At least they still actually have a country. I can make a good argument that the governments of America, England, Germany, Japan, and France can no longer make law that is binding on corporations- they've lost the basic control of any government, the right to legislate. The WTO pulls everybody down to the lowest common denominator- the lowest wages, the most dangerous worker protections, the worst pollution.
Because the modern Libertarian party is largely made up of people who parted ways with the Republicans when the Republicans abandoned the same ideals. Ron Paul did part with them as well, then came back in 94 hoping they were serious about getting back to small government. They weren't, but he's stayed anyway to continue to try to remind the party who they used to be. Is he somehow wrong for doing that? He hasn't compromised his votes or positions or anything.
I don't see "small government" as being a Republican Value as much as "fear of government". I just listened to Friday Night's NOW on the train coming into work this morning, and Michael Moore in his interview had an interesting quote from a French woman- she said the difference between France and America isn't just liberal vs conservative, but that in France, the government is afraid of the people, and in America the people are afraid of the government. If we had more politicians in the Republican Party like Ron Paul, we'd have more fear of the people instead of fear of government.
As for fund raising *ability*, he doesn't appear to lack that at all. He's managed to out-raise his opponents for his Congressional seat fairly often, and does so with many small private donations instead of a few large corporate ones. Whether that will scale for a national election remains to be seen. So far he's getting more money than anyone expected, and beyond that getting more popular support than even the money would predict.
Well, you see, that's the thing. I can't remember a single President in memory running entirely on small private donations. In fact, it's part of my cynicism that there is NOBODY for me to vote for because fiscally liberal social conservatives can't raise the money to get on the ballot.
That's just small potatoes, fit for the vodka. The real danger is that once the WTO is involved, Russia will get hooked on foreign goods- with so many shipping containers coming across the border that it becomes impossible to inspect even a small percentage of them- or even know where they've come from. Pakistan and Iran have brothers fighting for freedom in Chechnya- you do the math.
Once addicted to world markets and world business, even Putin will be corrupted. And then there will be nothing stopping Pakistan-trained terrorists from shipping arms to their Chechnya brothers in the faith. NOBODY can inspect that many cargo containers, and once you understand the tech used to inspect them, it's pretty damn easy to hide a well-balanced nuke in the center of a shipment of naturally radioactive rice.
In the chaos of a world caught in the destruction of Islamic Reformation, it's best if your country can, at a moment's notice, shut down borders, imports, and exports for an undefined period of time.
NO country in the WTO today can do this. International markets are like a drug- and once addicted, you can never leave.
I can't figure out why that guy is a Republican. He seems more like a classic libertarian to me. I also can't figure out how he got elected to the Senate to begin with- without corporate backers, nobody even gets on the ballot in my state.
I also really doubt that he can become President, he just doesn't have the fund raising ability, and let's face facts, money counts more than votes these days.
No- I don't like the Homeless or Illegal Aliens- but neither are rich enough to actually BE capitalists.
I can't imagine caring what someone who still adheres to Marxism after the body counts of the twentieth century has to say about anyone else's intelligence.
Once again, Marxism had nothing to do with those body counts- totalitarianism did. Marxism is an economic theory, not a governmental one. Only somebody stupid enough to parrot what they were taught instead of actually doing the research themselves would believe that.
It's true the President has that kind of power, but isn't he supposed to at least try to seem impartial and not at all corrupt?
You've apparently not been paying attention to the news for the last 7 years. Let me introduce you to 21st century American Politics- when the question isn't "is this politician corrupt?" but rather "who has purchased this politician?", because the assumption is EVERY politician is corrupt.
Every country that has joined the WTO so far has suffered a horrendous destruction of national sovereignty and a corresponding destruction of National Security. Is it really worth shutting down a music website just to destroy your own ability to control your own borders and trade?
Not at all- what is a capitalist? Somebody who owns a lot of capital, and uses it to create jobs and goods. Look at how the Communist Parties after Lenin were organized- the Party Chairman literally WAS the State, owned ALL the capital, and used that capital to produce jobs and goods as he choose. Both Mao and Stalin were in this mold- as was Carnegie with Steel, or Rockefeller with coal. If anything, they were MORE successful capitalists than any of our robber barons for they controlled 100% of the capital of their countries.
The whites of your eyes have turned brown.
Not if you're actually open to reason instead of just copying the labels of the past with no more intelligence than a parrot.
It's none of my business why you decided to do DSL LAN setups for $50 and not a different price. As a potential customer I have a right to know the price you want to charge, but not the considerations that made you decide on it.
Actually, you fully have that right for the asking. My base rate for home delivery jobs is $25/hr, and the average DSL LAN setup in this area takes me 2 hours. $25x2 is $50.
Similarly, as a potential buyer of Foo brand TV, I have the right to know that it costs $x at Wal*Mart, $x+50 at Target, and $x+200 at the mall. I do not have a right to know what made each vendor chose that price, so I do not have the right to know that Foo Inc. made them each sign a contract not to sell it for less than $x.
Actually, you have every right to that information. You're just so used to a market based on fraud instead of one based on honesty that you think you do not have that right.
Lie by omission is when somebody is expected to disclose something and doesn't.
I expect everybody I deal with to disclose anything relevant to my decision to buy, and in return I expect everybody who deals with me to have a right to know anything about my business decisions. It's called honesty in business, and I'm not at all surprised to find you're not familiar with it.
For example, when you buy food, you expect the packaging to have a warning if it contains peanuts because some people are allergic to them. If a package of peanuts does not have "may contain peanuts" on it, that's a lie by omission.
For this we agree- as is a package of Vegetable Booty that doesn't contain the words "May contain Salmonella", but I've yet to see one. Like I said, this form of fraud is rampant in our "free market", and it's become so common that we fail to understand when it happens.
Element of surprise helps in that situation as well- the bow has a distinct advantage over the gun if you know how to use it, as does the 7200 rpm BB thrower I built out of a fried hard disk drive for personal home protection. Not even modern bulletproof vests can stand a stream of 1000 BBs flying at 1500 fps.
Marxism holds that allowing small groups to accumulate massive power over others is bad -- if it's businessmen. Government would never abuse its power, because it comes from the will of the people, yadda yadda yadda.
Anarcho-capitalism holds that allowing small groups to accumulate massive power over others is bad -- if it's government. Businessmen would never abuse their power, because the magic of the market, yadda yadda yadda.
I'm more of a distributist- I hold that allowing small groups to hold power over other small groups is bad, and the smaller the unit of government, the more likely it is to be democratic. I don't mind the market if the market is local between local families. I don't mind the commune if the commune is based on the family. What I mind is the foreigner coming in and saying "You will buy this because I'm going to advertise it to your kids, whether you need it or not". Or worse yet, the government coming in and saying "You will raise food to be shipped 800 miles away to the ruling party and you won't have time to raise enough food to feed your own family". Both of these to me are the same fraud, the same lie- and it matters not if you call it communism or capitalism, it's imperialism and fascism at best.
With a bow and arrow, made of local tree branches and sinew, because, the metal mine is 8 towns over.
Works BETTER- because the metal clank/clank/clank of the crossbow being cocked is sure to give him a hint that you're after him. Where the nearly silent longbow shot, if you're a good shot, gives the element of surprise.
Libertarianism has always had the contradiction that private power would be unchecked and therefore will tend toward not only market power and monopoly, but the hijacking of government power as well. That is, a government that is too weak or indifferent to limit the concentration of private power will soon be the bitch of that power, and once that happens it won't remain small and unobtrusive for long. In fact, it's Mussolini's own definition of Fascism.
And of course, failing that with a sufficiently weak government, it's nothing once enough capital and resources are gathered to form a rebel government- taxes are always 100% profit if you just threaten and don't provide any services.
Fraud is when somebody lies to you. Fraud is not when somebody says; "You may buy this product from me, provided you agree not to sell it for less than $x". Just because you don't like something, doesn't make it dishonest.
I'm sorry, I fail to see how secret agreements to not sell a product for less than $x is not a lie by omission, and therefore fraud. Care to explain to the end consumer how such agreements are NOT fraud?
I'm just astounded at your utter dishonesty. Trying to claim that Mao and Stalin are capitalists is like a Christian trying to fob Torquemada off on the Buddhists.
The trick is to learn the difference between symbols and reality. The reality is, Mao and Stalin were as capitalist (and in fact, honest) as P.T. Barnum- and in fact, were in the same industry. Selling hope to the hopeless, and lying while doing it. Neither communism nor capitalism can exist for more than 500 people without fraud getting involved. And once fraud is involved, neither the commune nor the market can continue to be good. No dishonesty on my part- but a good deal of dishonesty on the part of those who consider large national markets or large national communes to be good.
Yet another case of fraud for profit- and I'm sure the libertarians are all for this particular deregulation. It's frauds like these that continue to validate my choice of being against any economic system larger than a small town- at least in the small town, if a product endangers your child, you've got the ability to track down the manufacturer and shoot him.
Hold on there, sport: how do you get from murdered Ukranians to Stalin not being a commie?
It's more HOW he murdered them. One of the basic (and I mean *VERY* basic, as in so basic it's in the very first form of communism the planet ever saw, Acts Chapters 4 & 5 in the Christian Bible) founding principles of communism is "To each according to his NEEDS". Last I saw, food was a basic human need. What Stalin did to cause the Ukrainian famine (confiscating the *entire* crop of Ukrainian farmers to feed the party members in the cities, leaving no food for the people who create food and thus in fact creating the very failure his next 3 five year plans were) is the opposite of communism- it is in fact capitalism (the Communist Party in the USSR owned the State, the State owned the farms and thus the means of production, and therefore the confiscation of all the food was just taking what the CP owned- just like any other corporation).
He robbed them, just as the rest of you pinkos want to rob everyone else who produces wealth, all for the "common good."
You need to re-read Acts 4:32. You, like Stalin, don't understand the foundations of communism.
Project much?
Quite a bit, but I'm a distributist at heart. In other words, I believe in the soveriegnity of the neighborhood and the right to protect local economies from large scale meddling (whether that's the international imperialism of the 20th century "communists" or the international imperialism of 19th century "free markets" means very little- both are immoral interferances in the lives of local people by foreigners who have *NO* concept of what is required to live in a given climate).
Capitalists aren't trying to dictate anything to anyone,
Then they should stick with small businesses and mom&pop shops, where it is possible to know what the customer NEEDS rather than WANTS.
they're trying to find out what customers want and offer it,
An impossible task for any more than 500 customers. Of course, on the flip side, it's also an impossible task for more than 500 citizen/comrades....
which is how you make money in a market economy.
Making money is the mortal sin of greed. What you should seek is to bring honor to your family, your lord, and your God.
Exactly. Gmail offers a gig, and plenty of third party applications store documents there. 500 megabytes explains why Bill Gates is a billionaire- as if anybody needed to be hit over the head with the fact he's a cheap penny pincher.
Ooh, good one! Defend your ideology by claiming that the mass murderers who epitomize it weren't really adherents!
Prove that they were. Find ONE Ukranian family that Stalin actually helped, instead of stealing all the food from. Just because you're stupid enough to fall for a con job doesn't mean I am.
Now beyond that, I'm much more of a distributist than a communist anyway- I saw nothing really wrong with guild economics and feudalism ruled by the One Mother Church; it's a hell of a lot more moral than "profit is the only value that counts" capitalism and atheistic communism.
You know, I usually try to lead pinkos into reductio ad absurdam, but you charge right into it without any prodding at all.
That's ok, capitalism starts with reductio ad absurdam, in the concept that those who have subscribed to the mortal sin of greed are capable of any moral decisions at all, let alone sufficient moral decisions to dictate the lives of millions of people.
BTW, since you're such a fan of innovation, got anything to say about Lysenko? How about the fact that innovation in every field besides weapons came to a screeching halt in the communist countries?
Now I'll really blow your mind- from my POV, Stalin was a capitalist. So was Mao. So were all the other totalitarians- communism (the economic system) and dictatorship (the governmental method) are not compatible. For that matter, democracy (the governmental system) and capitalism (the ecconomic system) aren't very compatible either- one needs the right to do harm to other people to be a capitalist. Fascism (the governmental system) is extremely compatible with capitalism. And you'd need *perfect knowledge* gathered by computers of *every* possible piece of data to make communism work properly; call it the governmental system of the borg, because that's the level of computer sensors that you'd need- monitoring the cellular level metabolism of everybody.
Stalin and Mao were capitalists because communism was just a red herring- their real purpose was to aggregate 98% of the capital in 2% of the population (party members), just as the stock market seeks to aggregate 98% of ownership in 25% of the population.
Socialism, which mixes democracy and communism, comes close- but fails because it doesn't have perfect information.
Capitalism's fatal flaw for me is coercion and fraud- without the buyer being a mind reader, Laisez Faire fails to a lack of knowledge on the part of the buyer, and thus is open to coercion and fraud.
I'm a software engineer- perhaps that's why software looks to be the answer for me. But you don't see Unix going through a depression due to a lack of disk space- which tells me software engineers are better at resource allocation than ecconomists.
I see you know as little about Buffet as you know about capital markets in general. He made his money buying and holding companies for many years, mostly buying them when they were out of favor with other investors.
Only if you consider laying everybody off "holding them for many years". But hey- live in your fantasy world where having your company publically traded is anything other than a death sentence for any real innovation, where every real cutting edge project gets canceled the day a company goes public. Just look at google- jumping on the dead bandwagon of thin client office products just to suit investors.
Slashdot Mirror
At least they still actually have a country. I can make a good argument that the governments of America, England, Germany, Japan, and France can no longer make law that is binding on corporations- they've lost the basic control of any government, the right to legislate. The WTO pulls everybody down to the lowest common denominator- the lowest wages, the most dangerous worker protections, the worst pollution.
Because the modern Libertarian party is largely made up of people who parted ways with the Republicans when the Republicans abandoned the same ideals. Ron Paul did part with them as well, then came back in 94 hoping they were serious about getting back to small government. They weren't, but he's stayed anyway to continue to try to remind the party who they used to be. Is he somehow wrong for doing that? He hasn't compromised his votes or positions or anything.
I don't see "small government" as being a Republican Value as much as "fear of government". I just listened to Friday Night's NOW on the train coming into work this morning, and Michael Moore in his interview had an interesting quote from a French woman- she said the difference between France and America isn't just liberal vs conservative, but that in France, the government is afraid of the people, and in America the people are afraid of the government. If we had more politicians in the Republican Party like Ron Paul, we'd have more fear of the people instead of fear of government.
As for fund raising *ability*, he doesn't appear to lack that at all. He's managed to out-raise his opponents for his Congressional seat fairly often, and does so with many small private donations instead of a few large corporate ones. Whether that will scale for a national election remains to be seen. So far he's getting more money than anyone expected, and beyond that getting more popular support than even the money would predict.
Well, you see, that's the thing. I can't remember a single President in memory running entirely on small private donations. In fact, it's part of my cynicism that there is NOBODY for me to vote for because fiscally liberal social conservatives can't raise the money to get on the ballot.
That's just small potatoes, fit for the vodka. The real danger is that once the WTO is involved, Russia will get hooked on foreign goods- with so many shipping containers coming across the border that it becomes impossible to inspect even a small percentage of them- or even know where they've come from. Pakistan and Iran have brothers fighting for freedom in Chechnya- you do the math.
Once addicted to world markets and world business, even Putin will be corrupted. And then there will be nothing stopping Pakistan-trained terrorists from shipping arms to their Chechnya brothers in the faith. NOBODY can inspect that many cargo containers, and once you understand the tech used to inspect them, it's pretty damn easy to hide a well-balanced nuke in the center of a shipment of naturally radioactive rice.
In the chaos of a world caught in the destruction of Islamic Reformation, it's best if your country can, at a moment's notice, shut down borders, imports, and exports for an undefined period of time.
NO country in the WTO today can do this. International markets are like a drug- and once addicted, you can never leave.
I can't figure out why that guy is a Republican. He seems more like a classic libertarian to me. I also can't figure out how he got elected to the Senate to begin with- without corporate backers, nobody even gets on the ballot in my state.
I also really doubt that he can become President, he just doesn't have the fund raising ability, and let's face facts, money counts more than votes these days.
AFAIK, the 21st century didn't extend past 2000....do you have a different definition of the 21st century than I do?
Anyone you don't like, apparently.
No- I don't like the Homeless or Illegal Aliens- but neither are rich enough to actually BE capitalists.
I can't imagine caring what someone who still adheres to Marxism after the body counts of the twentieth century has to say about anyone else's intelligence.
Once again, Marxism had nothing to do with those body counts- totalitarianism did. Marxism is an economic theory, not a governmental one. Only somebody stupid enough to parrot what they were taught instead of actually doing the research themselves would believe that.
It's true the President has that kind of power, but isn't he supposed to at least try to seem impartial and not at all corrupt?
You've apparently not been paying attention to the news for the last 7 years. Let me introduce you to 21st century American Politics- when the question isn't "is this politician corrupt?" but rather "who has purchased this politician?", because the assumption is EVERY politician is corrupt.
Every country that has joined the WTO so far has suffered a horrendous destruction of national sovereignty and a corresponding destruction of National Security. Is it really worth shutting down a music website just to destroy your own ability to control your own borders and trade?
That is what's known as a baldfaced lie.
Not at all- what is a capitalist? Somebody who owns a lot of capital, and uses it to create jobs and goods. Look at how the Communist Parties after Lenin were organized- the Party Chairman literally WAS the State, owned ALL the capital, and used that capital to produce jobs and goods as he choose. Both Mao and Stalin were in this mold- as was Carnegie with Steel, or Rockefeller with coal. If anything, they were MORE successful capitalists than any of our robber barons for they controlled 100% of the capital of their countries.
The whites of your eyes have turned brown.
Not if you're actually open to reason instead of just copying the labels of the past with no more intelligence than a parrot.
It's none of my business why you decided to do DSL LAN setups for $50 and not a different price. As a potential customer I have a right to know the price you want to charge, but not the considerations that made you decide on it.
Actually, you fully have that right for the asking. My base rate for home delivery jobs is $25/hr, and the average DSL LAN setup in this area takes me 2 hours. $25x2 is $50.
Similarly, as a potential buyer of Foo brand TV, I have the right to know that it costs $x at Wal*Mart, $x+50 at Target, and $x+200 at the mall. I do not have a right to know what made each vendor chose that price, so I do not have the right to know that Foo Inc. made them each sign a contract not to sell it for less than $x.
Actually, you have every right to that information. You're just so used to a market based on fraud instead of one based on honesty that you think you do not have that right.
Lie by omission is when somebody is expected to disclose something and doesn't.
I expect everybody I deal with to disclose anything relevant to my decision to buy, and in return I expect everybody who deals with me to have a right to know anything about my business decisions. It's called honesty in business, and I'm not at all surprised to find you're not familiar with it.
For example, when you buy food, you expect the packaging to have a warning if it contains peanuts because some people are allergic to them. If a package of peanuts does not have "may contain peanuts" on it, that's a lie by omission.
For this we agree- as is a package of Vegetable Booty that doesn't contain the words "May contain Salmonella", but I've yet to see one. Like I said, this form of fraud is rampant in our "free market", and it's become so common that we fail to understand when it happens.
Element of surprise helps in that situation as well- the bow has a distinct advantage over the gun if you know how to use it, as does the 7200 rpm BB thrower I built out of a fried hard disk drive for personal home protection. Not even modern bulletproof vests can stand a stream of 1000 BBs flying at 1500 fps.
Marxism holds that allowing small groups to accumulate massive power over others is bad -- if it's businessmen. Government would never abuse its power, because it comes from the will of the people, yadda yadda yadda.
Anarcho-capitalism holds that allowing small groups to accumulate massive power over others is bad -- if it's government. Businessmen would never abuse their power, because the magic of the market, yadda yadda yadda.
I'm more of a distributist- I hold that allowing small groups to hold power over other small groups is bad, and the smaller the unit of government, the more likely it is to be democratic. I don't mind the market if the market is local between local families. I don't mind the commune if the commune is based on the family. What I mind is the foreigner coming in and saying "You will buy this because I'm going to advertise it to your kids, whether you need it or not". Or worse yet, the government coming in and saying "You will raise food to be shipped 800 miles away to the ruling party and you won't have time to raise enough food to feed your own family". Both of these to me are the same fraud, the same lie- and it matters not if you call it communism or capitalism, it's imperialism and fascism at best.
With a bow and arrow, made of local tree branches and sinew, because, the metal mine is 8 towns over.
Works BETTER- because the metal clank/clank/clank of the crossbow being cocked is sure to give him a hint that you're after him. Where the nearly silent longbow shot, if you're a good shot, gives the element of surprise.
Libertarianism has always had the contradiction that private power would be unchecked and therefore will tend toward not only market power and monopoly, but the hijacking of government power as well. That is, a government that is too weak or indifferent to limit the concentration of private power will soon be the bitch of that power, and once that happens it won't remain small and unobtrusive for long. In fact, it's Mussolini's own definition of Fascism.
And of course, failing that with a sufficiently weak government, it's nothing once enough capital and resources are gathered to form a rebel government- taxes are always 100% profit if you just threaten and don't provide any services.
Fraud is when somebody lies to you. Fraud is not when somebody says; "You may buy this product from me, provided you agree not to sell it for less than $x". Just because you don't like something, doesn't make it dishonest.
I'm sorry, I fail to see how secret agreements to not sell a product for less than $x is not a lie by omission, and therefore fraud. Care to explain to the end consumer how such agreements are NOT fraud?
I'm just astounded at your utter dishonesty. Trying to claim that Mao and Stalin are capitalists is like a Christian trying to fob Torquemada off on the Buddhists.
The trick is to learn the difference between symbols and reality. The reality is, Mao and Stalin were as capitalist (and in fact, honest) as P.T. Barnum- and in fact, were in the same industry. Selling hope to the hopeless, and lying while doing it. Neither communism nor capitalism can exist for more than 500 people without fraud getting involved. And once fraud is involved, neither the commune nor the market can continue to be good. No dishonesty on my part- but a good deal of dishonesty on the part of those who consider large national markets or large national communes to be good.
Yet another case of fraud for profit- and I'm sure the libertarians are all for this particular deregulation. It's frauds like these that continue to validate my choice of being against any economic system larger than a small town- at least in the small town, if a product endangers your child, you've got the ability to track down the manufacturer and shoot him.
Hold on there, sport: how do you get from murdered Ukranians to Stalin not being a commie?
It's more HOW he murdered them. One of the basic (and I mean *VERY* basic, as in so basic it's in the very first form of communism the planet ever saw, Acts Chapters 4 & 5 in the Christian Bible) founding principles of communism is "To each according to his NEEDS". Last I saw, food was a basic human need. What Stalin did to cause the Ukrainian famine (confiscating the *entire* crop of Ukrainian farmers to feed the party members in the cities, leaving no food for the people who create food and thus in fact creating the very failure his next 3 five year plans were) is the opposite of communism- it is in fact capitalism (the Communist Party in the USSR owned the State, the State owned the farms and thus the means of production, and therefore the confiscation of all the food was just taking what the CP owned- just like any other corporation).
He robbed them, just as the rest of you pinkos want to rob everyone else who produces wealth, all for the "common good."
You need to re-read Acts 4:32. You, like Stalin, don't understand the foundations of communism.
Project much?
Quite a bit, but I'm a distributist at heart. In other words, I believe in the soveriegnity of the neighborhood and the right to protect local economies from large scale meddling (whether that's the international imperialism of the 20th century "communists" or the international imperialism of 19th century "free markets" means very little- both are immoral interferances in the lives of local people by foreigners who have *NO* concept of what is required to live in a given climate).
Capitalists aren't trying to dictate anything to anyone,
Then they should stick with small businesses and mom&pop shops, where it is possible to know what the customer NEEDS rather than WANTS.
they're trying to find out what customers want and offer it,
An impossible task for any more than 500 customers. Of course, on the flip side, it's also an impossible task for more than 500 citizen/comrades....
which is how you make money in a market economy.
Making money is the mortal sin of greed. What you should seek is to bring honor to your family, your lord, and your God.
Zune doesn't need to. But it sure would be nice if Windows Mobile did (Get your direct competitor products right).
Exactly. Gmail offers a gig, and plenty of third party applications store documents there. 500 megabytes explains why Bill Gates is a billionaire- as if anybody needed to be hit over the head with the fact he's a cheap penny pincher.
Ooh, good one! Defend your ideology by claiming that the mass murderers who epitomize it weren't really adherents!
Prove that they were. Find ONE Ukranian family that Stalin actually helped, instead of stealing all the food from. Just because you're stupid enough to fall for a con job doesn't mean I am.
Now beyond that, I'm much more of a distributist than a communist anyway- I saw nothing really wrong with guild economics and feudalism ruled by the One Mother Church; it's a hell of a lot more moral than "profit is the only value that counts" capitalism and atheistic communism.
You know, I usually try to lead pinkos into reductio ad absurdam, but you charge right into it without any prodding at all.
That's ok, capitalism starts with reductio ad absurdam, in the concept that those who have subscribed to the mortal sin of greed are capable of any moral decisions at all, let alone sufficient moral decisions to dictate the lives of millions of people.
BTW, since you're such a fan of innovation, got anything to say about Lysenko? How about the fact that innovation in every field besides weapons came to a screeching halt in the communist countries?
Now I'll really blow your mind- from my POV, Stalin was a capitalist. So was Mao. So were all the other totalitarians- communism (the economic system) and dictatorship (the governmental method) are not compatible. For that matter, democracy (the governmental system) and capitalism (the ecconomic system) aren't very compatible either- one needs the right to do harm to other people to be a capitalist. Fascism (the governmental system) is extremely compatible with capitalism. And you'd need *perfect knowledge* gathered by computers of *every* possible piece of data to make communism work properly; call it the governmental system of the borg, because that's the level of computer sensors that you'd need- monitoring the cellular level metabolism of everybody.
Stalin and Mao were capitalists because communism was just a red herring- their real purpose was to aggregate 98% of the capital in 2% of the population (party members), just as the stock market seeks to aggregate 98% of ownership in 25% of the population.
Socialism, which mixes democracy and communism, comes close- but fails because it doesn't have perfect information.
Capitalism's fatal flaw for me is coercion and fraud- without the buyer being a mind reader, Laisez Faire fails to a lack of knowledge on the part of the buyer, and thus is open to coercion and fraud.
I'm a software engineer- perhaps that's why software looks to be the answer for me. But you don't see Unix going through a depression due to a lack of disk space- which tells me software engineers are better at resource allocation than ecconomists.
I see you know as little about Buffet as you know about capital markets in general. He made his money buying and holding companies for many years, mostly buying them when they were out of favor with other investors.
Only if you consider laying everybody off "holding them for many years". But hey- live in your fantasy world where having your company publically traded is anything other than a death sentence for any real innovation, where every real cutting edge project gets canceled the day a company goes public. Just look at google- jumping on the dead bandwagon of thin client office products just to suit investors.