America does equal the United States, at least in American English, British English (read the current issue of the economist if you are in doubt), French and German. Alas, those are the only languages with which I am familiar, but I suspect that Spanish is in the minority on this one.
I don't blame them for getting a little bent out of shape, but get a life.
Actually, that's not accurate. According to the 1990 US census, there are actually more people of German descent that of English descent. Even if we add the Scotch-Irish category in, England is still several million behind Germany.
Sigh, it's baffoons like this one that made me glad the US separated from the UK in the first place.
--Bob
In a perfect world, communism is NOT the perfect system. Communism and capitalism are two ways to allocate scarce resources that have alternative uses (and all resources are scarce).
Communism typically allocates resources based on central planning. Everything is state owned, so communists build factories as needed and then central planners mandate a certain number of widgets produced each month. The problem with this is, the central planners receive imperfect feedback on how many widgets are actually needed.
Remember, as we all know from Econ 101, typically, as prices change, demand changes as well. Price goes down, demand goes up. There's no such thing as a natural consumption rate, just an equilibrium price based on a certain supply.
Communism also mandates a price for the product, however. Because they are controlling the price and the supply, and because they have imperfect information, there will likely be shortages for that product.
This is why, in the former Soviet Union, which has some of the richest soil in the world (during WWII, Hitler even planned on trucking back Soviet soil after he conquered it), people were starving. It wasn't because of corruption or greed, it was because the central planners in Moscow didn't understand as well as the local farmers the local soil conditions as well as the local farmers--and thus mandated crops and yields that didn't utilize the land as efficiently as the local farmers could.
Because capitalism puts the burden of resource determination on the local producer, resources are efficiently allocated. The local producer is guided by prices (which are an indicator of the relative value that consumers place on certain products) what his land/factory/whatever can produce (should I grow beans or peas?), and how much it costs to produce each.
This is much more efficient, because he and millions of other people are making things that consumers deem valuable, and because they are competing with each other, they gradually become more efficient with their resources. I can go into more detail, but I'd recommend Sowell's Basic Economics for anyone who is confused about those points.
Further, and this is more in response to other people claiming that the US is socialist--this is partially true. But remember than even in free market economics, there are things we cannot trust the market to produce. The classic example is defence. It makes sense for the government to tax and to provide for the defense of the country. If everyone paid for what they felt was appropriate, our system would be uncoordinated and vulnerable. Other examples are education, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't blame them for getting a little bent out of shape, but get a life.
Sigh, it's baffoons like this one that made me glad the US separated from the UK in the first place. --Bob
In a perfect world, communism is NOT the perfect system. Communism and capitalism are two ways to allocate scarce resources that have alternative uses (and all resources are scarce). Communism typically allocates resources based on central planning. Everything is state owned, so communists build factories as needed and then central planners mandate a certain number of widgets produced each month. The problem with this is, the central planners receive imperfect feedback on how many widgets are actually needed. Remember, as we all know from Econ 101, typically, as prices change, demand changes as well. Price goes down, demand goes up. There's no such thing as a natural consumption rate, just an equilibrium price based on a certain supply. Communism also mandates a price for the product, however. Because they are controlling the price and the supply, and because they have imperfect information, there will likely be shortages for that product. This is why, in the former Soviet Union, which has some of the richest soil in the world (during WWII, Hitler even planned on trucking back Soviet soil after he conquered it), people were starving. It wasn't because of corruption or greed, it was because the central planners in Moscow didn't understand as well as the local farmers the local soil conditions as well as the local farmers--and thus mandated crops and yields that didn't utilize the land as efficiently as the local farmers could. Because capitalism puts the burden of resource determination on the local producer, resources are efficiently allocated. The local producer is guided by prices (which are an indicator of the relative value that consumers place on certain products) what his land/factory/whatever can produce (should I grow beans or peas?), and how much it costs to produce each. This is much more efficient, because he and millions of other people are making things that consumers deem valuable, and because they are competing with each other, they gradually become more efficient with their resources. I can go into more detail, but I'd recommend Sowell's Basic Economics for anyone who is confused about those points. Further, and this is more in response to other people claiming that the US is socialist--this is partially true. But remember than even in free market economics, there are things we cannot trust the market to produce. The classic example is defence. It makes sense for the government to tax and to provide for the defense of the country. If everyone paid for what they felt was appropriate, our system would be uncoordinated and vulnerable. Other examples are education, etc.