It is inevitable for government and government agencies in capitalist systems to eventually give priority to 'preferred' citizens ; corporations. Profits over people. The irony is that, in capitalist systems, those preferred citizens always pay less and less taxes increasingly.
A socialist country doesn't need to regulate such things because it doesn't allow for private property in the first place.
Assuming we have a definition mismatch here, can you give a specific example of such regulation that coincides?
wrong. a socialist country has innumerable regulations rules and laws governing the proceedings of state owned properties, services, and any kind of department. these are constantly revised and updated.
examples are a plenty. suffice it to say that an american company would be yelling 'fucking communists are stifling us', had they been in the environment in scandinavia. even before their own regulations, Eu's all regulations apply, and these are themselves more than 'red' enough for american companies.
You'll need to quote some hard numbers for that. Yes, Scandinavian countries have Gini coefficient of ~1/4, which is pretty damn low, but it doesn't mean that CEOs earn "the salary of the garbage collector".
That doesn't make sense at all.
As far as ownership goes - if I can destroy the thing (e.g. close the factory), or sell it, then I own it.
As far as money goes - yes, the taxes are high, but they are not 100% or even 90%. So the factory owner can perfectly well take the money that remains after taxes and pockets it. According to "textbook socialism", it's money produced by labor that is not his, and therefore money that he is not entitled to. Ergo, it is not "textbook socialism".
it doesnt mean if you can destroy something, you actually own it. it means only that you have been given the authority to close, or open it. just like a department minister in a communist country. moreover, it is rather a long shot to say that you could be that easily allowed to shut down an entire company, causing so many workers to go unemployed, and moreover, pocket the money, in a scandinavian country, leave aside a european country, without government inquiring into the matter and as to your intentions. of course, this is if you are sizeable enough. small businesses are generally smiled upon.
(by the way, it is also why running a private enterprise with hired workers was a crime in USSR - it was deemed "exploitation")
yet, you could do some business on your own, do small things and exchange money in ussr, and buy things with it. in sweden, you can own a company, but if you attempt to take the profits government takes most of them. you are only allowed the ministership of the company, in a sense. not so much different than ussr already.
From your description, it still boils down to the same: governments in countries you call "socialist" permit free enterprise, but use economic measures (taxes etc) to try to steer it towards more social responsibility - but that works out on global scale, and not necessarily for every individual company. To prevent egregious free market abuses, then, some laws are introduced which provide a hard limit for everyone - but they don't even come close to the strictness of a true socialist system.
you have to read up on some eu regulations (leave aside any particular regulations of scandinavian countries) and then make that st
yes, they do allow you to buy a factory. but they regulate you no differently than a socialist country with no property would, and enforce strict standards for everything. but what is more importantly, they have so big income tax that, the salary of a ceo approximates the salary of the garbage collector. on the other hand, corporate tax is very low.
so, basically, these countries make it so that 'private' sector, people working with their own initiative, function like semi-independent government branches with their own budget. because the income taxes are so high, no corporate owner can be said to actually own a company, at least in the name. they have to keep the money at the corporation. so, the only thing they can do with it, is invest. which is in stark contrast with usa, because the incentives for taxes result in less investments in the capitalist system that so totes investment. the high income taxes in turn, finance the exceedingly brilliant standards and education and security net for citizens, which then in turn end up being exceedingly productive citizens. totally opposite of what american system forces people to become.
it is almost textbook socialism. but, it looks like its 'free market'.
yes, they were socialist officially, because, communism was not directly accessible, and they were working towards that end. most of the evils capitalists tie to the socialism ended up from that 'working towards that end'. NOT socialism itself.
modern western welfare state isnt regulated capitalism. anglosaxon states are. scandinavian states have been quite socialist as it goes in the last 60 years.
it saves me a lot of time. substance is more important than form. if you are so attached to capital letters, then do not read. its as simple as that. ideas matter.
excuse me, but im a web developer, and i dont give two shits about the Web 2.0. actually, is there even such a thing anymore ? was there ever one ?
'net generation' does not mean that everyone would become a technophile. net generation meant that these generations would grow up with the effect of internet and the culture it brings on their lives. and voila - it did. billions around the world have much more in common with each other, than they do with their parents. games, instant messengers, forums, social networking sites, they grew up practically together.
i saw it, and i saw another shitty make-believe argument. socialism is not the one lying on the other side of spectrum. totalitarian communism is. as long as people talk without knowing what they are talking about like you, we will never get to the balance point. you should learn first, before shooting broad assumptions. i wasted some time again, but, as a courtesy.
socialism is not preferable ? and why is that ? because the COMMUNIST totalitarian statets, namely ussr and china and vietnam, have created totalitarian states ?
after being totalitarian, repressive states, cultures for their ENTIRE history since antiquity ?
and now, despite now 'free market' and democracy arrived, STILL being totally totalitarian, repressive ?
excuse me, but you dont know enough about history. systems do not make countries and societies. their CULTURE does. anything that goes to some regions becomes repressive, anything that goes to others, is milded down to freedom. just like how serfdom came to scandinavia, and scandinavians still remained free.
you should search 'social democracy' in google, and read.
without capitalism, corruption goes away in a TRANSPARENT society. corruption comes back, as soon as you create 'state secret' concept. corruption is always present in capitalism, through indispensable 'trade secret' concept.
aaaah. if you dont enforce the ownership, capitalist system does not exist.
i cant believe there are still idiots like you who believe that a 'truly free' market exists.
it is anarchy. anarchy cant exist.in an anarchy, the first group to rise into prominence subdues others. because, in a 'truly free' market, there is nothing to enforce otherwise.
basically, freedom cant happen without being enforced. period.
you have rinsed and repeated a shitty, old, make-believe self-fooling belief again, and you have been replied exceedingly well by another poster. i will just quote it here:
There's a difference; Unfortunately there's substantial empirical support for the theory that free markets "breed" companies of increasing size which at some point gain enough power to change the rules in their favor, leading to the kind of monopoly support systems we have today (copyright, patents, bureaucratic requirements). Limiting the market power of a single company is seen as communist, anti-market behavior, yet it is the only way a healthy market can survive without creating the negative consequences and ultimately degenerating into a corporate dictatorship.
it is as simple as this : it is social dynamics. if society itself does not collectively agree on and establish order and therefore limit the freedoms of each and all so that they wont infringe on others' freedoms, elements within society rise to power and establish order in that fashion. society doesnt like chaos. it ends up in order. whether the order is going to be one that is collectively decided, or, one that will be decided by minorities, is the choice.
im repeating this over and over whenever similar nonsense comes up. there is no evading capitalism come to this point. from property rights, to ownership of ideas, to ownership of genes, and then to ownership of entire species. if you 'let businesses be', this happens.
this, has to be the point where the sane realizes that this does not work.
it tells me it is updating, BEFORE me knowing that it is updating. so, update will happen, and i will know when its happening, and only then will realize that i should seek a way to disable it and make it manual...
how could i think of a reason to search it up, if i didnt know that it was updating itself behind my back ? had i not read this article, would i know ?
as simple as that. i wont upgrade to 4, as long as my software gets updated behind my back. i dont care about the reasons, i dont care about the rationalizations, i dont give a damn about anything else. it is MY computer, MY browser.
excuse me but isnt what's above in parent, the VERY thing that this news piece is about ? how more a fanboi can one be to mod the article itself down in this indirect fashion ?
they ARE stealing other people's work. it is as simple as that. deal with it.
i stick it on capitalism. because the same pattern repeated EVERYwhere. in every aspect of life. not only gaming. from the oil rig disaster in mexico gulf to lead in baby food, we have decades worth of degradation of life.
Slashdot Mirror
now they are trying to get a patent for what i, MYSELF are going to do.
how many examples of stupidity and greed you need to realize allowing patenting IDEAS is allowing patenting THOUGHT ?
It is inevitable for government and government agencies in capitalist systems to eventually give priority to 'preferred' citizens ; corporations. Profits over people. The irony is that, in capitalist systems, those preferred citizens always pay less and less taxes increasingly.
you moron ? maybe you havent realized that emails come from actual people.
A socialist country doesn't need to regulate such things because it doesn't allow for private property in the first place. Assuming we have a definition mismatch here, can you give a specific example of such regulation that coincides?
wrong. a socialist country has innumerable regulations rules and laws governing the proceedings of state owned properties, services, and any kind of department. these are constantly revised and updated.
examples are a plenty. suffice it to say that an american company would be yelling 'fucking communists are stifling us', had they been in the environment in scandinavia. even before their own regulations, Eu's all regulations apply, and these are themselves more than 'red' enough for american companies.
You'll need to quote some hard numbers for that. Yes, Scandinavian countries have Gini coefficient of ~1/4, which is pretty damn low, but it doesn't mean that CEOs earn "the salary of the garbage collector".
you get the point sufficiently enough.
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:WLI5-_s4vhMJ:www.roggeweck.net/uploads/media/sweden.pdf+swedish+managers+earn+as+workers&hl=en&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiLmwysSkgBRT-F4JvsoQKVqPPzHkPOqLScp5bO-e2EcS3MDwRB7t3HEhUbAoIfQKbosKGinXDN-3W76FIxsOm1_7qIUz9jQyQPpfGAMZGK_g3K3O52aMHUHBOONEYxKJFhxiAK&sig=AHIEtbTJ4wAG9OutMkFlQVFAO3ygLledGA
That doesn't make sense at all. As far as ownership goes - if I can destroy the thing (e.g. close the factory), or sell it, then I own it. As far as money goes - yes, the taxes are high, but they are not 100% or even 90%. So the factory owner can perfectly well take the money that remains after taxes and pockets it. According to "textbook socialism", it's money produced by labor that is not his, and therefore money that he is not entitled to. Ergo, it is not "textbook socialism".
it doesnt mean if you can destroy something, you actually own it. it means only that you have been given the authority to close, or open it. just like a department minister in a communist country. moreover, it is rather a long shot to say that you could be that easily allowed to shut down an entire company, causing so many workers to go unemployed, and moreover, pocket the money, in a scandinavian country, leave aside a european country, without government inquiring into the matter and as to your intentions. of course, this is if you are sizeable enough. small businesses are generally smiled upon.
(by the way, it is also why running a private enterprise with hired workers was a crime in USSR - it was deemed "exploitation")
yet, you could do some business on your own, do small things and exchange money in ussr, and buy things with it. in sweden, you can own a company, but if you attempt to take the profits government takes most of them. you are only allowed the ministership of the company, in a sense. not so much different than ussr already.
From your description, it still boils down to the same: governments in countries you call "socialist" permit free enterprise, but use economic measures (taxes etc) to try to steer it towards more social responsibility - but that works out on global scale, and not necessarily for every individual company. To prevent egregious free market abuses, then, some laws are introduced which provide a hard limit for everyone - but they don't even come close to the strictness of a true socialist system.
you have to read up on some eu regulations (leave aside any particular regulations of scandinavian countries) and then make that st
yes, they do allow you to buy a factory. but they regulate you no differently than a socialist country with no property would, and enforce strict standards for everything. but what is more importantly, they have so big income tax that, the salary of a ceo approximates the salary of the garbage collector. on the other hand, corporate tax is very low.
so, basically, these countries make it so that 'private' sector, people working with their own initiative, function like semi-independent government branches with their own budget. because the income taxes are so high, no corporate owner can be said to actually own a company, at least in the name. they have to keep the money at the corporation. so, the only thing they can do with it, is invest. which is in stark contrast with usa, because the incentives for taxes result in less investments in the capitalist system that so totes investment. the high income taxes in turn, finance the exceedingly brilliant standards and education and security net for citizens, which then in turn end up being exceedingly productive citizens. totally opposite of what american system forces people to become.
it is almost textbook socialism. but, it looks like its 'free market'.
they do : online games.
yes, they were socialist officially, because, communism was not directly accessible, and they were working towards that end. most of the evils capitalists tie to the socialism ended up from that 'working towards that end'. NOT socialism itself.
modern western welfare state isnt regulated capitalism. anglosaxon states are. scandinavian states have been quite socialist as it goes in the last 60 years.
it saves me a lot of time. substance is more important than form. if you are so attached to capital letters, then do not read. its as simple as that. ideas matter.
excuse me, but im a web developer, and i dont give two shits about the Web 2.0. actually, is there even such a thing anymore ? was there ever one ?
'net generation' does not mean that everyone would become a technophile. net generation meant that these generations would grow up with the effect of internet and the culture it brings on their lives. and voila - it did. billions around the world have much more in common with each other, than they do with their parents. games, instant messengers, forums, social networking sites, they grew up practically together.
that's what net generation means.
i saw it, and i saw another shitty make-believe argument. socialism is not the one lying on the other side of spectrum. totalitarian communism is. as long as people talk without knowing what they are talking about like you, we will never get to the balance point. you should learn first, before shooting broad assumptions. i wasted some time again, but, as a courtesy.
socialism is not preferable ? and why is that ? because the COMMUNIST totalitarian statets, namely ussr and china and vietnam, have created totalitarian states ?
after being totalitarian, repressive states, cultures for their ENTIRE history since antiquity ?
and now, despite now 'free market' and democracy arrived, STILL being totally totalitarian, repressive ?
excuse me, but you dont know enough about history. systems do not make countries and societies. their CULTURE does. anything that goes to some regions becomes repressive, anything that goes to others, is milded down to freedom. just like how serfdom came to scandinavia, and scandinavians still remained free.
you should search 'social democracy' in google, and read.
without capitalism, corruption goes away in a TRANSPARENT society. corruption comes back, as soon as you create 'state secret' concept. corruption is always present in capitalism, through indispensable 'trade secret' concept.
aaaah. if you dont enforce the ownership, capitalist system does not exist.
i cant believe there are still idiots like you who believe that a 'truly free' market exists.
it is anarchy. anarchy cant exist.in an anarchy, the first group to rise into prominence subdues others. because, in a 'truly free' market, there is nothing to enforce otherwise.
basically, freedom cant happen without being enforced. period.
it was moderated insightful because of the commentitaroe curiata commissarium et curia.
There's a difference; Unfortunately there's substantial empirical support for the theory that free markets "breed" companies of increasing size which at some point gain enough power to change the rules in their favor, leading to the kind of monopoly support systems we have today (copyright, patents, bureaucratic requirements). Limiting the market power of a single company is seen as communist, anti-market behavior, yet it is the only way a healthy market can survive without creating the negative consequences and ultimately degenerating into a corporate dictatorship.
it is as simple as this : it is social dynamics. if society itself does not collectively agree on and establish order and therefore limit the freedoms of each and all so that they wont infringe on others' freedoms, elements within society rise to power and establish order in that fashion. society doesnt like chaos. it ends up in order. whether the order is going to be one that is collectively decided, or, one that will be decided by minorities, is the choice.
im repeating this over and over whenever similar nonsense comes up. there is no evading capitalism come to this point. from property rights, to ownership of ideas, to ownership of genes, and then to ownership of entire species. if you 'let businesses be', this happens.
this, has to be the point where the sane realizes that this does not work.
it tells me it is updating, BEFORE me knowing that it is updating. so, update will happen, and i will know when its happening, and only then will realize that i should seek a way to disable it and make it manual ...
how could i think of a reason to search it up, if i didnt know that it was updating itself behind my back ? had i not read this article, would i know ?
if there wasnt such an article, would i know that there were silent updates, and, i could turn them off ?
as simple as that. i wont upgrade to 4, as long as my software gets updated behind my back. i dont care about the reasons, i dont care about the rationalizations, i dont give a damn about anything else. it is MY computer, MY browser.
you got a quite different character as pm, luckily. just tally up the acts he and his govt. did up till this point and notice the trend.
i want anonymity as much as possible. i dont give a flying fuck about governments' demands. they will heed our demands. not us theirs.
excuse me but isnt what's above in parent, the VERY thing that this news piece is about ? how more a fanboi can one be to mod the article itself down in this indirect fashion ?
they ARE stealing other people's work. it is as simple as that. deal with it.
i stick it on capitalism. because the same pattern repeated EVERYwhere. in every aspect of life. not only gaming. from the oil rig disaster in mexico gulf to lead in baby food, we have decades worth of degradation of life.
MOD PARENT UP. i posted in this discussion. not like there's much 'discussion' in this topic tho.