|
J Corp posted:What the gently caress are you talking about? The topic of privatization that the thread has been discussing for the last 3 pages you loving retard
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 00:45 |
|
|
Like, dude, this is the laugh at libertarians thread, not the PYF poorly sourced history thread. This is a dumb derail, but if anybody is interested in an actually well-researched book on Soviet industrialization, the seminal work on the subject is "Farm to Factory" by Robert C. Allen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
Saying Stalin got it right is dumber than any argument I've seen in this thread. Seriously, the Soviet Union in the late 20's and 30's is the shining example of government run industry you want to hold above your head? The libertarians almost look rational compared to that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:The free market is on the verge of causing a worldwide collapse of fish stocks, ergo we should nationalize fishing I don't know if that the case. But I also said the commons are something that should be subject to government regulation. They needn't nationalize it though
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
J Corp posted:Saying Stalin got it right is dumber than any argument I've seen in this thread. Seriously, the Soviet Union in the late 20's and 30's is the shining example of government run industry you want to hold above your head? What people are arguing against is the idea that government-run industry is incapable of efficiency by its very nature. The industrialization of the USSR was brought up as an example against that argument (along with the Levee en Masse, but that's less fun to talk about apparently), not as an example of a moral exemplar. You won't find many Stalinists in this thread. I'd say you won't find any Stalinists in this thread, but HorseLord visits sometimes. Cerebral Bore posted:This is a dumb derail, but if anybody is interested in an actually well-researched book on Soviet industrialization, the seminal work on the subject is "Farm to Factory" by Robert C. Allen. Another book to check out. This thread is the best when we get on derails that expand my reading list.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
J Corp posted:Saying Stalin got it right is dumber than any argument I've seen in this thread. Seriously, the Soviet Union in the late 20's and 30's is the shining example of government run industry you want to hold above your head? No one in this thread is arguing in favor of Stalinism It's apparent that you're kind of a retard so why don't you go back to GBS
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I don't know if that the case. But I also said the commons are something that should be subject to government regulation. They needn't nationalize it though Agreed. Mainstream libertarianism doesn't agree with our position, though
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
No he seems to be under the idea that bad people actually never accomplish anything and saying they do means you support said bad people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:What people are arguing against is the idea that government-run industry is incapable of efficiency by its very nature. The industrialization of the USSR was brought up as an example against that argument (along with the Levee en Masse, but that's less fun to talk about apparently), not as an example of a moral exemplar. Not only is the industrialization of the Soviet Union an awful example on a humanitarian level, the collective farming that was forced by the state in order to push forward with rapid industrialization resulted in much worse outputs, resulting in mass starvation. It's a prime example of government getting involved in an industry and completely loving it up. I wouldn't think there'd be many people in support of that, but there seem to be several in this thread that seem willing to ignore what actually happened in that time period.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:No one in this thread is arguing in favor of Stalinism Then don't act like a cry baby when someone says Stalin's policies are terrible examples of government run industry.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
Dude, your understanding of Soviet history in particular is on a junior high level, much like most other market fundamentalists ITT your arguments are refuted by all of recorded history, and finally you seem adamant to keep some dumb derail going that was started by your ability to not understand basic context in a discussion. Please stop, it's embarassing to watch.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
J Corp posted:Then don't act like a cry baby when someone says Stalin's policies are terrible examples of government run industry. But your wrong, like shockingly wrong
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Dude, your understanding of Soviet history in particular is on a junior high level, much like most other market fundamentalists ITT your arguments are refuted by all of recorded history, and finally you seem adamant to keep some dumb derail going that was started by your ability to not understand basic context in a discussion. Please stop, it's embarassing to watch. Your arguement is that the Soviets did a great job in their rapid industrialization and that they should be looked at as an example, since "many other countries" tried to do what they did and failed. Still waiting to hear from you which other countries tried to do what they did, they way they did it and didn't succeed. There are plenty of good examples in the last couple pages of government providing a service (USPS, NHS) and getting it right, why the gently caress are you defending the example that was a huge failure on a human rights level?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
J Corp posted:There are plenty of good examples in the last couple pages of government providing a service (USPS, NHS) and getting it right, why the gently caress are you defending the example that was a huge failure on a human rights level? Ravenfood fucked around with this message at 23:18 on Sep 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
J Corp posted:Your arguement is that the Soviets did a great job in their rapid industrialization and that they should be looked at as an example, since "many other countries" tried to do what they did and failed. No you buffoon, my argument is that the historical fact that the USSR went from an agrarian economy to an industrial superpower in thirty years disproves the argument that their industrial policies in particular or planned economics in general cannot be economically efficient. This ought to be obvious from things like "context" and "reading the thread", but then again I'm talking to someone who literally thinks that industrialization is just a matter of wanting it really much and killing a lot of people in the process. J Corp posted:Still waiting to hear from you which other countries tried to do what they did, they way they did it and didn't succeed. Why should I bother answering this question when you clearly don't even know what the USSR actually did? Do you think that your halfbaked gotcha attempt isn't glaringly obvious? EDIT: I mean, it's not like you're after a honest discussion here mate, and you ain't fooling nobody if you're pretending you are. Cerebral Bore fucked around with this message at 23:20 on Sep 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
The US economy was built on actual slavery and genocide yet strangely that doesn't get brought up when people try to explain how the US is an examplar of successful capitalism
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:Given that the criticism of government-run programs is that they're inefficient, not more moral, it seems like a pointless statement to say that the Soviets failed on a human rights level. The collectivization of farms ended up being much less efficient. Grain output was higher before the government got involved. And also, I think having to intentionally starve a ton of people to meet your goal should probably factor in to how good the government is at doing something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
You are really all over the place.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:What people are arguing against is the idea that government-run industry is incapable of efficiency by its very nature. The industrialization of the USSR was brought up as an example against that argument (along with the Levee en Masse, but that's less fun to talk about apparently), I think it's probably that it's more remote. Along the same lines we could talk about the US wartime economy, which is a baller move because a common argument (from what I've seen) that the New Deal was bad and therefore government bad is that the New Deal did not end the Great Depression, WW2 did. So, the closest the US has come to a centrally planned economy, then.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
A counter to the mass-starvation and gulags, then: Japan actually did rapidly industrialize entirely due to smart government policies. So, the way I've heard it explained (source: a thing I read somewhere once), is that industrialization is expensive and risky—if you don't already have a bunch of factories and robust infrastructure, building those things from scratch when you don't already have the very expertise and resources necessary to make them in the first place is really loving hard. Who's willing to dump a bunch of money on risky endeavors? People with a shitload of money and not much else to do with it. Thus, the issue of industrialization is often who's paying. In the US, slavery was so incredibly profitable that it enabled America to industrialize. Britain had colonialism, with the direct extraction of resources from other nations creating a vast pool of wealth that could pay for industrialization. Japan didn't really have either of those things when it started industrializing, so the government directly financed the creation of expensive infrastructure and factories. I await  corrections.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:No you buffoon, my argument is that the historical fact that the USSR went from an agrarian economy to an industrial superpower in thirty years disproves the argument that their industrial policies in particular or planned economics in general cannot be economically efficient. This ought to be obvious from things like "context" and "reading the thread", but then again I'm talking to someone who literally thinks that industrialization is just a matter of wanting it really much and killing a lot of people in the process. So what's the point? Are you going to argue that anyone should follow that example? Because arguing for a planned economy while pointing to the Soviet Union during their industrialization and saying "See! It's possible!" Without acknowledging their "by any means necessary" methodology is laughable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
I can't believe you support fascism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
J Corp posted:So what's the point? Are you going to argue that anyone should follow that example? Because arguing for a planned economy while pointing to the Soviet Union during their industrialization and saying "See! It's possible!" Without acknowledging their "by any means necessary" methodology is laughable. I think we have established that you don't know jack poo poo about the actual methodology employed by the USSR and especially not what parts of the metodology succeeded and what parts failed since you think that what you describe as "by any means necessary" indeed was a necessary or even helpful part of the methodology. There's a lot of good books on the subject. I even referenced one a bit earlier. So please do us all a favour and educate yourself before sharing any more hot takes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:I think we have established that you don't know jack poo poo about the actual methodology employed by the USSR and especially not what parts of the metodology succeeded and what parts failed since you think that what you describe as "by any means necessary" indeed was a necessary or even helpful part of the methodology. There's a lot of good books on the subject. I even referenced one a bit earlier. So please do us all a favour and educate yourself before sharing any more hot takes. Ok, I'll go figure out how right you are on my own since you dont feel like explaining why an planned economy is a worthwhile pursuit when the historical example you gave wasn't really all that efficent and resulted in tons of people dying.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
Wait so which is it? You keep using efficient but pearl clutching and inefficient and pearl clutching interchangeably.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
Also if killing people makes it inefficient then woo boy I got some bad news about the free market.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
J Corp posted:Ok, I'll go figure out how right you are on my own since you dont feel like explaining why an planned economy is a worthwhile pursuit when the historical example you gave wasn't really all that efficent and resulted in tons of people dying. After four attempts at clarification that you never deserved, you still haven't actually caught up to the original point and are causing an excruciating derail as you post more and more irrelevant poo poo. I suggest calming down a bit and reassessing that discussion everyone else is having that you are not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:Another book to check out. This thread is the best when we get on derails that expand my reading list. A good companion piece that touches on Soviet industrialization, but focuses more on science and tech development during the Stalinist period, is Loren Graham's The Ghost of the Executed Engineer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:How long until no2 suggests privatizing emergency services? That's happened in parts of America and it turns out that it's an unbelievably awful idea. Ambulance services are all privatized in America afaik and the ride in the ambulance is exorbitant because some people can't pay, though now it's getting more balanced because of the individual mandate. It seems strange to me that it's privatized as it has the same basic dispatch and response model and natural monopoly as police or fire departments. Ormi posted:You are a liberal. Literally every stance you have is one that fits perfectly inside the bounds of modern centrist liberalism. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:Ambulance services are all privatized in America afaik and the ride in the ambulance is exorbitant because some people can't pay, though now it's getting more balanced because of the individual mandate. It seems strange to me that it's privatized as it has the same basic dispatch and response model and natural monopoly as police or fire departments. Yeah, NO2 I identify as progressive and a bunch of these ideas work for me. So its possible we found "compromise" but I didn't move at all from my original positions and I am not sure you did...
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Despite the name, nonprofits can, and usually do make a profit. It's called a net income surplus and the difference is it must be reinvested in the company and not distributed to shareholders. It can also be distributed back the the non profit's employees. Which is as baller as it sounds for the employees.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:Ambulance services are all privatized in America afaik and the ride in the ambulance is exorbitant because some people can't pay, though now it's getting more balanced because of the individual mandate. It seems strange to me that it's privatized as it has the same basic dispatch and response model and natural monopoly as police or fire departments. Ambulance services also do a lot of other stuff, like transports between facilities. In fact for many of them that's their primary funding. A lot of places still maintain separate paramedics linked to the Fire Department, though, who are state funded emergency medicine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 03:33
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:Ambulance services are all privatized in America afaik and the ride in the ambulance is exorbitant because some people can't pay, though now it's getting more balanced because of the individual mandate. It seems strange to me that it's privatized as it has the same basic dispatch and response model and natural monopoly as police or fire departments.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 05:06
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:There's another example of profits confounding good service that I don't have all the details on but I wonder if someone (probs someone in the UK) can help me out with. London has Transport for London that runs the buses and underground (i.e.: subway) trains. It's government run and very unionised. It's pricy, but it's the best public transport in Britain... ...because we sold off all the rest to the likes of First and Virgin, who promptly did exactly what you described above. Except they're not 'technically' making a profit and still get billions in public funding every year. Meanwhile ticket prices are rising twice as fast as the average person's income (rail commuters report that roughly a 10th of their pay is spent on getting to and from work), services continue to be slashed to the point of non-existence for some semi-rural areas (haha gently caress you if you live in a rural area, no buses for you!) but the CEOs are mysteriously earning record-high salaries, courtesy of the taxpayer. The free market is so efficient and I want to marry it. Quote-Unquote fucked around with this message at 13:15 on Sep 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 13:13
|
|
|
J Corp posted:So what's the point? Are you going to argue that anyone should follow that example? Because arguing for a planned economy while pointing to the Soviet Union during their industrialization and saying "See! It's possible!" Without acknowledging their "by any means necessary" methodology is laughable. Perhaps it is possible to have a planned economy without considering human life to be an expendable resource? Like, there isn't anything inherent to central planning that requires that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 13:42
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Are you unable to comprehend context or something? I don't have an overview but 2 things that I know contributed: 1. The USSR rolled out an education program that improved literacy at an incredible rate. The literacy rate went from rock bottom in Europe to 99% in something like 20 years, and is one of the most impressive feats of the communist era. Obviously in terms of industrialization literate and educated workers are much easier to train and transition into industrial jobs (see what happened in the Great Leap Forward for when you don't do this). 2. Due to the Great Depression the 30's were a tough time for industrial architects in the USA, so the USSR hired them to come over and build top quality factories all over the Soviet Union. Albert Khan's company (considered the best industrial architects of the era) builds hundreds of factories in the USSR in this period, a fact which came in extremely handy come the invasion in 1941.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
What I've learned from a week of debates is that nonlibertarian policies require at least two decades of the most careful scientific experimentation possible, because we can't trust theory. But Libertarian policies like defund all drug research, privatize public services etc, we can just shoot from the hip on those without any evidence at all because in theory the market is always better. To be fair, this is about 1,000,000% more reasonable than praxeology because at least we're acknowledging that bulletproof evidence can sometimes disprove small isolated parts of libertarianism which is a more scientific position than dismissing all contradictory evidence as lies. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 03:12 on Sep 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 03:09
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Zt7bl5Z_oA
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 07:34
|
|
|
wow that guy really believes he's in a war against black people the face of terror Stinky_Pete fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Sep 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 00:45 |
|
|
I never quite got what people meant when they say "their eyes are too close together" until that image.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 16:30
|
|