What is this Church of Marxism?

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:We currently depend on money.

We currently enjoy money. Anything that facilitates the adding of value to society through goods and services and strengthens the economy is a great thing.

Cavemen didn't have money. Today we do. Which world is better? Hmmmm?

You're right, we should return to the caveman world.

[quote]jwoodward48 wrote:First of all, people need food. They don't need guns in the same way.

" ... in the same way." Weaseling.

The bottom line is that Marxism hates nice things and consequently hates people who have nice things. People who are unwilling to add any value to society are heralded as saints while people with nice things are demonized.

"They don't NEED those nice things they have. Confiscate them!"

jwoodward48 wrote:it's not just hoarding food, but hoarding significant amounts of food, enough to change the prices by artificially decreasing supply.

Who gets to determine what a "significant" amount is? Especially when there is no money for prices to be affected?

What is an appropriate punishment for someone who wisely stores/stockpiles goods in anticipation of coming shortages?

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
But it seems you are trying to get to a system without money by using money. ....? We aren't talking about ethics or morals, we are talking about how to achieve the perfect commune envisioned by you. If you depend on money to get to a system without money, how does that work?

We can't immediately abolish money. We have to work within the constraints that currently exist. Nobody would vote for a Communist yet, anyway. We need to push firmly yet gently toward Communism.

That statement seems like a cop-out. Depending on a program that is based on price controls is NOT moving toward a system without money. It does what price controls always do. It creates shortages. In this case, by putting people out of work. Business can't raise prices for their products, they still have to compete in the market. They can't create money for payroll out of nothing, so they fire people to keep the payroll expenditures at the same level. Minimum wage isn't earned by those workers. They are out of a job.

We currently depend on money. It's easier and faster to continue to work within those constraints than to abolish money. That's still a goal, but a long-term goal.
And about the effect on unemployment - there are many studies that suggest that it's minimal or nonexistent.

There are many studies that disagree. Which ones are done by which people? Which ones are done by government?

Price controls, no matter where it is attempted, ALWAYS result in shortages.

It doesn't matter if the price being controlled is housing, rent, gasoline, wages, food, money, or cars. ALL result in shortages.

jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
The problem you see is real. It basically means that I am not only paying for my own fuel, I am paying for the fuel for someone else, who has little incentive to save fuel because it's cheap for them.

Well, that and the money largely flows to the rich.

??? Money is flowing to the POOR here. This is a government welfare program!

I'm talking about giving the companies money so that they won't raise prices. Why don't they cut into their billions of dollars of profit to keep the prices low, instead of being bribed by the government, with taxpayer money, to do so?

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Let's just examine this so-called problem right now.

Recently, there was a shortage on certain calibers of ammunition, specifically the .22LR, a rimfire cartridge that is a very popular round. Many guns are chambered for it.

As you may have heard, LOTS of people are buying guns right now. One of the most common types they bought are pistols that use the .22LR round. They're light, easy to conceal, and cheap. All these guns need ammo.

The factories producing that ammo were unable to keep up demand. Retooling is time consuming and expensive, and besides, all those other calibers still need to be made (the police for example favor the 9mm centerfire round).

You couldn't get .22LR ammo anywhere. People began to buy it to hoard it, hoping to sell it later at a fat profit. They would sell it at gun shows and the like.

Because of the shortage, a LOT of people sold those .22LR chambered pistols and bought 9mm pistols instead. These cartridges are easier to manufacture, and the police need them as well.

Now the .22LR manufacturing is catching up. There aren't as many guns out there that use it. The guys that bought at the high price to hoard it hoping for a higher price? They're stuck with ammo they can't sell without incurring a loss.

Same thing happened with the housing market in 2007, resulting in the crash.

Same thing happened with a common chip known as the 7406 during the Reagan days when the 'Starwars' defense system scooped them all up.

People who hoard like this generally wind up with big losses. Problem solved.

More like "there was never a problem", and I dispute that. Once I'm on my computer again, I can write a decent response.

Since you presented it as a problem, with speculators hoarding food. I don't see what you mean.

First of all, people need food. They don't need guns in the same way.
Second, it's manipulating the market. It takes quite a bit of money to do - it's not just hoarding food, but hoarding significant amounts of food, enough to change the prices by artificially decreasing supply.

This is known as the moral fallacy. It doesn't matter whether we are talking about guns or food. An economy exists for it.

The moralistic fallacy is the informal fallacy of assuming that whichever aspect of nature which has socially unpleasant consequences cannot exist. Its typical form is "if X were true, then it would happen that Z!", where Z is a morally, socially or politically undesirable thing.

Did you know you can grow and hunt your own food?

jwoodward48 wrote:What I am saying is that artificially diminishing the supply of food is worse than doing the same to guns.

jwoodward48 wrote:Stop putting straw into my mouth.

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:What I am saying is that artificially diminishing the supply of food is worse than doing the same to guns.

No, you are trying to legitimize yourself as the judge of what constitutes "nice things" such that they should be considered for prohibition.

We don't need your kind of Nazi humanity-haters trying to create a power-mad government that seeks to punish the citizenry for the completely natural desire to want nice things. We don't need your kind of invasive, omnipotent government controlling the personal decisions of each person and punishing those personal preferences the government hasn't sanctioned.

jwoodward48 wrote:Stop putting straw into my mouth.

More EVASION. "Hoarding" is only an issue in Marxism. Normal humans store extra quantites of those items they foresee will have shortages.

Marxists, however, want people to be absolutely fukced wherever they successfully damage an economy. Marxists don't want any people potentially riding it out for having built up sufficient stores. Marxists want to relish in the sight of the people desperately journeying across the border to fish through foreign trash in the hopes of maybe finding something to eat. Marxists cackle with glee as they arrest someone who bartered for food for his family.

Marxists are evil fukcs who should be segregated from the world's non-haters and forced to live in their own commune without any capitalist support. What? That would be too cruel, you say?

Fukc them.

Since you are a Marxist, what is an appropriate punishment for someone who wisely gathers necessary goods in anticipation of a shortage?

Don't tell me that you don't have an answer because based on your posts you obviously do. But your EVASION hints at a certain level of shame you carry for having that position.

...so what punishment is fitting? Hard labor? Execution? What?

A major tenet of socialism is to give power to the workers. Many models of socialism include a decentralized workplace democracy, in which managers are elected by the industry that they work in, and can be removed at any time.

jwoodward48 wrote:That's fine. Some people humans are arseholes, though, and if you have enough power to buy up a significant amount of something in order to create the shortage, that's not fine.

jwoodward48 wrote:Marxists kick puppies. And laugh!

jwoodward48 wrote:Everyone needs their demons. Who am I to take away yours?

jwoodward48 wrote: Since you are a Marxist, what is an appropriate punishment for someone who wisely gathers necessary goods in anticipation of a shortage?

.....
...so what punishment is fitting? Hard labor? Execution? What?

jwoodward48 weaseled:
None [but also] I'd say large fines would be a decent punishment.

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:That's fine. Some people humans are arseholes, though, and if you have enough power to buy up a significant amount of something in order to create the shortage, that's not fine.

This kind of fear-mongering premise makes no sense. Nobody has any power to buy any quantity of anything that isn't granted by the person/people selling said quantity of whatever.

So if someone happens to buy a controlling quantity of something, shouldn't you be villifying the sellers who were apparently eager to make that happen? Why is the buyer somehow at fault. He was begged for his business.

I'm guessing you're a Marxist because you find economics too confusing.

jwoodward48 wrote:Marxists kick puppies. And laugh!

No, they do even better. They drive populations into abject povery and starvation such that no dog is safe. Have you seen any of the videos on the current state of Venezuela?

Marxism is a cancer. Marxists spread the cancer.

jwoodward48 wrote:Everyone needs their demons. Who am I to take away yours?

No, I certainly don't need my demons, but I have them nonetheless. The difference between your demons and mine is that you demonize those who add value to society while I demonize those who seek to punish those who add value to society.

jwoodward48 wrote: Since you are a Marxist, what is an appropriate punishment for someone who wisely gathers necessary goods in anticipation of a shortage?

.....
...so what punishment is fitting? Hard labor? Execution? What?

jwoodward48 weaseled:
None [but also] I'd say large fines would be a decent punishment.

What form do fines take when there is no money?

jwoodward48 wrote:The sellers are just selling

jwoodward48 wrote: - they don't know what the buyer will do.

jwoodward48 wrote:If you buy up a significant amount of a good with the intent of creating an artificial scarcity of said good, that's your fault.

jwoodward48 wrote:Your fault, and the fault of the system.

jwoodward48 wrote: I will admit, I am a poverist. Whatever that is.

jwoodward48 wrote: Are you suggesting that I want this to happen? Or are you saying that I'm an idiot? Make up your mind, IB! Evil arsehole, or idiotic sheeperson! Which am I?!

jwoodward48 wrote: I don't demonize anybody.

jwoodward48 wrote: Oh, by the four hells. We're talking about a system with money, as without money and trade, it's impossible for somebody to do this.

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:The sellers are just selling

I was right. You find economics too confusing.

jwoodward48 wrote: - they don't know what the buyer will do.

Yes they do. They know that every buyer is scheming ...to buy. Those buyers give themselves away, asking what the prices are, looking for discounts, wielding coupons, holding credit cards at the ready...they don't disguise their intent very well.

The sellers are the ones that aren't performing the background checks. The sellers are the ones who don't implement any waiting period. The buyer is just buying.

jwoodward48 wrote:If you buy up a significant amount of a good with the intent of creating an artificial scarcity of said good, that's your fault.

What if I buy a controlling amount with no intention of creating a scarcity, but just because I want to be the main provider of that good? Don't the two look the same?

What if I corner the market on soybeans just because I hapeened to buy a bunch from the early harvest the day before a surprise storm wipes out all the rest? Would "Climate" have declared me deserving of a hefty fine?

jwoodward48 wrote:Your fault, and the fault of the system.

Oh yeah, blame the unfalsifiable "system."

jwoodward48 wrote: I will admit, I am a poverist. Whatever that is.

I'll take you on your word.

jwoodward48 wrote: Are you suggesting that I want this to happen? Or are you saying that I'm an idiot? Make up your mind, IB! Evil arsehole, or idiotic sheeperson! Which am I?!

I go with you being an evil humanity-hater who is at war with those who want or like nice things.

I happen to think you are that way because you never grasped economics.

jwoodward48 wrote: I don't demonize anybody.

You think that people who prepare for impending shortages.should face hefty fines.

jwoodward48 wrote: Oh, by the four hells. We're talking about a system with money, as without money and trade, it's impossible for somebody to do this.

jwoodward48 wrote:

A major tenet of socialism is to give power to the workers. Many models of socialism include a decentralized workplace democracy, in which managers are elected by the industry that they work in, and can be removed at any time.

If leaders of some sort are necessary, then make it a republic. I mean, come on! Your same argument could have been used by someone staunchly clinging to a monarchy, claiming that democratic government can never work. We haven't always done the best at it, but the American government is far better than a monarchy.

jwoodward48 wrote:How so? I've never taken an economics course, but I have a decent grasp of the basics.

jwoodward48 wrote: You say that typing the phrase "sellers are selling" nullifies all that. I will never understand you.

jwoodward48 wrote: They intend to buy. That is obvious. What they do with the goods is another matter.

jwoodward48 wrote: No, because in my scenario, you don't sell it yet. You wait until the price has gone up. In your scenario, the price happened to go up, but you always planned on selling it as soon as possible.

jwoodward48 wrote: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you thinking it means.

jwoodward48 wrote: It was a joke.

jwoodward48 wrote: So I'm both evil and idiotic. Hm. How will I carry out my evil plans?

jwoodward48 wrote: Straw man. Plus, by that logic, I am demonizing every criminal.

Tim the plumber wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

A major tenet of socialism is to give power to the workers. Many models of socialism include a decentralized workplace democracy, in which managers are elected by the industry that they work in, and can be removed at any time.

If leaders of some sort are necessary, then make it a republic. I mean, come on! Your same argument could have been used by someone staunchly clinging to a monarchy, claiming that democratic government can never work. We haven't always done the best at it, but the American government is far better than a monarchy.

You might get Trump.... careful what you claim.

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:How so? I've never taken an economics course, but I have a decent grasp of the basics.

You do not have a decent grasp of the basics. It is patently obvious that you haven't any sort of economics background and that your perception of your understanding is highly exaggerated.

Just as your understanding of physics is full of bogus violations of science, your understanding of economics is full of contradictions and bogus misunderstandings of human nature.

In fact, the basis for Marxism is a nasty combination of required economic illiteracy, envy/fear/hatred for those who aren't of the dogma and a dependence upon habitual dishonesty to cover completely indefensible positions, i.e. a direct clone of warmizombies wrt Global Warming.

I'll give you a hint. You should not be concerned with the personal intentions of those striving to add value.

You should be concerned with the process and results. You should not be imposing your religious perpective onto others by declaring one widget store owner's "intentions" as being honorable while declaring that another widget store owner's intentions are somehow sinful.

Further, you should not be trying to integrate church and state such that the government favors those declared to be of "holy" intentions while punishing those who are not in favor with the government by initiating a witch hunt.

Venezuela anyone?

jwoodward48 wrote: You say that typing the phrase "sellers are selling" nullifies all that. I will never understand you.

Priceless! It was you who wrote "sellers are just selling" thinking that makes it all OK.

jwoodward48 wrote: They intend to buy. That is obvious. What they do with the goods is another matter.

Who do you claim is required to sell something s/he doesn't want to sell?

If there becomes a shortage of sex partners should the government have the power to require women to sell/rent their bodies?

jwoodward48 wrote: No, because in my scenario, you don't sell it yet. You wait until the price has gone up. In your scenario, the price happened to go up, but you always planned on selling it as soon as possible.

The intentions are irrelevant. The outcome is exactly the same. Your attempt to control intentions and not results allows the government to become a religious oligarchy that rules by any whimsical religious decree based on any WACKY religious dogma they legislate as gospel.

jwoodward48 wrote: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you thinking it means.

That's exactly what trafn said.

In what way do you not understand falsifiability?

jwoodward48 wrote: It was a joke.

Yes, and I piggybacked on your joke. Didn't you get it?

jwoodward48 wrote: So I'm both evil and idiotic. Hm. How will I carry out my evil plans?

There's still time to save yourself.

jwoodward48 wrote: Straw man. Plus, by that logic, I am demonizing every criminal.

You demonize all those who break the laws you believe should be on the books ... and ... you believe there should be laws regulating intentions, how people are allowed to think and how people approach adding value to society.

Should we have innovation? Doesn't that give someone a monopoly at some point, by definition? Should innovation be outlawed and demonized?

Btw, I asked you how "fines" work in a system without money. You then went into aggressive EVASION. I was just curious how fines would work once money is removed.

You'd still need to punish people for acts of self-preservation, right?

Would incarceration be your only option?

Might you change your mind on the death penalty? How about sharia law-style amputations, safely administered by the state, of course?

jwoodward48 wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

A major tenet of socialism is to give power to the workers. Many models of socialism include a decentralized workplace democracy, in which managers are elected by the industry that they work in, and can be removed at any time.

If leaders of some sort are necessary, then make it a republic. I mean, come on! Your same argument could have been used by someone staunchly clinging to a monarchy, claiming that democratic government can never work. We haven't always done the best at it, but the American government is far better than a monarchy.

You might get Trump.... careful what you claim.

Heh. No, the president doesn't have absolute power, so we'd still be better than a dictatorship, at least.

Tim the plumber wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

A major tenet of socialism is to give power to the workers. Many models of socialism include a decentralized workplace democracy, in which managers are elected by the industry that they work in, and can be removed at any time.

If leaders of some sort are necessary, then make it a republic. I mean, come on! Your same argument could have been used by someone staunchly clinging to a monarchy, claiming that democratic government can never work. We haven't always done the best at it, but the American government is far better than a monarchy.

You might get Trump.... careful what you claim.

Heh. No, the president doesn't have absolute power, so we'd still be better than a dictatorship, at least.

Liecester won the league cup. This is the era of the highly unlikely......

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
But it seems you are trying to get to a system without money by using money. ....? We aren't talking about ethics or morals, we are talking about how to achieve the perfect commune envisioned by you. If you depend on money to get to a system without money, how does that work?

We can't immediately abolish money. We have to work within the constraints that currently exist. Nobody would vote for a Communist yet, anyway. We need to push firmly yet gently toward Communism.

That statement seems like a cop-out. Depending on a program that is based on price controls is NOT moving toward a system without money. It does what price controls always do. It creates shortages. In this case, by putting people out of work. Business can't raise prices for their products, they still have to compete in the market. They can't create money for payroll out of nothing, so they fire people to keep the payroll expenditures at the same level. Minimum wage isn't earned by those workers. They are out of a job.

We currently depend on money. It's easier and faster to continue to work within those constraints than to abolish money. That's still a goal, but a long-term goal.
And about the effect on unemployment - there are many studies that suggest that it's minimal or nonexistent.

There are many studies that disagree. Which ones are done by which people? Which ones are done by government?

Price controls, no matter where it is attempted, ALWAYS result in shortages.

It doesn't matter if the price being controlled is housing, rent, gasoline, wages, food, money, or cars. ALL result in shortages.

Whoa, that's one hell of a generalization. I can quite surely say that you are wrong.

jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
The problem you see is real. It basically means that I am not only paying for my own fuel, I am paying for the fuel for someone else, who has little incentive to save fuel because it's cheap for them.

Well, that and the money largely flows to the rich.

??? Money is flowing to the POOR here. This is a government welfare program!

I'm talking about giving the companies money so that they won't raise prices. Why don't they cut into their billions of dollars of profit to keep the prices low, instead of being bribed by the government, with taxpayer money, to do so?

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Let's just examine this so-called problem right now.

Recently, there was a shortage on certain calibers of ammunition, specifically the .22LR, a rimfire cartridge that is a very popular round. Many guns are chambered for it.

As you may have heard, LOTS of people are buying guns right now. One of the most common types they bought are pistols that use the .22LR round. They're light, easy to conceal, and cheap. All these guns need ammo.

The factories producing that ammo were unable to keep up demand. Retooling is time consuming and expensive, and besides, all those other calibers still need to be made (the police for example favor the 9mm centerfire round).

You couldn't get .22LR ammo anywhere. People began to buy it to hoard it, hoping to sell it later at a fat profit. They would sell it at gun shows and the like.

Because of the shortage, a LOT of people sold those .22LR chambered pistols and bought 9mm pistols instead. These cartridges are easier to manufacture, and the police need them as well.

Now the .22LR manufacturing is catching up. There aren't as many guns out there that use it. The guys that bought at the high price to hoard it hoping for a higher price? They're stuck with ammo they can't sell without incurring a loss.

Same thing happened with the housing market in 2007, resulting in the crash.

Same thing happened with a common chip known as the 7406 during the Reagan days when the 'Starwars' defense system scooped them all up.

People who hoard like this generally wind up with big losses. Problem solved.

More like "there was never a problem", and I dispute that. Once I'm on my computer again, I can write a decent response.

Since you presented it as a problem, with speculators hoarding food. I don't see what you mean.

First of all, people need food. They don't need guns in the same way.
Second, it's manipulating the market. It takes quite a bit of money to do - it's not just hoarding food, but hoarding significant amounts of food, enough to change the prices by artificially decreasing supply.

This is known as the moral fallacy. It doesn't matter whether we are talking about guns or food. An economy exists for it.

Into, stop misusing fallacies.

The moralistic fallacy is the informal fallacy of assuming that whichever aspect of nature which has socially unpleasant consequences cannot exist. Its typical form is "if X were true, then it would happen that Z!", where Z is a morally, socially or politically undesirable thing.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Nice to know that morality is a fallacy in capitalism.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Did you know you can grow and hunt your own food?

You can make your own computer, so it's okay if I steal this one, right?

jwoodward48 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:What I am saying is that artificially diminishing the supply of food is worse than doing the same to guns.

No, you are trying to legitimize yourself as the judge of what constitutes "nice things" such that they should be considered for prohibition.

We don't need your kind of Nazi humanity-haters trying to create a power-mad government that seeks to punish the citizenry for the completely natural desire to want nice things. We don't need your kind of invasive, omnipotent government controlling the personal decisions of each person and punishing those personal preferences the government hasn't sanctioned.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't have guns! I'm saying that a particular nongovernmental entity making an effort to create an artificial scarcity of a good - that's worse when the good is a necessity, and thus the price of a necessary good without which everybody would die is artificially raised, than when the good is a useful item that it is possible to live without.

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
But it seems you are trying to get to a system without money by using money. ....? We aren't talking about ethics or morals, we are talking about how to achieve the perfect commune envisioned by you. If you depend on money to get to a system without money, how does that work?

We can't immediately abolish money. We have to work within the constraints that currently exist. Nobody would vote for a Communist yet, anyway. We need to push firmly yet gently toward Communism.

That statement seems like a cop-out. Depending on a program that is based on price controls is NOT moving toward a system without money. It does what price controls always do. It creates shortages. In this case, by putting people out of work. Business can't raise prices for their products, they still have to compete in the market. They can't create money for payroll out of nothing, so they fire people to keep the payroll expenditures at the same level. Minimum wage isn't earned by those workers. They are out of a job.

We currently depend on money. It's easier and faster to continue to work within those constraints than to abolish money. That's still a goal, but a long-term goal.
And about the effect on unemployment - there are many studies that suggest that it's minimal or nonexistent.

There are many studies that disagree. Which ones are done by which people? Which ones are done by government?

Price controls, no matter where it is attempted, ALWAYS result in shortages.

It doesn't matter if the price being controlled is housing, rent, gasoline, wages, food, money, or cars. ALL result in shortages.

Whoa, that's one hell of a generalization. I can quite surely say that you are wrong.

You have not provided an example. Can you provide one, or are you just making the argument of the Stone again?

Since you presented it as a problem, with speculators hoarding food. I don't see what you mean.

First of all, people need food. They don't need guns in the same way.
Second, it's manipulating the market. It takes quite a bit of money to do - it's not just hoarding food, but hoarding significant amounts of food, enough to change the prices by artificially decreasing supply.

This is known as the moral fallacy. It doesn't matter whether we are talking about guns or food. An economy exists for it.

Into, stop misusing fallacies.

The moralistic fallacy is the informal fallacy of assuming that whichever aspect of nature which has socially unpleasant consequences cannot exist. Its typical form is "if X were true, then it would happen that Z!", where Z is a morally, socially or politically undesirable thing.

Which is what you just did.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Nice to know that morality is a fallacy in capitalism.

Nice to know you like to redirect to a non-sequitur so you can punch on a strawman.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Did you know you can grow and hunt your own food?

You can make your own computer, so it's okay if I steal this one, right?

Let's see you try. I expect you to make your own display, keyboard, CPU, memory for it, GPU, all connecting logic, cut your own circuit boards and stuff them, make your own disk drive, build your own power supply for it (you can start with wall power if you like), write your own operating system, and your own applications for it.

Let me know when you're done.

Too much? Okay. I'll let you buy the CPU, GPU, and memory, and connecting logic chips.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
But it seems you are trying to get to a system without money by using money. ....? We aren't talking about ethics or morals, we are talking about how to achieve the perfect commune envisioned by you. If you depend on money to get to a system without money, how does that work?

We can't immediately abolish money. We have to work within the constraints that currently exist. Nobody would vote for a Communist yet, anyway. We need to push firmly yet gently toward Communism.

That statement seems like a cop-out. Depending on a program that is based on price controls is NOT moving toward a system without money. It does what price controls always do. It creates shortages. In this case, by putting people out of work. Business can't raise prices for their products, they still have to compete in the market. They can't create money for payroll out of nothing, so they fire people to keep the payroll expenditures at the same level. Minimum wage isn't earned by those workers. They are out of a job.

We currently depend on money. It's easier and faster to continue to work within those constraints than to abolish money. That's still a goal, but a long-term goal.
And about the effect on unemployment - there are many studies that suggest that it's minimal or nonexistent.

There are many studies that disagree. Which ones are done by which people? Which ones are done by government?

Price controls, no matter where it is attempted, ALWAYS result in shortages.

It doesn't matter if the price being controlled is housing, rent, gasoline, wages, food, money, or cars. ALL result in shortages.

Whoa, that's one hell of a generalization. I can quite surely say that you are wrong.

You have not provided an example. Can you provide one, or are you just making the argument of the Stone again?

Most generalizations are wrong.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Since you presented it as a problem, with speculators hoarding food. I don't see what you mean.

First of all, people need food. They don't need guns in the same way.
Second, it's manipulating the market. It takes quite a bit of money to do - it's not just hoarding food, but hoarding significant amounts of food, enough to change the prices by artificially decreasing supply.

This is known as the moral fallacy. It doesn't matter whether we are talking about guns or food. An economy exists for it.

Into, stop misusing fallacies.

The moralistic fallacy is the informal fallacy of assuming that whichever aspect of nature which has socially unpleasant consequences cannot exist. Its typical form is "if X were true, then it would happen that Z!", where Z is a morally, socially or politically undesirable thing.

Which is what you just did.

No. I am arguing that an action that has socially detrimental consequences ought not exist. Laws are used to prevent such an action.

jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
Nice to know that morality is a fallacy in capitalism.

Nice to know you like to redirect to a non-sequitur so you can punch on a strawman.

It was a joke. That's why I put the

.

jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Did you know you can grow and hunt your own food?

You can make your own computer, so it's okay if I steal this one, right?

Let's see you try. I expect you to make your own display, keyboard, CPU, memory for it, GPU, all connecting logic, cut your own circuit boards and stuff them, make your own disk drive, build your own power supply for it (you can start with wall power if you like), write your own operating system, and your own applications for it.

Let me know when you're done.

Too much? Okay. I'll let you buy the CPU, GPU, and memory, and connecting logic chips.

You're right. That was an offhand remark; in retrospect, I chose the wrong analogy. I don't know why I didn't go with yours.

You can grow your own food, so it's okay if I steal yours, right?

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
But it seems you are trying to get to a system without money by using money. ....? We aren't talking about ethics or morals, we are talking about how to achieve the perfect commune envisioned by you. If you depend on money to get to a system without money, how does that work?

We can't immediately abolish money. We have to work within the constraints that currently exist. Nobody would vote for a Communist yet, anyway. We need to push firmly yet gently toward Communism.

That statement seems like a cop-out. Depending on a program that is based on price controls is NOT moving toward a system without money. It does what price controls always do. It creates shortages. In this case, by putting people out of work. Business can't raise prices for their products, they still have to compete in the market. They can't create money for payroll out of nothing, so they fire people to keep the payroll expenditures at the same level. Minimum wage isn't earned by those workers. They are out of a job.

We currently depend on money. It's easier and faster to continue to work within those constraints than to abolish money. That's still a goal, but a long-term goal.
And about the effect on unemployment - there are many studies that suggest that it's minimal or nonexistent.

There are many studies that disagree. Which ones are done by which people? Which ones are done by government?

Price controls, no matter where it is attempted, ALWAYS result in shortages.

It doesn't matter if the price being controlled is housing, rent, gasoline, wages, food, money, or cars. ALL result in shortages.

Whoa, that's one hell of a generalization. I can quite surely say that you are wrong.

You have not provided an example. Can you provide one, or are you just making the argument of the Stone again?

Most generalizations are wrong.

A divisional error based on a circular argument (probably stemming from a compositional error in the first place).

1) There is nothing about generalizations that inherently make them wrong.

2) There is nothing about the character of generalizations that apply to a particular generalization.

3) There is nothing about a particular generalization that says all generalizations have the same characteristics.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Since you presented it as a problem, with speculators hoarding food. I don't see what you mean.

First of all, people need food. They don't need guns in the same way.
Second, it's manipulating the market. It takes quite a bit of money to do - it's not just hoarding food, but hoarding significant amounts of food, enough to change the prices by artificially decreasing supply.

This is known as the moral fallacy. It doesn't matter whether we are talking about guns or food. An economy exists for it.

Into, stop misusing fallacies.

The moralistic fallacy is the informal fallacy of assuming that whichever aspect of nature which has socially unpleasant consequences cannot exist. Its typical form is "if X were true, then it would happen that Z!", where Z is a morally, socially or politically undesirable thing.

Which is what you just did.

No. I am arguing that an action that has socially detrimental consequences ought not exist. Laws are used to prevent such an action.

Laws are not needed in this case. The hoarding problem takes care of itself. The hoarder loses. No hoarder can control the market, or production.

jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
Nice to know that morality is a fallacy in capitalism.

Nice to know you like to redirect to a non-sequitur so you can punch on a strawman.

It was a joke. That's why I put the

.

Subject dropped.

jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Did you know you can grow and hunt your own food?

You can make your own computer, so it's okay if I steal this one, right?

Let's see you try. I expect you to make your own display, keyboard, CPU, memory for it, GPU, all connecting logic, cut your own circuit boards and stuff them, make your own disk drive, build your own power supply for it (you can start with wall power if you like), write your own operating system, and your own applications for it.

Let me know when you're done.

Too much? Okay. I'll let you buy the CPU, GPU, and memory, and connecting logic chips.

You're right. That was an offhand remark; in retrospect, I chose the wrong analogy. I don't know why I didn't go with yours.

You can grow your own food, so it's okay if I steal yours, right?

I have a gun. So do my neighbors.

Is stealing food part of your Utopia? How about getting shot?

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
But it seems you are trying to get to a system without money by using money. ....? We aren't talking about ethics or morals, we are talking about how to achieve the perfect commune envisioned by you. If you depend on money to get to a system without money, how does that work?

We can't immediately abolish money. We have to work within the constraints that currently exist. Nobody would vote for a Communist yet, anyway. We need to push firmly yet gently toward Communism.

That statement seems like a cop-out. Depending on a program that is based on price controls is NOT moving toward a system without money. It does what price controls always do. It creates shortages. In this case, by putting people out of work. Business can't raise prices for their products, they still have to compete in the market. They can't create money for payroll out of nothing, so they fire people to keep the payroll expenditures at the same level. Minimum wage isn't earned by those workers. They are out of a job.

We currently depend on money. It's easier and faster to continue to work within those constraints than to abolish money. That's still a goal, but a long-term goal.
And about the effect on unemployment - there are many studies that suggest that it's minimal or nonexistent.

There are many studies that disagree. Which ones are done by which people? Which ones are done by government?

Price controls, no matter where it is attempted, ALWAYS result in shortages.

It doesn't matter if the price being controlled is housing, rent, gasoline, wages, food, money, or cars. ALL result in shortages.

Whoa, that's one hell of a generalization. I can quite surely say that you are wrong.

You have not provided an example. Can you provide one, or are you just making the argument of the Stone again?

Most generalizations are wrong.

A divisional error based on a circular argument (probably stemming from a compositional error in the first place).

Oh, for ****'s sake. I'm saying that since most absolute statements are wrong (every Mexican is a rapist = wrong, ferex), yours is likely to be wrong.

jwoodward48 wrote:

1) There is nothing about generalizations that inherently make them wrong.

They tend to be wrong, especially when they aren't backed up.

2) There is nothing about the character of generalizations that apply to a particular generalization.

Anti-divisional error: the statement that nothing about the whole ever applies to its parts. I didn't think it was possible to make this error.

3) There is nothing about a particular generalization that says all generalizations have the same characteristics.

You haven't backed it up. I have nothing to distinguish it from other baseless generalizations.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Since you presented it as a problem, with speculators hoarding food. I don't see what you mean.

First of all, people need food. They don't need guns in the same way.
Second, it's manipulating the market. It takes quite a bit of money to do - it's not just hoarding food, but hoarding significant amounts of food, enough to change the prices by artificially decreasing supply.

This is known as the moral fallacy. It doesn't matter whether we are talking about guns or food. An economy exists for it.

Into, stop misusing fallacies.

The moralistic fallacy is the informal fallacy of assuming that whichever aspect of nature which has socially unpleasant consequences cannot exist. Its typical form is "if X were true, then it would happen that Z!", where Z is a morally, socially or politically undesirable thing.

Which is what you just did.

No. I am arguing that an action that has socially detrimental consequences ought not exist. Laws are used to prevent such an action.

Laws are not needed in this case. The hoarding problem takes care of itself. The hoarder loses. No hoarder can control the market, or production.

jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
Nice to know that morality is a fallacy in capitalism.

Nice to know you like to redirect to a non-sequitur so you can punch on a strawman.

It was a joke. That's why I put the

.

Subject dropped.

jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Did you know you can grow and hunt your own food?

You can make your own computer, so it's okay if I steal this one, right?

Let's see you try. I expect you to make your own display, keyboard, CPU, memory for it, GPU, all connecting logic, cut your own circuit boards and stuff them, make your own disk drive, build your own power supply for it (you can start with wall power if you like), write your own operating system, and your own applications for it.

Let me know when you're done.

Too much? Okay. I'll let you buy the CPU, GPU, and memory, and connecting logic chips.

You're right. That was an offhand remark; in retrospect, I chose the wrong analogy. I don't know why I didn't go with yours.

You can grow your own food, so it's okay if I steal yours, right?

I have a gun. So do my neighbors.

Is stealing food part of your Utopia? How about getting shot?

...no, stop that. I am saying that "people can grow their own food" isn't a good defense against the statement "inducing an artificial scarcity of food is unethical". We're discussing capitalism at the moment.

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
But it seems you are trying to get to a system without money by using money. ....? We aren't talking about ethics or morals, we are talking about how to achieve the perfect commune envisioned by you. If you depend on money to get to a system without money, how does that work?

We can't immediately abolish money. We have to work within the constraints that currently exist. Nobody would vote for a Communist yet, anyway. We need to push firmly yet gently toward Communism.

That statement seems like a cop-out. Depending on a program that is based on price controls is NOT moving toward a system without money. It does what price controls always do. It creates shortages. In this case, by putting people out of work. Business can't raise prices for their products, they still have to compete in the market. They can't create money for payroll out of nothing, so they fire people to keep the payroll expenditures at the same level. Minimum wage isn't earned by those workers. They are out of a job.

We currently depend on money. It's easier and faster to continue to work within those constraints than to abolish money. That's still a goal, but a long-term goal.
And about the effect on unemployment - there are many studies that suggest that it's minimal or nonexistent.

There are many studies that disagree. Which ones are done by which people? Which ones are done by government?

Price controls, no matter where it is attempted, ALWAYS result in shortages.

It doesn't matter if the price being controlled is housing, rent, gasoline, wages, food, money, or cars. ALL result in shortages.

Whoa, that's one hell of a generalization. I can quite surely say that you are wrong.

You have not provided an example. Can you provide one, or are you just making the argument of the Stone again?

Most generalizations are wrong.

A divisional error based on a circular argument (probably stemming from a compositional error in the first place).

Oh, for ****'s sake. I'm saying that since most absolute statements are wrong (every Mexican is a rapist = wrong, ferex), yours is likely to be wrong.

A repeat of a divisional error based on a circular argument (probably stemming from...).

We are NOT discussing capitalism at the moment. We are discussing the fallacy of you introducing price controls to achieve your Utopia of a no money system.

jwoodward48 wrote: The plan is twofold - first, improve upon capitalism.

Second, change it to socialism. The latter will take a long time. It's not fallacious.

jwoodward48 wrote: I have diabetes. There are two main organizations that help people with diabetes - the JDRF, which helps find a cure, and the ADA, which helps diabetic people right now. The former is better in the long run, but who's going to argue that the latter is fallacious?

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote: The plan is twofold - first, improve upon capitalism.

Second, change it to socialism. The latter will take a long time. It's not fallacious.

You haven't said anything more than any radical religious leader who wants to establish a new society and/or a new world order based on some WACKY religious dogma.

jwoodward48 wrote: I have diabetes. There are two main organizations that help people with diabetes - the JDRF, which helps find a cure, and the ADA, which helps diabetic people right now. The former is better in the long run, but who's going to argue that the latter is fallacious?

Capitalism isn't a problem.

Marxism, on the other hand, is a cancer. How would you recommend we deal with it in the present?

jwoodward48 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Capitalism isn't a problem.

Marxism, on the other hand, is a cancer. How would you recommend we deal with it in the present?

Well, you could start by not demonizing it.

jwoodward48 wrote: And demonization is bad. It reduces rationality to pathos.

jwoodward48 wrote: Whoever gets the more people worked up and angry, not thinking, just hatred and rage, is the one who wins.

jwoodward48 wrote: And that is objectively bad.

jwoodward48 wrote: The best way to determine what happens isn't who you're the angriest at.

IB DaMann demonizes: Marxists are total dumbasses who demonize those who make the world a better place. Marxists want to form an omnipotent government to confiscate the rewards earned by those making society better and to punish people for having nice things.

Marxists are firebrand haters of humanity who want everyone (except those in the government) to be flat broke in the name of making everything "fair" and "leveling the playing field." Marxists will not stop until humanity is living as cavemen in a world devoid of nice things.

Marxists aren't happy until you're not happy.

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote: And demonization is bad. It reduces rationality to pathos.

I do not demonize demonization. I demonize those who demonize people who are making the world better. Do you not understand the difference?

jwoodward48 wrote: Whoever gets the more people worked up and angry, not thinking, just hatred and rage, is the one who wins.

I demonize those who do that.

jwoodward48 wrote: And that is objectively bad.

Which is why I demonize those who do it.

jwoodward48 wrote: The best way to determine what happens isn't who you're the angriest at.

When did anger on my part ever come into the picture. I am quite capable of effectively demonizing Marxists without my heart rate even increasing noticeably. Let's do a quick test:

IB DaMann demonizes: Marxists are total dumbasses who demonize those who make the world a better place. Marxists want to form an omnipotent government to confiscate the rewards earned by those making society better and to punish people for having nice things.

Marxists are firebrand haters of humanity who want everyone (except those in the government) to be flat broke in the name of making everything "fair" and "leveling the playing field." Marxists will not stop until humanity is living as cavemen in a world devoid of nice things.

Marxists aren't happy until you're not happy.

<heart rate check> It looks like I'm fine. I didn't even work up a sweat. </heart rate check>

So, um, no. I believe you are mistaken.

jwoodward48 wrote: No, Mommy, she started it!

jwoodward48 wrote: Demonization is bad. Even demonizing people who you think deserve it.

jwoodward48 wrote:And besides, there's either two ways for demonization to be effective:
1. You lie.
2. You get people angry, or fearful, etc. Anger is not the only possible emotion.

jwoodward48 wrote: *facepalm*

jwoodward48 wrote: You are making an appeal to emotion when you demonize.

jwoodward48 wrote:I'm not saying that you yourself are getting caught in the base emotions, but you are making that happen to other people.

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote: No, Mommy, she started it!

You're not very good at the logic thing.

jwoodward48 wrote: Demonization is bad. Even demonizing people who you think deserve it.

I disagree with your absolute.

jwoodward48 wrote:And besides, there's either two ways for demonization to be effective:
1. You lie.
2. You get people angry, or fearful, etc. Anger is not the only possible emotion.

Marxists are haters who would destroy an economy just because they think it will make them feel better. Marxists are all about pursuing legalized theft by having the government do it.

Revealing a negative truth about certain people as I just did in my preceding words earns the characterization of "demonization." It is not bad thing. It is information. Alerting others to the intentions of some is a good thing as long as it is honest.

And therein lies the difference between us. I keep it honest. You keep it dishonest. I strictly adhere to science, math, economics and other objective disciplines. You deny science, math and economics.

You EVADE anything that runs counter to your religion.

jwoodward48 wrote: *facepalm*

Ineffective.

jwoodward48 wrote: You are making an appeal to emotion when you demonize.

Nope. An appeal to emotion has no real, verifiable threat. Global Warming is a great example of an entire religion dedicated to fear-mongering, i.e. appealing to emotion.

Alerting people unfamiliar with Marxism to its dangers is a neighborly service. The doctor who notifies her patient of cancer is not appealing to emotion even though the topic might involve emotion for other reasons. Marxism is a social and political cancer. When it is diagnosed, immediate attention should be afforded.

WELCOME TO RATIONALITY

ALMOST EVERYTHING IS ****ED

ALMOST NO ONE IS EVIL

jwoodward48 wrote:I'm not saying that you yourself are getting caught in the base emotions, but you are making that happen to other people.

jwoodward48 wrote:
This is pointless. You've been told your whole life that Marxists are vile, despicable, inhuman beings who want to destroy all of humanity, and that Marxism is a cancer that is eating away at society. If you want to stay happy and wrong, by all means continue. I always found life to be easier when you could blame all your problems on a few people.

jwoodward48 wrote: You can disagree. That is fine. Portraying me as a vile, despicable, inhuman person is not fine.

jwoodward48 wrote: Blatant demonization. Stop it. It's not true.

jwoodward48 wrote:
You can disagree. That is fine. Portraying me as a vile, despicable, inhuman person is not fine.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Look, they weren't democratic. Of ****ing course, giving the state control of capitalism while it doesn't adequately represent the people is a bad idea. If we do it better, as in "actually have democracy," it'll be better.

Most Communist countries were the result of violent uprising. The time wasn't right. The country wasn't ready for a peaceful transition, and so some people took control in order to switch everything over to Communism. What we've seen is that "a small group of people having control of the government" is a bad thing. Which is obvious.