|
Geriatric Pirate posted:http://chrisauld.com/2013/10/23/18-signs-youre-reading-bad-criticism-of-economics/ quote:Just FYI before you throw some blog post back at me 
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 14:17 |
|
|
Fly, göm dig, slå larm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC_NI5w2hB4 I feel much safer now. I know the advice is generally sound, but it feels like they are stopping short of saying don't go to public places.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
Rotacixe posted:Fly, göm dig, slå larm That's ok, there's a reason we have this thing called kalsarikännit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Firstly, who cares who owns a company? Uh, I do? Most people do, in practice at the least? I mean consumer awareness has been kind of a big theme since at least when I was born... Geriatric Pirate posted:This dumb ARE NATIONAL ASSTS thing is dumb, I want the best possible service for a good price and I don't care where the profits go. That is good for you, but us non-sociopaths generally value things like morals, ethics, the future and well-being of the nation we live in and the world in general and so on. Geriatric Pirate posted:Secondly, looking at just the companies that performed well after privatization is so retardedly misleading. It's not if the revenue from them is so large for the buyer that they could cover every potential loss if the government had kept them and then some. Geriatric Pirate posted:Sometimes companies get misvalued. But it goes both ways and sometimes investors lose. Yeah, well in the case of the companies that the government has given up, the investors have seemed to win far more then they have lost. Geriatric Pirate posted:Look at the list below, how many of those companies do you still recognize? A company name change/merger/cannibalization of assets doesn't actually erase said assets or the revenue they give. Geriatric Pirate posted:You could also look at Finnair, which has improved prices and operated pretty much at a loss since its IPO. The government owns a controlling interest in Finnair still so it does not really work as an example. Personally I don't really put profit as the main motivation of a national air carrier, I'm more comforted by the fact that it is the third safest in the world. Geriatric Pirate posted:Or Sonera, where the government first sold its shares in 1998 at the height of the tech bubble. Uh, you mean back when it still kept like 80% of the shares? I don't think anyone being critical here has a problem with privatization as long as the government still maintains control. If not, sooner or later we usually get poo poo like this: https://m.kauppalehti.fi/uutiset/telia-saamassa-odotettua-suuremmat-sakot-uzbekistan-sotkuista/x5iQWXjf http://voima.fi/artikkeli/2016/yritysvaki-vaikenee-turkin-puhdistuksista/ Geriatric Pirate posted:Even this Caruna case seems ridiculous, because they paid a huge price for the company, aren't anywhere close to getting their money back and were able to raise prices because they made investments that Fortum was unwilling to make Fortum was unwilling to make? What? You realize that said investments are legally mandated by law and would have been done sooner or later regardless of who the owner is: http://m.iltalehti.fi/uutiset/2016020221051072_uu.shtml But Fortum couldn't just suddenly do a huge price rise because the decision makers actually live in this country and have some sort of a stake in not wanting get ripped apart by the press and the people. And lol at "not getting their money back". Aside from the fact that any "losses" stem from the aggressive tax planning done by the company, do you think that there is a chance that suddenly the whole electricity network becomes obsolete? No? Well that means that they have their money back sooner or later, and they won't be making investments every year. http://www.lansivayla.fi/artikkeli/360603-tallaisia-jattivoittoja-sahkoyhtio-on-takonut-yle-caruna-minimoi-verot-nama http://www.hs.fi/talous/art-2000002884033.html And of course count in all the investments that Fortum has made in the network thus far and the fact that Caruna has had to pay for jack and poo poo of those, and you get why they grabbed at the chance to begin with. It's not really that complicated. Geriatric Pirate posted:It's a bit telling that so far all of the criticisms of privatization have focused on case studies instead of doing a systematic analysis, even though quite a bit of data is available. It's the easiest way of showcasing how loving retarded selling our national assets are when you got such huge losses in just a single case, as well as showing the individuals involved and their benefits from these kind of decisions. If you want a systematic analysis, here you go: http://www.labour.fi/arkisto/kolumnit/kolumni-18-1-2008/ DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Jul 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
Rexroom posted:I could go on, but there are bigger fishes to fry. My point was that your answer was something that cranks usually throw out to try to discredit economics in a dumb way, not that it isn't true. It doesn't take away from the fact that Shleifer is a top economist (you'd have done a lot better by pointing out that Shleifer was involved in the botched privatizations in Russia) DarkCrawler posted:Uh, I do? Most people do, in practice at the least? I mean consumer awareness has been kind of a big theme since at least when I was born... quote:Yeah, well in the case of the companies that the government has given up, the investors have seemed to win far more then they have lost. quote:The government owns a controlling interest in Finnair still so it does not really work as an example. Personally I don't really put profit as the main motivation of a national air carrier, I'm more comforted by the fact that it is the third safest in the world. quote:https://m.kauppalehti.fi/uutiset/telia-saamassa-odotettua-suuremmat-sakot-uzbekistan-sotkuista/x5iQWXjf You're so blinded by ideology, it's hilarious. Like some of these points of view are so retarded that a simple glance at the news would make you question them but no, it's GUBMINT GOOD (except when you're spamming links here about how it's bad), BIZNESS BAD quote:Fortum was unwilling to make? What? You realize that said investments are legally mandated by law and would have been done sooner or later regardless of who the owner is: quote:And lol at "not getting their money back". Aside from the fact that any "losses" stem from the aggressive tax planning done by the company, do you think that there is a chance that suddenly the whole electricity network becomes obsolete? No? Well that means that they have their money back sooner or later, and they won't be making investments every year. quote:If you want a systematic analysis, here you go: quote:Tällöin on tietysti oletettava, että kehitys olisi muuten ollut samanlaista, ts. valtionyhtiöiden ja valtion osakkuusyhtiöiden kannattavuus, osingot ja pörssiarvot olisivat kehittyneet samalla tavoin omistuspohjasta riippumatta. Secondly, of course selling stocks is going to look bad at the height of the stock market bubble in 2008. Repeat the same analysis in 2009 and all of a sudden portfolio's down 20%. Okay, but I digress slightly, that's not really a great reason to oppose government ownership. Let's flip the situation around: if someone just came up to you and suggested that the government should increase taxes in order to speculate on the stock market, most people would call them retarded and say that if people wanted to speculate, they could do it with their own money. The idea that there are profits to be made by holding stocks is a retarded reason for the government to do so. Except to fund long dated liabilities such as pensions, where it is prudent to require people to pay their own share but when you also need something that will store value. The blog post is also comparing an observable (the value of stock market holdings) with an unobservable (the value of government investments in education, health care etc) which the money can be used on. The government owning stocks doesn't improve the lives of poor people. The government owning stocks doesn't improve your life in any tangible way. The only reason you want the government to own stocks is because of blind ideology. The entire "analysis" you posted could easily be negated by just saying "ok, what if the government gave all its stocks to people?" in which case those people who want to remain exposed to stock market risk can keep their shares and benefit from the value going up and those that don't can sell them. My guess is that a majority would sell.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
He's got approx zero ability to judge what's a good source and what's not, which rather succinctly explains his posting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.12.4.133 review paper exploring the reasons for WHY private companies work better (also giving reasons why some industries like prisons shouldn't be privatized) Let's back up a moment here. To defend your dumb as hell assertion, and I quote: Geriatric Pirate posted:It's a documented 100% that the government is worse at running businesses than the private sector. You quote and literally go out of your way to praise a study that, by your own admission, gives reasons for why the government should run some industries. Therefore, even if we assume for the sake of the argument that said article is 100% God's own truth, all it does is completely destroy your own argument. Like, how do you manage to be so consistently bad at this?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
Black Leaf fucked around with this message at 23:34 on Jul 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 23:32
|
|
|
Hey GP are you a bad economist by profession or is it just a hobby?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 00:07
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:You quote and literally go out of your way to praise a study that, by your own admission, gives reasons for why the government should run some industries. Therefore, even if we assume for the sake of the argument that said article is 100% God's own truth, all it does is completely destroy your own argument. Like, how do you manage to be so consistently bad at this? Reality has a liberal bias. (The actual problem being that in a free market a good's price will adjust to whatever the maximum the market can pay is; this means goods with inelastic demand means a free market won't work without constant violence as people rather fight to the death than starve to death. This obviously isn't a market even the free market advocates want and as a result nobody wants a free market, it's just an excuse for giving yourself money.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 00:11
|
|
|
Hey GP how will capitalism tackle global warming and diminishing biodiversity both of which will lead to an unpredictable and potentially disastrous future. Remember that some of those lovely southern countries that nobody cares about have nukes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Let's back up a moment here. To defend your dumb as hell assertion, and I quote: "Cerebral Bore" post posted:Communism is greates and betar than capitalesms hahahahaha everyone who disagree are stupid imbecile Maybe you should shut up about economics for, like, forever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 05:20
|
|
|
endlessmonotony posted:Reality has a liberal bias. I'd say "communist bias."
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 06:38
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Let's back up a moment here. To defend your dumb as hell assertion, and I quote: I'm going to refer to Ligur on this, and also point out that you regularly criticize our current government but defend Stalin (also the article is easy to read) SnowblindFatal posted:Hey GP how will capitalism tackle global warming and diminishing biodiversity both of which will lead to an unpredictable and potentially disastrous future. Remember that some of those lovely southern countries that nobody cares about have nukes. instead I will link you to two pages on environmental economics https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics http://www.nber.org/programs/eee/eee.html You're right that the concept of infinite wants (like wanting a 50 sqm apartment for one person + anime collection instead of a 25 sqm one) is a problem if there are environmental externalities, however, there are many tools to deal with this regulation, subsidies, taxes and many other policy solutions exist for environmental economics.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 07:38
|
|
|
Ligur posted:Maybe you should shut up about economics for, like, forever. Please stop arguing with the voices in your head, or if you have to please leave me out of it tia. Geriatric Pirate posted:I'm going to refer to Ligur on this, and also point out that you regularly criticize our current government but defend Stalin  it's pretty loving telling that, when confronted with a clear contradiction in your argument you're reduced to referring to goddamn Ligur of all people and his bad attempt at a personal attack of all things you could refer to. After all the article is easy to read, but apparently not easy enough for people like you who sadly lack the most basic of logic skills. I suppose that Shleifer should have included a section in very large font that said THIS DOESN'T MEAN WHAT GP THINKS IT MEANS for you to maybe get it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 08:08
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Please stop arguing with the voices in your head, or if you have to please leave me out of it tia. Or perhaps our non-Soviet education system has failed you (I mean in English as well as history, math and economics), but "it is documented 100% that" means that the evidence that private enterprises are generally more efficient than government ones is pretty conclusive, not that 100% of private enterprises are more efficient than government companies always (not that tbat relates to why the govt should run prisons)
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 08:18
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Or perhaps our non-Soviet education system has failed you (I mean in English as well as history, math and economics), but "it is documented 100% that" means that the evidence that private enterprises are generally more efficient than government ones is pretty conclusive, not that 100% of private enterprises are more efficient than government companies always (not that tbat relates to why the govt should run prisons) lol, nice walkback. Did you finally realize that calling people stalinists isn't really going to get you out of the hole you dug yourself into by inadvertedly killing your own argument? Not that said walkback is any better for your argument, mind you, since it means that all this blathering about how privatization is generally better is completely irrelevant to any single case. So maybe start addressing the specific cases under discussion since you've done approximately zero of that so far, and to speculate a bit, probably because you yourself realize that the privatizations that we're talking about were all stupid and expensive mistakes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 08:29
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:lol, nice walkback. Did you finally realize that calling people stalinists isn't really going to get you out of the hole you dug yourself into by inadvertedly killing your own argument? How is teaching you how to read in english considered a walkback? Also, on the topic of stupid and expensive mistakes, how's communism these days?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 09:10
|
|
|
I suppose I spoke too soon.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 09:24
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Also, on the topic of stupid and expensive mistakes, how's communism these days? I realise this thread is pretty much pure shitposting and trolling but I'm genuinely curious: what's with the constant references to communism? Seems to me that no-one at any point here has advocated it in any shape or form, unless you count any criticism of deregulation and privatisation (warranted or not) as an invitation to start rounding up the bourgeoisie? Also, while I'm on the subject, how would you define "socialism"? Seems to get thrown around a lot as the penultimate evil, right after communism. Finland's done pretty well overall with our mix of socialist and free-market policies. So what exactly is the problem? Ideologically, I mean. If we forget "how to keep paying for it" for a second (which is another can of worms entirely, although I feel it's not nearby as pie-in-the sky as some would argue).
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 09:49
|
|
|
Cascade Failure posted:I realise this thread is pretty much pure shitposting and trolling but I'm genuinely curious: what's with the constant references to communism? It's because ligur and GP are dumb rightwing ideologues completely unable to argue for their opinion without owning themselves so instead they fall back on the political equivalent of grade school playground insults, hth.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 10:00
|
|
|
Read some news about "palkkamaltti" from Orpo despite the economy growing, so that the rising wages don't stagnate the growth. (also funny was how he had to both talk about how strong the economy is because he's part of the government, but at the same time say that it's fragile  )Has there ever been any situation where the finance minister has just gone "you know what, go loving hog wild with the raises, we're doing fantastic, time to spread the wealth!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 10:35
|
|
|
Cascade Failure posted:I realise this thread is pretty much pure shitposting and trolling but I'm genuinely curious: what's with the constant references to communism? Seems to me that no-one at any point here has advocated it in any shape or form, unless you count any criticism of deregulation and privatisation (warranted or not) as an invitation to start rounding up the bourgeoisie? I'm an anarcho-communist of the Kropotkin style irl because I finally realized that the right will never submit to reasonable demands so it is a lot more fun to be unreasonable. Also, I'm rather convinced that our present-day political system simply cannot react properly to anything anymore. Also there's tons of fun to be had when angry old dudes are like "that's communism!" at stuff like wealth redistribution and you can go "YES INDEED IT IS." They don't really ever have a comeback to that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 10:45
|
|
|
Wheany posted:Has there ever been any situation where the finance minister has just gone "you know what, go loving hog wild with the raises, we're doing fantastic, time to spread the wealth!" Of course not, every penny you give to your
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 11:13
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:I'm an anarcho-communist of the Kropotkin style irl because I finally realized that the right will never submit to reasonable demands so it is a lot more fun to be unreasonable. Also, I'm rather convinced that our present-day political system simply cannot react properly to anything anymore. I'm not an anarchist but this is basically me, I've gotten leftier and leftier after the financial crisis hit and showed that the people in charge have no idea what they are doing and that the modern market economy is just numbers given primacy over human wellbeing. Wheany posted:Read some news about "palkkamaltti" from Orpo despite the economy growing, so that the rising wages don't stagnate the growth. (also funny was how he had to both talk about how strong the economy is because he's part of the government, but at the same time say that it's fragile There was that fraction of a second 10 years ago when Kokoomus was pushing decent raises for nurses. To be clear, when they electiions were over, the unions had to go on strike to get the raises. That was also the first pakkolaki, to force nurses to work despite being on strike. Sulphagnist fucked around with this message at 11:20 on Jul 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 11:14
|
|
|
Hardly the first though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 11:27
|
|
|
Oh yeah, wasn't there that time when Kekkonen drafted train workers to the military to break a strike, or was that just a threat? Maybe it was first one called "pakkolaki", then.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 11:29
|
|
|
Antti posted:Oh yeah, wasn't there that time when Kekkonen drafted train workers to the military to break a strike, or was that just a threat? http://www.ts.fi/mielipiteet/paakirjoitukset/1073787770/Veli+Junttilan+Suomi+1950+kolumni+Veturimiehet+kertausharjoituksiin Kekkonen did do that and it only escalated the crisis and didn't work out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 11:37
|
|
|
Antti posted:Oh yeah, wasn't there that time when Kekkonen drafted train workers to the military to break a strike, or was that just a threat? You mean refresher training. It happened but they either didn't show up (as in Turku) or didn't work. Kekkonen came, saw, and lost miserably because we had functioning unions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 11:41
|
|
|
Cascade Failure posted:I realise this thread is pretty much pure shitposting and trolling but I'm genuinely curious: what's with the constant references to communism? Seems to me that no-one at any point here has advocated it in any shape or form, unless you count any criticism of deregulation and privatisation (warranted or not) as an invitation to start rounding up the bourgeoisie? Cerebral Bore has on many occasions defended the Soviet Union and Stalin as successes because "they achieved in 30 years what capitalist countries did in 100" or something like that and I think he is normally quite open about it. He regularly comes into threads to defend Stalin and other communist dictators. It's pretty safe to say he is not worth engaging with. As far as I'm aware though, none of the other thread regulars is as extreme. And I'm quite happy to engage with them on issues. As far as what socialism is, it's hard to give an exact definition. You're right that the Nordic model has done well, and I don't have any objection to a high degree of social support for the poor within an otherwise market economy. The problem in my view is that a lot ot what is branded as government involvement to help the poor these days i sjust government involvement for the sake of it. For example, the government holding a portfolio of stocks (outside of very strategic companies, and these are normally not listed or even companies) does nothing to improve the lives of citizens and we'd be better off the state either sold the shares or gave them to the people. Similarly, the AY movement hurts the poorest (those outside the labor market) and is significantly hurting us in the long run by trying to maintain benefits for a privileged class of workers who are globally uncompetitive. Then you have farmers benefits, yritystuet and all the other ways that the state inefficiently interferes in the economy mainly to benefit specific interests who are typically not the poor. Student grants, income tied maternity benefits, funding for all sorts of hobbies, VAT rates for food. Thr problem is that all the interest groups always pretend that helping them somehow benefits the "poor" when a tiny fraction of the money actually goes to the poor and it would be much more efficient to just hand out money directly. In short, the government is doing things it shouldn't and people who benefit are mainly the middle classes. As an example of how things should be done - let's say we decide that a mobile phone - fine. But the government should do this by giving people who are poor money to buy one, not by trying to produce one. So if we define socialism as government ownership of the means of production, it's really dumb and inefficient. If it's helping the poor within a market economy, then that's fine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 11:50
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:It's because ligur and GP are dumb rightwing ideologues completely unable to argue for their opinion without owning themselves so instead they fall back on the political equivalent of grade school playground insults, hth. Says a poster whose only contribution to the forums is crudely insulting everryone who might disagree with his views, and occasionally ranting about how Soviet Union achieved great feats and of course, about the lurking fascists. Hmmmm. edit: Cerebral Bore posted:lol, nice walkback. Did you finally realize that calling people stalinists isn't really going to get you out of the hole you dug yourself into by inadvertedly killing your own argument? Ahahahaha, but you have not realized calling people fascists and nazis just makes you look like uh, well, you, which isnt' good. Ligur fucked around with this message at 12:08 on Jul 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 12:01
|
|
|
There's also this weird idea that if workers are underpaid the government should just set a law to pay them more. Ok, I kind of get it with nurses because they're paid by the government, but in general the much easier solution is "just give the poor more money" instead of trying to legislate labor markets which then fucks up our competitiveness and screws over the poorest
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 12:01
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:There's also this weird idea that if workers are underpaid the government should just set a law to pay them more. There is? I mean outside of the post you just made?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 12:06
|
|
|
Ligur posted:Says a poster whose only contribution to the forums is crudely insulting everryone who might disagree with his views, and occasionally ranting about how Soviet Union achieved great feats and of course, about the lurking fascists. Geriatric Pirate posted:Cerebral Bore has on many occasions defended the Soviet Union and Stalin as successes because "they achieved in 30 years what capitalist countries did in 100" or something like that and I think he is normally quite open about it. He regularly comes into threads to defend Stalin and other communist dictators. It's pretty safe to say he is not worth engaging with. Thanks for proving my point for me I guess? Antti posted:There was that fraction of a second 10 years ago when Kokoomus was pushing decent raises for nurses. To be clear, when they electiions were over, the unions had to go on strike to get the raises. That was also the first pakkolaki, to force nurses to work despite being on strike. Yeah, kok are very keen on liberty, except when it comes to the liberty of the non-rich. It's kind of like how they're very much against bureaucracy except when it comes to bureaucracy to gently caress over refugees and jobseekers and other non-rich people. EDIT: Also it's prettty impressive that GP manages to go on some dumb rant about socialism and come up with two wrong definitions in the process. Cerebral Bore fucked around with this message at 12:18 on Jul 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 12:13
|
|
|
Cascade Failure posted:I realise this thread is pretty much pure shitposting and trolling but I'm genuinely curious: what's with the constant references to communism? Seems to me that no-one at any point here has advocated it in any shape or form, unless you count any criticism of deregulation and privatisation (warranted or not) as an invitation to start rounding up the bourgeoisie? If I'm referring to communism, it's when I'm referrnig to Cerebral Bore who has often extolled on the virtues of the great Soviet Union. I don't know why he is suddenly so tight lipped about it and/or pretends to have forgotten. Do I really think he is a hardcore communist? Not really, but he has a long history of calling many things fascists, hitlers and nazis, so a couple a weeks ago I found it amusing to call him a communist in turn. It amuses me more when he complains about "grade school playground insults" after spending years of doing his hitlernaziracist poo poo himself. As far as I remember communism has not been otherwise kovinkaan paljon tapetilla tässä langassa? edit: seems to me that is the case with GP too, i.e. he refers to communism basically when posting to CB quote:Also, while I'm on the subject, how would you define "socialism"? Seems to get thrown around a lot as the penultimate evil, right after communism. Finland's done pretty well overall with our mix of socialist and free-market policies. So what exactly is the problem? Ideologically, I mean. If we forget "how to keep paying for it" for a second (which is another can of worms entirely, although I feel it's not nearby as pie-in-the sky as some would argue). In this forum socialim is not thrown around as the penultimate evil, if you read more of it, instead capitalism is and socialism is commonly considered the great saviour of mankind, just like it made Venezuela a great nation where everyone has soap and bread and gas for the car. I personally admit mocking socialism and socialists though (like I did in the last sentence) which has made a lot of posters salty and caused them to write long rants about my mental faculties before putting me on ignore because they need a safe space. One of the less intellectually honest genres which has become more and more popular during the past few years is claiming Nordic countries are "socialist" which amazes me, since, say Sweden at is most successfull (basically zero unemployment, booming economy, sun was shining, everyone could afford a house, rainbows and unicorns) was never socialist but instead a market economy with extremely high taxes. Business was and is mostly private, the high taxes support a great infra and poo poo like healthcare and education. Much like in Finland though we never had it quite as well but compared to most of the world we've been doing great. None of that is socialism in any traditional sense of the word, but I have a theory. After socialism nevermind communism have failed so horribly economically time and time again, also resulting in piles of bodies more often than not, socialism has become almost impossible to defend. Hence by some mental gymnastics young, left leaning voters have started to point at Finland or Sweden or Norway or whatever as examples of "socialist countries" because they need something, anything to justify their ideological leanings, hence the redefinitions of socialism. Why socialism is so popular in certain circles is another topic. As for what is the problem, I don't know, man? I personally think the Nordic model is the best system created this far. It's usually other posters in this thread who slam Finland as a racist neoliberal hellhole with roaming fascists and an evil government whichs stomps on poor people out of simple malice, to use a bit of a hyperbole, and I'm as interested as you in hearing what they would respond to you. Ligur fucked around with this message at 13:14 on Jul 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 12:39
|
|
|
Ligur posted:As for what is the problem, I don't know, man? I personally think the Nordic model is the best system created this far. Hey I can actually agree with you for once. Now if only some fuckers would just stop trying to ruin the thing. Andrast fucked around with this message at 13:04 on Jul 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 12:58
|
|
|
Andrast posted:Hey I can actually agree with you for once. Well someone has been saying that fuckers (= current government) are trying to ruin the thing for the past two decades or as long as I remember, so I wouldn't worry too much. If things turn for the (much) worse, it's either because of some global catastrophe which forces a sharp turn towards something else, or then a slow, long slide and finally a change into a new model as automagization and globalisation and stuff. I think.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 13:06
|
|
|
DanTheFryingPan posted:Eagerly awaiting sources to back up your argument. well imagine if i had an ideology and facts I hand-picked from inexhaustible supply supported it and then you had an ideology and my hand-picked facts didn't support it then you would be wrong. end of story.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 13:11
|
|
|
Speaking of communism, Anne Berner is pushing a legislative change in how traffic tickets are processed. Currently, the way cops are issuing tickets is based on evidence - ie. you sped that day and the cops saw you speeding in a 40 km limit road, and the prosecutor does the paperwork. The change comes in the burden of proof: You have to prove you didn't speed up that street. The idea being that by shifting the work to the tax payer, the justice system's judicial work has less of that mundane poo poo. Car drivers, judges and lawyers made some angry noises about the change, but Anne Berner is sticking to her guns, insisting that traffic ticketing shouldn't be processed in the judicial system as a criminal case. (Hence why the new version of the traffic ticket is named "liikennevirhemaksu" or "traffic mistake bill". But that's down to semantics.)
No. 1 Callie Fan fucked around with this message at 13:54 on Jul 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 13:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 14:17 |
|
|
20 million people die under capitalist systems annually from preventable diseases, lack of clean water and hunger because there is no profit in fixing their problems. The misery of these people is a direct consequence of the capitalist ideology. On the top of that, you and me enjoy a luxury that is created from exploitation of these same people. GP was the Stalin all along.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 13:53
|
|
