats. If 'A' doesn't meet or beat the $17.00/lb price, 'A' eventually will go out of business for lack of customers.
3. Attempt 'Predatory Pricing', the usual reason given that monopolistic corporations are bad. 'Oh, they'll sell for pennies on the dollar until nobody else can compete, then once everyone else is gone, they'll jack the prices sky-high!' For a bit of history on why that wouldn't work, do some research on the historical prices of Bromine in North America and Europe. Alternately, PM me about it, and I'll track down the information and send it to you. Might take a while; I've got to get back to my original reference first.

ah, good post. I wish I had explained it that well.. It has been recorded that every monopoly that has existed in the United States actually had much lower prices since they had no competition.

I don't know about his 'more hours' bit, but unemployment is quite close to 5%. This is usually considered to be a sign of a robust economy, not a broken one. Would you, perhaps, prefer the unemployment levels of the Carter Era?

I concur. Unemployment is under control. Inflation is not.

[Rashakil Fol]

Unemployment is a somewhat bogus measurement of economic prosperity. As are all measurements. First of all, the only "unemployed" that count in the statistics are those that are actively seeking jobs. Second, it counts part-time workers equivalently to full-time workers. It's one tool in the chest of economic measurement tools, but it is not a discussion-ender. It's fine for comparing from year-to-year, but not with the economy three decades ago.

Many measurements overstate the effectiveness of the economy when you're at war, in which case some of that employment is completely unproductive. Much of the GDP ends up in the fluff economy, the part that doesn't have much to do with well-being, including wars, inefficient health care businesses, absurd transportation schemes, etc.

I'd guess you'll see overall economic discomfort rise as more baby-boomers get closer to retirement.